3 pages

profileMr.Q
int.zip

Country Competition Japan- rEVISED.doc

Running Head: COUNTRY COMPETITION JAPAN 1

COUNTRY COMPETITION JAPAN 8

Country Competition Japan

Student Name

Course Code

Professor

Date

Institution conditions and transitions

The structure, organization and governance of major public utility industries have been changing or rather undergoing transformation in the recent past. Countries have for instance privatized state owned utilities in an attempt to enhance their efficiency. Various governments have also seen private utilities either wholly or partly deregulated in what has been claimed as an attempt to control of the industry players for the good of the citizens. Increased competition in the utility industry has also been a contributing factor to these changes that have been experienced by both developed nations and the emerging economies. Japan has not been left behind either as its public utility industry has for example undergone tremendous transformations.

The study of public utility industry in Japan can be traced long before the Second World War in what was known as the Meijji era. Research in this area of interest started in 1930s which saw the establishment of Japan Society of Public Utility Economics (JSPUE) later in 1949. This was in an attempt to enhance research which was deemed necessary especially because Japan was emerging as a new democracy after the war. It was therefore necessary in order for her to improve the livelihoods of Japanese. By then, JSPUE had a total of 156 individual members and 30 corporate ones. However, today things have changed In terms of its membership and its roles as well. Today, JSPUE enjoys membership of 426individual members and 75 corporate members. Its roles have also evolved and it does the following in today’s competitive utility industry. One, it researches and holds annual meetings to discuss its findings with all the members. Two, it holds seminars to educate members of the public about public utility facilities. Thirdly, JSPUE publishes a journal on public utility economics on a quarterly basis.

JSPUE also conducts exchanges with other nations with regard to public utilities to come up with required literature about the same. JSPUE assembles scholars to examine the nature and other important aspects of electric power, gas, transport, water and other public utility areas that are of interest to Japan.

This has further changed in Japan’s public utility industry as evidenced by the fact that the industry is no longer considered as a domestic entity as it were decades ago. Japan therefore agrees that changes in other countries affect its utility industry directly thanks to globalization. Among such changes that affect the utility industry include deregulation policies of trade partners, competition enhancing policies and privatization of public utilities among other key factors.

The telecommunication industry has also undergone transition over the years. Japan has separated its telecommunication services to improve efficiency in this public utility. There are now several regional separate telecommunications companies under one Holding company. With each of these companies having its own subscribers, competition has been enhanced which has been beneficial to members of the public. Its main aim however, was to enable new entrants in the industry to compete favorably with other firms. Today, no single entity is allowed to either exercise control or even own more than one broadcasting station.

Another area that has seen undergone transition in Japan’s utility industry is its power sources. Japan has a number of sources for its power ranging from fossil fuels, electricity, solar energy, and gas among other sources of energy. All these sources appear to be competing to provide energy to this ever developing economy. Listed as the major sources of power in Japan include; thermal electricity, hydroelectric power, and nuclear power. Since 2005, Japan has also been generating electrical energy from ocean wave technology known as GWAVETM technology. Due to its real-time adjustment to wave conditions, it has proven to be advantageous than numerous other energy sources.. As compared to fossil fuels, this type of energy is safer, cheaper, less pollutant and has significantly more stable market prices. It therefore competes favorably with other sources.

After being stricken by an earthquake and a tsunami in 2011, Japan now largely depends on coal, natural gas and oil for almost 90% of its energy sources. This was a major transition from its previous sources which were majorly relying on nuclear sources. The country is now planning on a move to shift from nuclear energy, from where it used to acquire a third of its energy supplies, to embrace renewable sources of energy.

It is in its interest to triple power from renewable sources by 2030. This will include wind and solar energy creation. Though this plan has faced challenges from various critics, it is one of the major strategic plans Japan is considering to power the economy. However, the future of nuclear power still remains uncertain and Japan is therefore likely to face a big challenge as it struggles to adopt renewable energy sources at the same time deregulating this utility market.

A closer look at the shift in Japans sources of power shows that in the early 1970s, the main sources of energy in Japan was electricity which was generated from liquefied natural gas, petroleum products and coal. However, the use of electricity in Japan can be traced a lot earlier in 1878 at the Institute of Technology in Toranomon, Tokyo. Growth for its use was motivated by the need to have a safer and cleaner source of light. Later, people started using it as an alternative source of energy, replacing steam energy in households and industries. By the end of the Second World War, Japan was majorly relying on electricity as a utility source. It is after world war two that the country saw electricity demand become even higher, prompting the restructuring of the electricity utility industry. This led to a massive transformation of the economy as nine more private electric utilities were formed, that is, Hokkaido, Tohoku, Tokyo, Chubu, Hokuriku, Kansai, Chugoku, Shikoku and Kyushu Electric Power Companies which were charged with the responsibility of supplying electricity to each of the nine Japanese regions (Fepc.or.jp, 2015). Today, there are about ten private vertically- integrated electricity power companies operating competitively in Japan that generate, transmit and distribute electric energy. They have to work under strict guidelines and written agreements that have to be approved by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI).

Another major transition in Japan occurred in 2012 with the introduction of Feed-in Tariff (FIT). In this arrangement, households were allowed to sell excess solar energy they generated from their homes to the power company for preset price. This was likely to increase commercialization of solar energy. According to the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) 2012, all retail electricity customers are charged some fees depending on the level of electricity usage, to fund the Fit in Tariff program(Financial Times, 2015). Today, the government has already reduced the FIT for purposes of cost control. It has also restructured the power industry thus providing more opportunities in this utilities sector. It has been argued that benefits of this arrangement are long term and will only be seen in future. At the moment, it has tripled the number of independent power producers (IPP) in Japan and the number is still increasing.

