国际企业管理 3 朱吉庆 国际企业管理 3 朱吉庆 国际企业管理国际企业管理 33 Managing Industry Competition Part I: 管理产业竞争 朱吉庆 博士 讲师.

管理产业竞争 3–2 Three Leading Perspectives Figure 1.3

管理产业竞争 3–3 Managing Industry Competition Managing Industry Competition

管理产业竞争 3–4 Outline Defining industry competition The five forces framework Three generic strategies Debates and extensions Implications for strategists

管理产业竞争 3–5 Industry Competition and the IO Model Industry:  A group of firms producing products (goods and/or services) that are similar to each other. Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) model  The primary contribution of the Industrial Organization (IO) economics model  Structure: Structural attributes of an industry  Conduct: The firm’s actions  Performance: The result of the firm’s conduct in response to industry structure

管理产业竞争 3–6 Defining Industry Competition The original goal of IO economics is not to help firms compete; instead, it is to help policymakers better understand how firms compete in order to properly regulate them and ensure competition. Business strategists have turned the SCP model from IO economics upside down, by drawing on its insights to help firms perform better. This transformation is the heart of this chapter.

管理产业竞争 3–7 Five Forces Framework The Five Forces Framework  “Translated” and extended from the SCP model in 1980 by Michael Porter.  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.

管理产业竞争 3–8 The Five Forces Framework Figure 2.1

管理产业竞争 3–9 Threats of the Five Forces 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

管理产业竞争 3–10 Threats of the Five Forces (cont’d) 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

管理产业竞争 3–11 Threats of the Five Forces (cont’d) Threats indicative of strong competitive forces that can Five forces can depress industry profitability Threat of Substitutes superior to existing products in quality and of substitutesquality and function Switching costs to use substitutes are low Table 2.1 cont’d

管理产业竞争 3–12 Five Forces Framework: Intensity of Rivalry among Competitors Actions indicative of a high degree of rivalry:  frequent price wars  proliferation of new products  intense advertising campaigns  high cost competitive actions and reactions

管理产业竞争 3–13 Five Forces Framework: Intensity of Rivalry among Competitors (cont’d) Conditions leading to a high degree of rivalry:  The more concentrated an industry is, the fewer the competitors are, and the more likely that competitors will recognize their mutual interdependence and so restrain their rivalry.  Competitors of similar size, market influence, and product offerings vigorously compete with each other.  In “big ticket” industries where products are purchased infrequently, it is difficult to establish dominance, therefore resulting in more intense rivalry (Table 2.2).

管理产业竞争 3–14 Big Tickets versus Staple Goods Table 2.2 Source: Adapted from J. Shamsie, 2003, The context of dominance: An industry-driven framework for exploiting reputation (pp. 214–215), Strategic Management Journal, 24: 199–215. All data are average US market share data during 1987–94; numbers are rounded up by the present author.

管理产业竞争 3–15 Five Forces Framework: Intensity of Rivalry among Competitors (cont’d) Conditions leading to a high degree of rivalry:  In some industries new capacity has to be added in large increments, thus fueling intense rivalry.  Slow industry growth or decline makes competitors more desperate, often unleashing competitive actions not used previously.  Industries experiencing high exit costs are likely to see firms continue to operate at a loss.

管理产业竞争 3–16 Five Forces Framework: Threat of Potential Entry Incumbents’ Primary Weapon: Entry Barriers  Scale-based low cost advantages (economies of scale)  Non-scale-based low cost advantages (proprietary technology / know-how / access to raw materials and channels / good locations)  Product differentiation  Possible retaliation by incumbents  Government policy banning or discouraging entries

管理产业竞争 3–17 Five Forces Framework: Bargaining Power of Suppliers Suppliers:  Organizations that provide inputs (materials, services, and manpower) to firms in the focal industry. Sources of bargaining power of suppliers:  Their ability to raise prices and/or reduce quality of goods and services.

管理产业竞争 3–18 Five Forces Framework: Bargaining Power of Suppliers (cont’d) Conditions leading to strong bargaining power:  If the supplier industry is dominated by a few firms.  If they provide unique differentiated products with few or no substitutes.  If the focal firm is not an important customer.  If they are willing and able to enter the focal industry by integrating forward.

管理产业竞争 3–19 Five Forces Framework: Bargaining Power of Buyers Conditions leading to strong bargaining power of buyers:  If there are only a small number of buyers.  If products of an industry do not clearly produce cost savings or enhance the quality of life for buyers.  If buyers purchase standard, undifferentiated commodity products from suppliers.  If buyers are having economic difficulties.  Entering the focal industry through backward integration.

管理产业竞争 3–20 Five Forces Framework: Threat of Substitutes Substitute products:  Products of different industries that satisfy customer needs currently met by the focal industry.  Example: Pepsi is not a substitute for Coke; instead, it is a rival in the same industry Substitutes are particularly threatening:  If substitutes are superior to existing products in quality and function.  If switching costs are low.

管理产业竞争 3–21 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. The key, according to Porter, is “to stake out a position that is less vulnerable to attack from head-to-head opponents, whether established or new, and less vulnerable to erosion from the direction of buyers, suppliers, and substitutes.”

管理产业竞争 3–22 Table 2.3 The Five Forces and the Internet Sources: Based on (1) B. Canzer, 2003, E-Business: Strategic Thinking and Practice, Boston: Houghton Mifflin; (2) M. Porter, 2001, Strategy and the Internet, Harvard Business Review, March: 63–78; (3) S. Rangan & R. Adner, 2001, Profits and the Internet: Seven misconceptions, MIT Sloan Management Review, summer: 44–53.

