3 pages
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
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
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.”
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