There has also emerged some retailers who are purchasing the excess solar energy at better prices that the Fit in Tariffs. They include Japanese Consumer Co-operative, which is one of the major green retailers in Japan (Costello, 2009).

Geothermal power is also common in Japan and around 70% of the global market for geothermal power is generated in Japan. This has increased competition as a source of energy with other sources, that is, solar and electricity. Institutions, industries and household are more likely to adopt newer sources of energy in future. The power industry is therefore still competitive despite the government’s attempts to popularize solar energy as its main source of power. As a result of continued nuclear power failure, Japan’s fossil fueled generation continues to compete with other sources of power. This trend can be traced from the 2012 destruction of the Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO)Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and subsequent outages at other plants, (Forbes.com, 2015). This also saw the government nationalize the Tokyo Electric Power which owned the hard hit Fukushima plant. This nationalization saw a number of changes being implemented and was aimed at increasing efficiency of the power plant.

The Japanese government currently wants to shift to renewable energy sources and is undoubtedly working hard to achieve this by 2030 in its strategic plan. They are however being faced by several challenges. For instance, the government proposed the establishment of Cross-regional Coordination of Transmission Operators, or OCCTO, which will affect the expansion of renewable energy generation by 2016. Experts have expressed different opinions about this issue majority saying that I will be challenging to dismantle the already existing vertically integrated utilities to achieve this. There is also the challenge of transmission with Japan currently being incapable of large volumes of renewable energy from a variety of sources as the government is proposing.

The current trend in demand for power has now seen Japan’s Electric power companies attempt to combine power from various sources to enable them meet demand for power. They have tried combining thermal, hydro and nuclear sources to meet the rising demand, (Fepc.or.jp, 2015).

Japan’s utility industry has changed dramatically gauging from the situation in the industry a few years back and is in the process of changing even more. Major institutional developments have occurred making major transitions in the industry in what has seen major improvements in offering of utility services. With the ever increasing demand for utility services, more changes are still expected and the Japanese government is developing relevant institutional frameworks to cope with the challenge.

References

Costello, K. (2009). Electric-to-Gas Substitution: What's the Best Option for Regulators?.The Electricity Journal, 22(6), 8-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2009.06.002

Fepc.or.jp,. (2015). History of Japan's Electric Power Industry - The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan(FEPC). Retrieved 18 October 2015, from http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/history/

Fepc.or.jp,. (2015). History of Japan's Electric Power Industry- The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan(FEPC). Retrieved 18 October 2015, from http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/history/

Financial Times,.(2015). Japan to overhaul power sector - FT.com. Retrieved 18 October 2015, from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2d1793e-9b54-11e2-a820-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3oudSLXzj

Forbes.com,. (2015). Forbes Welcome. Retrieved 18 October 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/01/13/utilities-push-back-as-solar-industry-booms-in-japan/

The Japan Times,.(2015). Competition to grow in Japan's ¥10 trillion energy markets | The Japan Times. Retrieved 18 October 2015, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/04/business/economy-business/competition-to-grow-in-japans-%C2%A510-trillion-energy-markets/#.ViNuZL_6rIV

__MACOSX/._Country Competition Japan- rEVISED.doc

Gwave Summary for SNHU.pptx

SNHU Presentation

October 6, 2015

CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

1

GWaveTM Solution

GWAVE™ Power Generation Platforms (9 Mega Watts each) Convert Ocean Wave Energy Into Utility Scale Power At Fossil Fuel Price Levels Without Subsidies

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

2

GWaveTM LLC Overview

Start: 2005
Focus: Developing and licensing vessel-based technology to convert ocean wave energy into grid-scale electrical energy at delivered costs with no subsidies that meet or beat fossil-fired electrical generation
Market Leader: GWAVETM is the only cost-effective ocean-based energy technology in development and being built
Investment Thesis: GWAVETM competes on cost against coal, gas, or oil, while providing zero-emissions power with no price volatility. These attributes allow GWAVETM to serve a large share of the world’s growing power requirements.
Investor: Pilot House Energy

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

Total global electricity demand is over 20,000 TWh annually

For context, a large nuclear reactor generates 8 TWh annually

Addressable market for wave energy technologies is 15,000 TWh annually

“Long wave” markets along west coasts: $250 billion spend annually

“Medium wave” markets along east coasts: $500 billion spend annually

Global Market

3,820 TWh of annual energy demand

Over 170 GW of new generation is needed in GWaveTM tier 1 markets to meet energy demand

GWaveTM Tier 1 Markets

The Energy Market

GWaveTM addresses a large and growing market need

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

Total:

170,500 MW

New Power Generation Needs in Tier 1 Markets

Argentina

Nova Scotia

Chile

Japan

California, NW USA and British Columbia

England, Scotland and Ireland

Note: these totals represent expected new capacity needs through 2020

2,500

Tier 1 markets need $375 billion invested to meet overall future energy needs

Australia

7,000

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

Capital costs similar to coal, with no fuel cost

Operating costs are significantly less exposed to market or geopolitical risk

No pollution abatement costs or carbon taxes

Requires no subsidies

Leverages existing transmission infrastructure

Low Cost

Competes with fossil fueled generation

Operates at utility scale

Produces significantly more energy per unit

Adjusts to wave conditions in real time

Unlike other wave technologies, GWaveTM :

GWaveTM is a revolutionary technology that converts ocean wave energy into electric power and costs no more than fuel-based generation.