管理产业竞争 3–23 Table 2.4 Three Generic Competitive Strategies

管理产业竞争 3–24 Three Generic Strategies: Cost Leadership Cost leadership centers on low costs and prices.  A high-volume, low-margin approach.  Firms undertaking this strategy are often very innovative on the production process side of the business.  The advantage for a cost leader (such as Wal-Mart) is to minimize the threats from the five forces.  Many companies try to become cost leaders, however, only a few succeed.

管理产业竞争 3–25 Three Generic Strategies: Cost Leadership (cont’d) Drawbacks:  The danger of being outcompeted on costs.  This forces the leader to continuously search for ways to further reduce costs.  In the relentless drive to cut costs, a cost leader may make trade-offs that compromise the value customers perceive in its products or services and hurt sales.

管理产业竞争 3–26 Three Generic Strategies: Differentiation Differentiation:  Strategically focusing on how to deliver products that are perceived to be valuable and different.  A low-volume, high-margin approach in targeting smaller, well-defined customer segments willing to pay premium prices.  Research/development and marketing/sales are important functional areas.  The less a differentiator resembles its rivals, the more protected its products are.

管理产业竞争 3–27 Three Generic Strategies: Differentiation (cont’d) The Strategic Requirement:  Differentiated products must have truly or perceived unique attributes such as quality, sophistication, prestige, and luxury The Challenge:  To identify these attributes and deliver value centered on them for each market segment.

管理产业竞争 3–28 Three Generic Strategies: Differentiation (cont’d) Drawbacks:  A differentiator can have difficulty sustaining the basis of its differentiation over the long run.  Customers may decide that the price differential between the differentiator’s and cost leader’s products is not worth paying for.  The differentiator also has to confront relentless efforts of competitive imitation.  As the overall quality of the industry increases, brand loyalty to differentiators may decline  The IBM PC was a differentiated product commanding a premium in PCs became a low-profit commodity and IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo, a Chinese firm, in 2004.

管理产业竞争 3–29 Three Generic Strategies: Focus Strategy (cont’d) Focus Strategy:  Serving the needs of a particular segment or niche of an industry such as a geographical market, type of customer, or product line.  A specialized differentiator has a smaller, narrower, and sharper focus than a large differentiator. –A specialized cost leader deals with a narrower segment compared with the traditional cost leader.  Focusing may be successful when a firm possesses intimate knowledge about a particular segment.

管理产业竞争 3–30 Three Generic Strategies: Lessons from the Three Generic Strategies The essence of the three strategic choices:  Whether to perform activities differently or to perform different activities relative to competitors. There are two fundamental strategic dimensions: cost and differentiation  The key is to choose one dimension and execute on it consistently.  According to Porter, firms that are “stuck in the middle” either have no strategy or are drifting strategically.  However, this point is debatable

管理产业竞争 3–31 Debates and Extensions 1. Clear versus blurred boundaries of industry 2. Threats versus opportunities 3. Five forces versus a sixth force (complementors) 4. Industry rivalry versus strategic groups (see Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3, Table 2.5, and Opening Case) 5. Integrating versus outsourcing 6. Stuck in the middle versus all rounder (SIA 2.2 Instant noodles in Asia) 7. Positioning versus hypercompetition (SIA 2.3 Toy industry) 8. Industry- versus firm- and institution-specific determinants of firm performance

管理产业竞争 3–32 Three Strategic Groups in the Global Automobile Industry This can be used to illustrate Opening Case Figure 2.2

管理产业竞争 3–33 Subgroups Within the Mass Market Strategic Group in the US Automobile Industry Figure 2.3 Source: Adapted from R. Hamilton, E. Eskin, & M. Michaels, 1998, Assessing competitors: The gap between strategic intent and core capability (p. 413, 415), Long Range Planning, 31: 406–417.

管理产业竞争 3–34 Subgroups Within the Mass Market Strategic Group in the US Automobile Industry Figure 2.3 (cont’d) Source: Adapted from R. Hamilton, E. Eskin, & M. Michaels, 1998, Assessing competitors: The gap between strategic intent and core capability (p. 413, 415), Long Range Planning, 31: 406–417.

管理产业竞争 3–35 Strategic Groups and Ownership Types in the Chinese Electronics Industry Table 2.5 Source: Adapted from M. W. Peng, J. Tan, & T. Tong, 2004, Ownership types and strategic groups in an emerging economy (p. 1110), Journal of Management Studies, 41 (7): 1105–1129.

管理产业竞争 3–36 Debates and Extensions (cont’d) All eight debates direct their attention to Porter’s work, which has become an incumbent in the strategy field.  Porter‘s framework has succeeded in identifying variables and raising questions, while not necessarily providing definitive answers.  The industry-based view—as well as the entire field of global strategy—is alive, evolving, and full of debates, controversies, and (hopefully) some fun (!)  Every chapter after this one will have a similar section on “Debates and Extensions”

管理产业竞争 3–37 Implications for Strategists For strategic practice, the industry-based view provides:  A systematic foundation for industry analysis and competitor analysis, to which a more detailed examination, introduced in later chapters, can be added.  A set of answers to the four fundamental questions in strategy discussed in Chapter 1.  Evidence that industry-specific conditions play an important role in determining firm performance.

管理产业竞争 3–38 Key Terms backward integration bargaining power of suppliers complementors conduct cost leadership differentiation dominance duopoly economies of scale entry barriers excess capacity experience curves five forces framework flexible manufacturing technology focus forward integration generic strategies hypercompetition incumbents industrial organization (IO) economics industry industry positioning institution-based view know-how mass customization mobility barriers monopoly network externalities non-scale-based low cost advantages oligopoly outsourcing perfect competition performance product differentiation resource-based view scale-based low cost advantages strategic groups structure structure-conduct-performance (SCP) model substitutes