GWaveTM Economic Advantages

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

GWaveTM Competitive Advantage Compared to Fossil Fuels

GWaveTM energy has important advantages over fossil fuels:

Lower total cost of power: All-in cost < $80/MWh validated against industry- standard Lazard Frères model

Stable energy prices: Cost unlinked from volatile world commodity markets

Safety: No risk of catastrophic failures affecting nuclear plants

Zero emissions: No haze/smog, mercury, or green-house gases

GWave™ technology produces electricity at lower cost than any other conventional or renewable technology

Source: CRA analysis. GWave costs depend on wave conditions at site.

U.S.

Japan

Estimated Annualized Cost of Power (2016$/MWh)

U.S.

Japan

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

7

Total:

170,500 MW

New Power Generation Needs In Initial Target Markets

Argentina

Nova Scotia

Chile

Japan

California, NW USA and British Columbia

England, Scotland and Ireland

Note: these totals represent expected new capacity needs through 2020

2,500

These markets need $375 billion invested to meet overall future energy needs

Australia

7,000

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

Business Model Summary

GWaveTM LLC

Engineering package

Design support

Operating license

Regulatory and permitting support

Ongoing product development

Marketing

Retains the option to develop new projects

Licensees

Build Gwave vessels

Option for O&M contracts

Financing

Development

Ownership

Operation & Maintenance

License fee

Production royalty

IP / design improvements

Operational data

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

Business Structure: Licensing / Partnership

Licensing model leverages partners’ resources and expertise to speed GWave™ deployment

Manufacturer & Equipment Suppliers

Developer

Owner

Financing

GWaveTM LLC

Operational license

Manufacturing license

Regulatory support

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

10

GWaveTM IP: Patents and Trademarks

Patents and Patents Pending:

US Patent 7,755,224

Three Continuations-in-Part for on-going IP innovations

Patents pending in all likely end-use or manufacturing markets:

Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, European Patent Office, India, Indonesia, Japan, S Korea, Mexico, Peru, S Africa, Vietnam

GWaveTM Trademark filed in US (Case 15344/87016B)

Extensive IP provides a broad umbrella for global protection of GWave™ platform

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

Private and confidential, not for distribution

‹#›

12

__MACOSX/._Gwave Summary for SNHU.pptx

INT422-Competition the country’s utility sources1.docx

Focus on business model, structure/framework, 5w model and strategy tri-pod model

The Strategy Tri-pod    

Three Leading Perspectives on Strategy

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Q_TbBXMQzGVCiKGJ-gbeR5DWJoda9-C4MHQ3wVSlX18JD1vOHLac7f-p7BhfFiZ8CvvsfJQ-Ai0w7raGN79oEqjDgf_z4aGCLanOIRirn_apbJe1OysH1cSKkIwjiFZi2zafR1w5 Outline

Industry-based competition:  LOOK AT PPT 3 SLIDE 2-9

        identifying the key levers of success for organizations, without looking concurrently within the firm

The industry based view places competition at the crux of strategy formulation, competition is not just between other competing firms in an industry. Rather, competition in an industry is rooted in its underlying economics, and goes well beyond the behavior of merely its competitors. Customers, suppliers, potential entrants, and substitute products are all competitors that are more or less prominent or active depending on the industry. The state of competition in an industry rests on Porter’s five forces model. The collective strength of these forces determines the ultimate profit potential of an industry Irrespective of the different forces collective strength, a firm’s goal is to find a position in the industry where their company can best defend itself against these forces or can influence them to their favor. Knowledge of these underlying sources of competitive pressure provides the base for strategic action. They highlight the critical strengths and weakness of the company, animating the position of the company within its industry, clarifies the areas where strategic changes may yield the greatest payoff and highlight the places where industry trends promise to hold the greatest significance as either opportunities or threats. Different forces rise to the fore of different industries. Regardless, every industry has an underlying structure, or set of fundamental economic and technical characteristics, that give rise to these competitive forces. Firms must understand what makes their own individual environments tick in order to accurately position themselves

Firm-specific resources and capabilities

这部分是我负责的要写的。

Institutional conditions and transitions

__MACOSX/._INT422-Competition the country’s utility sources1.docx

Session 3 Global competition and Industry.pptx

Competitive Forces and International Strategy

Massood Samii Ph.D.

Session 3

Outline

This week focus is on a number of different model for international strategy

Porter’s Generic strategy

Peng’s Tripod model

Porter’s five competitive force model

Hamel’s Core competency

Peng’s VIRO

Samii’s five W model

How does international strategy impact competitive strategy of firm?

Competitive Strategy

Low cost

Differentiation

Focus

Best Cost

The “Strategy Tripod” Three Leading Perspectives on Strategy

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

1–4

Figure 1.3

4

Understanding Resources and Capabilities

Tangible

Resources and capabilities that are observable and easily quantified

Broadly organized in four categories:

Financial

Physical

Technological

Organizational

Intangible

Resources and capabilities not easily observed or difficult (or impossible) to quantify

Examples include:

Human

Innovation

Reputational

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–5

5

Resources, Capabilities, and the Value Chain

Value Chain

The functional activities within the firm that create value in the goods and services produced

Components of the Value Chain

Primary activities

Are directly associated with the development, production, and distribution of goods and services

Support activities

Assist in the accomplishment of primary activities

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–6

6

The Value Chain (cont’d)

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–7

Figure 3.1 cont’d

Panel B. An example of value chain with some outsourcing

7

Examples of Resources and Capabilities

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–8

Table 3.1

Sources: Adapted from (1) J. Barney, 1991, Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage (p. 101), Journal of Management, 17: 101; (2) R. Grant, 1991, Contemporary Strategy Analysis (pp. 100–104), Cambridge, UK: Blackwell; (3) R. Hall, 1992, The strategic analysis of intangible resources (pp. 136–139), Strategic Management Journal, 13: 135–144.

TANGIBLE RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES

EXAMPLES

Financial

Ability to generate internal funds

Ability to raise external capital

Physical

Location of plants, offices, and equipment

Access to raw materials and distribution channels

Technological

Possession of patents, trademarks, and copyrights

Organizational

Formal planning, command, and control systems

Integrated management information systems

INTANGIBLE RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES

Human

Knowledge

Trust

Managerial talents

Organizational culture

Innovation

A supportive atmosphere for new ideas

Research and development capabilities

Capacities for organizational innovation and change

Reputational

Perceptions of product quality, durability, and reliability among

customers

Reputation as a good employer

Reputation as a socially responsible corporate citizen

EXAMPLES

8

Defining Industry Competition

Industry:

A group of firms producing products (goods and/or services) that are similar to each other

Theories of industry competition

Economics:

Perfect competition (rarely observed)

Monopoly

Monopolistic Competition (oligopoly)

Industrial organization (IO) economics model

Industry structure determines strategy and firm performance (SCP model)

Original goal-help regulators minimize firm’s excess profits

Strategists use the IO model to try to earn excess profits

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

2–9

9

Five Forces Framework for analysis of Industry

The Five Forces Framework

A key proposition:

The focal firm’s performance critically depends on the degree of competitiveness of the five forces within an industry

The stronger and more competitive these forces are, the less likely the focal firm is able to earn above-average return, and vice versa

Internationalization would effect the competitive position of firm against fie forces

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

2–10

10

The Five Forces Framework

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

2–11

Figure 2.1

11

Threats of the Five Forces

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

2–12

Table 2.1

Threats indicative of strong competitive forces that can Five forces depress industry profitability Rivalry among  A large number of competing firms

competitors  Rivals are similar in size, influence, and product offerings

 High-price, low-frequency purchases

 Capacity is added in large increments

 Industry slow growth or decline

 High exit costs

Threat of  Little scale-based low-cost advantages potential entry (economies of scale)

 Little non-scale-based low-cost advantages

 Insufficient product differentiation

 Little fear of retaliation

 No government policy banning or discouraging entry

12

Threats of the Five Forces (cont’d)

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

2–13

Threats indicative of strong competitive forces that can Five forces depress industry profitability

Bargaining power • A small number of suppliers

of suppliers • Suppliers provide unique, differentiated products

• Focal firm is not an important customer of suppliers

• Suppliers are willing and able to vertically integrate forward

Bargaining power • A small number of buyers

of buyers • Products provide little cost savings or quality of life enhancement

• Buyers purchase standard, undifferentiated products from focal firm

• Buyers are having economic difficulties

• Buyers are willing and able to vertically integrate backward

Table 2.1 cont’d

13

Threats of the Five Forces (cont’d)

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

2–14

Threats indicative of strong competitive forces that can

Five forces depress industry profitability

Threat of • Substitutes superior to existing products in quality and of substitutes quality and function

• Switching costs to use substitutes are low

Table 2.1 cont’d

14

Five Forces Framework: Lessons from the Five Forces Framework

Not all industries are equal in terms of their potential profitability

The task for strategists is to assess the opportunities (O) and threats (T) underlying each competitive force affecting an industry, and then estimate the likely profit potential of the industry

Use the five forces model as an industry positioning tool

International competition can

Reduce domestic competitive pressure of suppliers and buyer

Increase pressure from new entry from other countries.

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

2–15

15

A Two-Stage Decision Model in Value Chain Analysis

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–16

Figure 3.2

16

4–17

Understanding Institutions

Institutional framework - formal and informal institutions governing individual and firm behavior

Formal institutions - laws, regulations, rules - supported by the regulatory pillar (the coercive power of governments)

Informal institutions - norms, cultures and ethics - supported by the normative and cognitive pillars

17

4–18

Understanding Institutions (cont’d)

What Do Institutions Do?

Key function - Reduce uncertainty

How Do Institutions Reduce Uncertainty?

Relational contracting - informal, relationship-based, personalized exchanges

Arm‘s length transaction - formal, rule-based, impersonal exchange with third part enforcement

Institutional transitions - fundamental and comprehensive changes to the rules that affect all organizations

18

4

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

4–19

An Institution-Based View of Strategy

There is a need to discuss the relationship between strategic choices and institutional frameworks

Influence of task environment has been explored in strategy literature

Porter’s “diamond” model explains competitive advantage of globally leading industries in different countries, criticized for ignoring history and institutions

Strategic choices are selected within and constrained by institutional frameworks in developed economies

Striking differences between institutions in developed and emerging economies has pushed the institution-based view to the forefront

Strategic choices are direct outcomes of the dynamic interaction between institutions and firms

19

4

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

4–20

The Porter Diamond: Determinants of National Competitive Advantage

Figure 4.3

Source: Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review from “The competitive advantage of nations” (p. 77) by Michael Porter, March/April 1990. Copyright © 1990 by the Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation; all rights reserved.

20

Two Core Propositions

Managers and firms rationally pursue their interests and make strategic choices within institutional constraints

Behavioral economic and finance challenge the concept of rational behavior and introduces the concept of bounded rationality. It maintains that there is irrational approach to decision making based on the basis of psychology (market psychology).

21

4

4–22

Two Core Propositions (cont’d)

While formal and informal constraints combine to govern firm behavior, when formal constraints fail, informal constraints play a larger role

Collapse of the formal institutional regime in the former Soviet Union facilitated growth of entrepreneurial firms

Even in developed economies, the best connected firms can reap significant benefits

Politically sophisticated firms usually win some form of government protection

22

The VRIO Framework: Value and Rarity

Four fundamental questions of VRIO (Value, Rarity, Imitability, Organization)

Value: do the resources and capabilities add value?

Necessary for a competitive advantage

Rarity: how rare are the valuable resources and capabilities?

Valuable, but common parity, not advantage

Valuable and rare can lead to temporary advantage

If everyone has it, you can’t make money from it

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–23

23

4

The VRIO Framework

Imitability:

Easier to imitate tangible resources/capabilities than intangible ones

Two ways to imitate - direct duplication and substitution

Direct duplication - most difficult

Substitution - less challenging, but not easy

Why is imitation so difficult?

Hard to acquire in a short time what competitors have developed over a long time

Events earlier in time affect future events

Difficult to identify causal determinants of performance

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–24

24

4

The VRIO Framework: Imitability (cont’d)

Valuable, rare, but imitable resources & capabilities = temporary advantage

Only valuable, rare and hard-to-imitate resources & capabilities = sustained competitive advantage

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–25

25

The VRIO Framework:

The Question of Organization

How is a firm organized to develop and leverage the full potential of its resources and capabilities?

Using complementary assets effectively

Managing social complexity effectively

Invisible relationships can add value - make imitation more difficult

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–26

26

4

The VRIO Framework: (Valuable- Rare- Imitate- Organization ) Features of a Resource or Capability

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–27

Table 3.2

Sources: Adapted from (1) J. Barney, 2002, Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 2nd ed. (p. 173), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; (2) R. Hoskisson, M. Hitt, & R. D. Ireland, 2004, Competing for Advantage (p. 118), Cincinnati: Thomson South-Western.

VALUABLE?

RARE?

COSTLY TO

IMITATE?

EXPLOITED BY

ORGANIZATION

COMPETITIVE IMPLICATIONS

FIRM PERFORMANCE

No

No

Competitive disadvantage

Below average

Yes

No

Yes

Competitive parity

Average

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Temporary competitive advantage

Above average

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sustained competitive advantage

Consistently above average

27

Tripod Model Extended: Augmented Tripod Model (Samii)

 

Resource Base

 

Institutional Structure

 

Industry and Competitive Structure

 

Dynamic Capability

System Base View

 

Dynamic Capabilities in Slow- and Fast-Moving Industries

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

3–29

Table 3.3

Sources: Adapted from (1) K. Eisenhardt & J. Martin, 2000, Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105–1121; (2) G. Pisano, 1994, Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning, Strategic Management Journal, 15: 85–100.

SLOW-MOVING INDUSTRIES

FAST-MOVING (HIGH-VELOCITY) INDUSTRIES

Market environment

Stable industry structure, defined boundaries,

clear business models, identifiable players,

linear and predictable change

Ambiguous industry structure, blurred boundaries,

fluid business models, ambiguous and shifting

players, nonlinear and unpredictable change

Attributes of

dynamic capabilities

Complex, detailed, analytic routines that

rely extensively on existing knowledge

(“learning before doing”)

Simple, experiential routines that rely on newly

created knowledge specific to the situation

(“learning by doing”)

Focus

Leverage existing resources and capabilities

Develop new resources and capabilities

Execution

Linear

Iterative

Organization

A tightly bundled collection of resources

with relative stability

A loosely bundled collection of resources that are

frequently added, recombined, and dropped

Outcome

Predictable

Unpredictable

Strategic goal

Sustainable competitive advantage

(hopefully for the long term)

A series of short-term (temporal)

competitive advantages

29

__MACOSX/._Session 3 Global competition and Industry.pptx

Session 4 VRIO, off-shoring, and ethical issue.pptx

Session4: VRIO, off-shoring, and ethical issue

Massood Samii Ph.D.

Session 4

Learning objectives

VIRO (review)

Business process off-shoring

Ethical issues in international business

The VRIO Framework: (Review)

Strategy must create:

Value:

Value both in terms of financial and competitiveness

In Financial term, it must have higher rate of return than cost of capital plus risk premium

In competitive indicators: It must lead to a strategic advantage

Rare:

Must provide distinctive advantage relative to competitors (either in terms of cost, quality, service to customers, market expansion, technology)

Imitate:

It should build on firm core competence.

It would be difficult to copy the core competence and advantage that is produced

Organization:

Fit the organization structure and culture.

Sometimes it becomes essential to change the culture to fit strategy or to restructure

What is Business Process Off-shoring

Business Process Outsourcing (BPO)  is the contracting of a specific business task, such as payroll, to a third-party service provider. Usually, BPO is implemented as a cost-saving measure for tasks that a company requires but does not depend upon to maintain their position in the marketplace.

Business Process Offshoring is the relocation of a business process from one country to another—typically an operational process, such as manufacturing, or supporting processes, such as accounting. Typically this refers to a company business, although state governments may also employ offshoring.

What is ethical behavior?

Definition: Acting in ways consistent with what society and individuals typically think are good values. Ethical behavior tends to be good for business and involves demonstrating respect for key moral principles that include honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity and individual right

http :// www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ethical-behavior.html#ixzz3n4BvMOtN

Ethical standards vary from country to country.

Relativism is the belief that ethical truths are not absolute but, rather, differ from group to group. This perspective is summarized by the phrase, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

Normativism is the belief that ethical behavioral standards are universal and that firms and individuals should seek to uphold them consistently around the world.

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

5-9

There are two major approaches to ethical standards. The first is relativism, which asserts that values differ from country to country. Opposite to this belief is normativism, which believes in universal values and standards of behavior.

9

Ethical issues in international business

Concern of MNEs

IPR violation and its impact

Concern regarding MNEs operation

Code of conduct for MNEs

The Pyramid of Ethical Behavior

5-11

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

After complying with local law (the bottom of the pyramid), management should ensure that company activities follow high ethical standards (the middle). As they expand abroad, most firms believe it is sufficient to comply with laws, regulations, and basic ethical standards. However, progressive MNEs now emphasize socially responsible behavior and sustainability (the top of the pyramid).

11

Base of Pyramid

Massood Samii, Ph.D.

Source: World Economic Forum 2009

What is the base of Pyramid

Innovation for BoP

Affordability

Acceptability

Availability

Awareness

Developed Economies

Developing Economies

Developing Economies

Supplier of product

And Technology

Consumer of product

and Technology

Short Power Distance:

Home Country replicating

High Power Distance

Social entrepreneurship

Examples

Developed Economies to BoP

Water purification

Energy use process from waste

In expensive computer

Developing Economies to BoP

Nano car

Dean Kamen Colbert Does Water

__MACOSX/._Session 4 VRIO, off-shoring, and ethical issue.pptx

Session 5 Model of Entreprenurship (2)(1).pptx

Comprehensive Model of Entrepreneurship

Massood Samii, Ph.D.

Characteristic of Entrepreneurial Firms

Mostly SMEs

Limited resources

Normally highly risk taker

Low in financial resources

Various types of firms in IB

Focal firm: those that are involved in international business and initiate activities

Distributors Channels: Help in the distribution process including transportation, custom brokers, marketing channels

Facilitators: Those that support international activities such as lawyers, accountants, research firms, banks

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

5–4

A Comprehensive Model of Entrepreneurship: Resource Based

Entrepreneurial resources must create VRIO (value, rare, inimitable, organizationally embedded)

Signs of credibility: specialization, reputation, alliances, etc.

Entrepreneurial firms develop vacuum niche strategy by identifying product or services that are not being offered by established firms

Entrepreneurial firms have following characteristics :

Low tangible assets but very high intangible assets that are very difficult to imitate

Very flexible and nimble strategy

Many case they develop unorthodox business model

Since owners get benefits of their work they work very hard and are dedicated (as oppose to those in large corporations)

4

Institution-based considerations of Entreprenerurial Model

Formal institutions govern new ventures

Bureaucracy as oppose to openness

Cultural factors: risk taking culture vs being risk averse (degree of uncertainty avoidance)

Striking differences in government regulations of start-ups

Government support for start up in terms of financial resources, providing information etc.

Protection against failure

Protection against monopolization by larger MNEs

Various Institutional Structure

Rule base institutional structure

“a way of economic exchange based on formal transactions, in which parties keep distance”. This is mostly in the case of low context culture.

Relation based exchange

‘”A way of economic exchange based on informal relationships among transacting parties”. This is mostly in the high context cultures.

The Costs and Benefits of Formal, Rule-Based, Impersonal Exchange

Figure 4.2

7

The Costs and Benefits of Informal, Relationship-Based, Personalized Exchange

Figure 4.1

8

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

5–9

General conclusions: In a country, level of entrepreneurship affected by:

Economic developments

More advance economies provide greater opportunity for growth f entrepreneurship

Harshness of regulations

The more regulated the economy there is greater obstacle to entrepreneurship. For example cost of failure and bankruptcy laws

Friendliness of formal institutions

Formal institutions, such as availability of finance, technology infrastructure, would lead to improvement in the entrepreneurship

Support of informal institutions (values and norms)

Cultural factor such as uncertainty avoidance

View of entrepreneur (as oppose to government worker or working for established MNEs).

9

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

5–10

Five Entrepreneurial Strategies

Growth

Short on tangible asset but have abundance of intangible assets

Dynamic flexibility and guerilla strategy

Focus more on action and less on analysis and planning

In most cases either fast growth or failure

Innovation

It is at the core of entrepreneurship

Many entrepreneurial firm create or take advantage of disruptive innovation and technology

Network

In this case it is relying in relationships, connections, individual ties.

Using network (informal institutional factor) is greatest advantage of these firms

Financing/governance

Angel investors

Venture capital

IPO

Other exit strategy

Harvesting ( selling)

10

Copyright © 2009 Cengage. All rights reserved.

5–11

One- and Four-Year Survival Rates by Firm Size

Table 5.1

Source: Adapted from J. Timmons, 1999, New Venture Creation (p. 33), Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, based on US data.

FIRM SIZE

CHANCES OF SURVIVING

FIRM SIZE

CHANCES OF SURVIVING

(EMPLOYEES)

AFTER 1 YEAR

(EMPLOYEES)

AFTER 4 YEARS

0-9

78%

0-19

50%

10-19

86%

20-49

67%

20-99

95%

50-99

67%

100-249

95%

100-499

70%

250+

100%

11

Established firm vs SMEs

Criteria SMEs MNEs
Innovation High Low
Assets intangible Tangible
Operation Very nibble Bureaucratic

Disruptive Innovation vs Sustainable Innovation

Disruptive innovation, (Christensen) is an innovation that results in creation of new market and network. It is those type of innovation improves product or service in such away that market does not expect either by creating new set of customers or by lowering prices.

Sustainable innovation are those type of innovation that results in evolution of existing markets or network with better value for customers so firms can compete effectively

Sustainable innovation generally relates to firm and technology where as disruptive innovation relates to the industry

Disruptive Innovation

Christensen argued that disruptive innovation (he initially called it disruptive technology) would hurt established and successful firms since they would resist the change.

However, it is argued that if the established firms have forward looking and innovative management can gain the benefit once they recognize the benefits.

“The “innovator’s dilemma” is the difficult choice an established company faces when it has to choose between holding onto an existing market by doing the same thing a bit better, or capturing new markets by embracing new technologies and adopting new business models. IBM dealt with this dilemma by launching a new business unit to make PCs, while continuing to make mainframe computers.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/01/economist-explains-15?fsrc=email_to_a_friend

Disruptive Innovation and Entrepreneurship

The key element of disruptive innovation is the entrepreneurship

Firms mostly innovate for the top tire of their product to create value for their customers and in most cases they leave the lower end product (or process out of innovation).

Disruptive technology focuses at the bottom margin focusing on product and innovation those customers.

Since established firms are not interested in low margin technology or innovation, this creates space at the bottom of the market for new disruptive competitors to emerge.

Interesting Quotation

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw

Some examples of disruptive innovation include:

Disruptor Disruptee

Personal computers Mainframe and mini computers

Mini mills Integrated steel mills

Cellular phones Fixed line telephony

Community colleges Four-year colleges

Discount retailers Full-service department stores

Retail medical clinics Traditional doctor’s offices

See more at:

http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/# sthash.mmFeko36.dpuf

http://www.christenseninstitute.org/key-concepts/disruptive-innovation-2/? gclid=Cj0KEQjwtO2wBRCu0d2dkvjVi5cBEiQAMEIVGdzoRrrEoDLNAF_WPeEOHmuaYyS5MPqjBT5Ks6onrsoaAh0v8P8HAQ

Disruptive Innovation and International Business

Born global

Business Process Outsourcing

Born Global

A true born-global firm is a new venture that acts to satisfy a global niche from day one.

Born-global firms fits best with the entrepreneurship and star up

Characteristic of Born Global:

High activity in international markets from or near the founding

Limited financial and tangible resources

Managers have a strong international outlook and international entrepreneurial orientation

Emphasis on differentiation strategy

Emphasis on superior product quality or services

Using external, independent intermediaries for distribution in foreign markets

Born Global Technology Firms: Stonya Tanev “Born Global Firm the Start: The Characteristic of Born Global Firms in Technology Sector” Technology Innovation Management, March 2012

The market in the home country is not large enough to support the scale at which the firm needs to operate.

Most of the firm’s potential customers are foreign, multinational firms.

Many of the firm’s potential customers have overseas operations where they will use the firm’s products or services.

The firm operates in a knowledge-intensive or high-technology sector.

Having the most technically advanced offering in the world is key to the firm’s competitive advantage.

The firm’s product or service category faces few trade barriers.

The firm’s product or service has high value relative to its transportation and other logistics costs.

Customer needs and tastes are fairly standard across the firm’s potential country-markets.

The firm’s product or service has significant first-mover advantages or network effects.

The firm’s major competitors have already internationalized or will internationalize soon.

The firm has key managers who are experienced in international business.

Disadvantages for newly formed entrepreneurial firms

Liability of newness

Inherent disadvantages that entrepreneurial firm face as new entrant (economy of scale, market knowledge, network)

Liability of foreignness

Disadvantages that firm face in a country for being foreign. Discrimination against foreign firms or push to buy local. Preferences for local products.

What is Business Process Outsourcing? (BPO)

It is contracting part of the business operation to the third party. It could include backend office or front end office activities.

Back end office activities include accounting, human resources, legal

Front end office activities includes customer services

Benefits and Issues of outsourcing

Cost cutting

Cheaper labor

It transfers fixed cost to variable cost

Avoiding government regulation

Share assets between the two unit both tangible (facilities) and intangible (knowledge)

Organizational Flexibility

Reduces building of large organization and reduces demand for management time

Increase speed of operation

It provide an opportunity to gain knowledge from partner

It helps to the firm to focus on its core activity

Issues

Quality of service (particularly in regard to front office outsourcing)

Language issues relating to call centers (or customer services)

Contractual issues

Risk associated with BPO

Absence of benefit of internalization

__MACOSX/._Session 5 Model of Entreprenurship (2)(1).pptx

Session 6 Market entry Strategy.ppt

Global Strategy Mike W. Peng

c h a p t e r

6

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Global Strategy
Mike W. Peng

Chapter 6

Entering Foreign Markets

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Outline

  • Overcoming the liability of foreignness
  • A comprehensive model of foreign market entries
  • Where to enter?
  • When to enter?
  • How to enter?
  • Debates and extensions
  • The savvy strategist

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Questions for International Business Strategy: 5 W Model (Samii)

opyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Overcoming the Liability of Foreignness

  • The Liability of Foreignness - the inherent disadvantage foreign firms experience in host countries because of their non-native status
  • Differences in formal and informal institutions govern the rules of the game in different countries
  • Foreign firms are often discriminated against
  • Foreign firms deploy overwhelming resources and capabilities to offset the liability of foreignness

opyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Understanding the Propensity to Internationalize

  • The underlying factors

The size of the firm

The size of the domestic market

  • The propensity

Enthusiastic internationalizer

Follower internationalizer

Slow internationalizer

Occasional internationalizer

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Firm Size, Domestic Market Size, and
Propensity to Internationalize

Figure 6.1

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

A Comprehensive Model of
Foreign Market Entries (cont’d)

  • Industry-based considerations

Rivalry

Entry barriers

Bargaining power of suppliers

Bargaining power of buyers

Substitute products

  • Resource-based considerations

Value of firm-specific resources and capabilities

The rarity of firm-specific assets

Transaction costs

Methods of organizing firm-specific resources and capabilities

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

A Comprehensive Model of
Foreign Market Entries (cont’d)

  • Institution-Based Considerations

Liability of foreignness

The inherent risk a foreign firm face due to being non-native in the country

Risks:

Obsolescing bargain (After deal is made one or the other party attempts to change the deal)

Political risk

Economic risk

Tariff barriers and Nontariff barriers

Currency risks: Speculation and hedging

  • Synthesis - Different considerations may pull the foreign entrant in different directions

*

Where to Enter?
Location-Specific Advantages

  • Location Specific Advantages

Geographical advantages

Agglomeration - clustering of economic activities

  • Global approach or regional approach

Economic integration has created opportunities

Triad s global

  • Strategic Goals: Seeking natural resources, markets, efficiency and innovation, or risk diversification
  • Cultural/Institutional Distances and Foreign Entry Locations

Cultural distance - the difference between two cultures

Institutional distance

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Where to Enter?
Matching Strategic Goals with Locations

Source: First two columns adapted from J. Dunning, 1993, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy (pp. 82–83), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

STRATEGIC GOALS

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ADVANTAGES

ILLUSTRAVTIVE LOCATIONS MENTIONED IN THE TEXT

Natural Resource Seeking

Possession of natural resources and related

Transport and communication infrastructure

Oil in the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela

Market Seeking

Abundance of strong market demand and

customers willing to pay

Seafood in Japan

Efficiency Seeking

Economies of scale and abundance of

low-cost factors

Manufacturing in China

Innovation Seeking

Abundance of innovative individuals, firms,

and universities

IT in Silicon Valley and Bangalore, financial services

in New York and London and aerospace in Russia

STRATEGIC GOALS

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ADVANTAGES

EXAMPLES IN THE TEXT

Natural Resource Seeking

Possession of natural resources and related

Transport and communication infrastructure

Oil in the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela

Market Seeking

Abundance of strong market demand and

customers willing to pay

GM in China

Efficiency Seeking

Economies of scale and abundance of

low-cost factors

Manufacturing in China (especially in Shanghai)

Innovation Seeking

Abundance of innovative individuals, firms,

and universities

IT in Silicon Valley and Bangalore, telecom in Dallas,

and aerospace in Russia

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

When to Enter?

  • First mover advantages

Developing proprietary, technological leadership

Preempting scarce assets

Establishing entry barriers

Becomes the dominant firm and establishing itself as the industry leader

Opportunity for relationships with key stakeholders

  • Late mover advantages: benefit from first mover investments, experience, and inflexibility

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

First Mover Advantages and Late Mover Advantages

Table 6.2

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Real option as market entry strategy

  • An option strategy provides various flexibilities

Flexibility to abandon

Flexibility to adjust scale

Operational flexibility

Flexibility against domestic risk (adversities)

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

How to Enter?
Scale of Entry: Commitment and Experience

  • Large-Scale Entries

Benefit from a strategic commitment

Drawbacks of large-scale entries: Limited strategic flexibility and potential huge losses due to the sunk cost

  • Small-scale entries

Focus on accumulating experience

“Learning by doing”

Drawbacks of small-scale entries

A lack of strong strategic commitment

Difficulties in building market share

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

How To Enter?
Modes of Entry: Two Steps

  • First step

Strategists must prioritize variables

A decision model is helpful

Non-equity vs equity modes

Level of commitment

Contractual and ownership alternatives

  • Foreign direct investment advantages

Ownership

Location

Internalization

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

How To Enter?

  • The second step: See the following four slides

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Choice of Entry Modes: A Decision Model

Source: Adapted from Y. Pan & D. Tse, 2000, The hierarchical model of market entry modes (p. 538), Journal of International Business Studies, 31: 535–554.

Figure 6.3

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Modes of Entry: Advantages and Disadvantages

Table 6.3

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Modes of Entry: Advantages and Disadvantages

Table 6.3 (cont’d)

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Savvy Strategist

  • Thoroughly understand the dynamism underlying the industry in a foreign market you are looking into
  • Develop overwhelming capabilities to offset the liability of foreignness
  • Understand the rules of the game
  • Match entries with specific goals

Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

4

__MACOSX/._Session 6 Market entry Strategy.ppt