1 s2.0 S0166497299000243 Main PDF
1 s2.0 S0166497299000243 Main PDF
1 s2.0 S0166497299000243 Main PDF
www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation
a
Department of Marketing, Monash University, Churchill, Vic. 3842, Australia
b
Department of Management, University of Massachusetts, North Dartmouth, MA 02747-2300, USA
Received 24 July 1998; received in revised form 12 January 1999; accepted 19 January 1999
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing intensity of competition in virtually all areas of business in both markets upstream for
raw materials such as components, supplies, capital and technology and markets downstream for consumer goods and services.
This paper examines the relationships among generic strategy, competitive advantage, and organizational performance. Firstly, the
nature of generic strategies, competitive advantage, and organizational performance is examined. Secondly, the relationship between
generic strategies and competitive advantage is analyzed. Finally, the implications of generic strategies, organizational performance,
performance measures and competitive advantage are studied. This study focuses on: (i) the relationship of generic strategy and
organisational performance in Australian manufacturing companies participating in the “Best Practice Program in Australia”, (ii)
the relationship between generic strategies and competitive advantage, and (iii) the relationship among generic strategies, competitive
advantage and organisational performance. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
0166-4972/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 6 - 4 9 7 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 4 - 3
508 S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518
eric strategy. He claims that strategic specialization may tage is at the heart of any strategy, and in order to attain
leave serious gaps or weaknesses in product offerings, competitive advantage the organization has to make a
ignore important customer needs, be easy for rivals to choice about the type of competitive advantage, it seeks
counter, and in the long run cause inflexibility and nar- to attain and the scope within which it will attain it.
row the vision of the organization. In support of Miller, The principal criticism of Porter’s work is methodol-
the Wright et al. (1990) study of 90 companies selected ogical, as many of the points that he makes do not seem
randomly from Dunn and Bradstreet’s Million Dollars to have any empirical justification. O’Schaunessy (1984)
Directory evaluated the performance of companies using criticizes the choice of the five environmental forces
multiple strategies against those using singular strategic which are linked to strategies, namely, buyer power, sup-
foci. They concluded that companies that adopt multiple plier power, degree of competition, threat of entry and
strategies such as low-cost and differentiation outper- threat from substitutes, for two reasons. Firstly, the
form businesses that compete mainly with either one or choice seems to be arbitrary and there is little to suggest
the other. that these forces are necessarily exclusive or exhaustive.
Secondly, O’Schauhnessy argues that Porter gives no
2.3. Generic strategies and performance relationships indication of how to operationalise any analysis based
on these five forces. Porter’s logic is inconsistent in
Wensley (1987) argues that Porter gives little evi- relation to the use of multiple generic strategies and has
dence to support the U-shaped relationship between been contradicted by empirical findings (White, 1986;
return on investment and market share, which is used by Wright et al., 1990).
Porter to illustrate the dangers of being stuck in the Empirical investigations also contradict Porter on the
middle. Wensley states that Porter cites only two use of multiple strategies. For example, Phillips et al.
examples, the US fractional horse power electric motor (1983) found that product quality (a basis for product
business, where the relationships “appear to hold”, and differentiation), through a positive association with rela-
the global automobile markets, where it “probably also tive market share, was negatively related to relative
roughly hold” (i.e., Porter, 1980). Support for the U- direct costs (an indication of cost leadership). Fine
shaped curve can be drawn from the PIMS project and (1983) found that cost declined more rapidly for firms
the work it provoked. For example, Schoeffler et al. that produce high quality products than for firms that
(1974) stressed the importance of size related factors produced low quality ones. Thus, cost savings due to
such as market share, total marketing expenditure and experience can be gained more rapidly for quality pro-
R&D expenditures in explaining variations in profit. ducts.
Buzzell et al. (1975) further developed the U-shaped Porter (1980) argued that the three generic strategies
relationship between market share and success by argu- differ in dimensions other than the functional differences
ing that a 10% difference in market share is accompanied noted above. Implementing them successfully requires
by a difference of about 5% in pretax return on invest- different resources and skills. The generic strategies also
ment. Hamermesh et al. (1978) illustrated with surveys imply differing organisational arrangements, control pro-
of successful low share market companies that concen- cedures and incentive systems. The generic strategies
tration on market share was dangerously over prescrip- may also require different styles of leadership and can
tive. Woo and Cooper (1982) outlined the differences in translate into very different corporate cultures and
the strategies followed by successful and unsuccessful atmosphere.
low market share companies operating in the same According to Armstrong (1987) Toyota topped ratings
environment and concluded that “absence of a clear of product reliability and customer satisfaction while
focus” was a major problem with unsuccessful compa- simultaneously producing cars for US$1500 less per unit
nies. than their US rivals by using the techniques of managing
There is empirical evidence for success in companies conflict across functions. Similarly, Mitchell (1987)
with low market share and companies with high market observed that in North America, the Kellogg Company
share. Evidence suggests that low market share compa- has buttressed its impressive lead in the breakfast cereals
nies that are successful have significantly different industry by simultaneously leading in the introduction
resource allocations from successful high market share and development of new production techniques, new
companies, whereas unsuccessful ones do not (Woo and product introductions, and brand loyalty. If Porter’s
Cooper, 1982). Porter’s analysis is built on such admonitions against pursuit of multiple strategies are
research evidence. taken seriously, other firms may be discouraged from
emulating Toyota and Kellogg, and as a result, they may
2.4. Comparison of generic strategies risk erosion of their competitive position (Armstrong,
1987).
According to Porter (1985), the notion underlying the Karnani (1984) on the basis of a game-theoretic math-
concept of generic strategies is that competitive advan- ematical model, further argues, that the relationship
510 S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518
between differentiation and average cost position is performance along three dimensions namely: (i) theoreti-
determined by the net result of two opposing forces. cal (Cameron and Whetten, 1983), (ii) empirical
Firstly, high differentiation probably leads to a high cost (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985; and (iii) managerial
position independent of scale. Secondly, high differen- (Nash, 1983).
tiation leads to high competitive strength, which leads The narrowest conception of business performance
to high market share, which in turn leads to low average centers on the use of simple outcome based financial
cost position. Which of these two forces is stronger will, indicators that are assumed to reflect the fulfillment of
largely depend on the specific situation. Thus, Karnani’s the economic goals of the firm and is referred to as the
model leads to the same conclusion reached by Phillips financial performance, which has been the dominant
et al. (1983) on the basis of their empirical research: high model in empirical strategy research (Hofer, 1983; Ven-
differentiation and low cost are not necessarily incom- katraman and Ramanujam, 1986). Typical of this
patible, contrary to the previous literature (Porter, 1980; approach would be to examine such indicators as sales
Hall, 1980). growth, profitability (reflected by ratios such as return
Porter (1980) suggests that a high differentiation pos- on investment, return on sales, and return on equity),
ition often requires the perceptions of exclusivity, which earnings per share and so forth. Furthermore, reflecting
is incompatible with high market share. Contrary to this the popular and current view that “market” or “value-
view, the empirical study of Phillips et al. (1983) indi- based” measurements are more appropriate than
cates there is a significant and positive relationship accounting-based measures (Hax and Majluf, 1984),
between “relative product quality” and “relative market some strategy studies have employed such measures like
position”. In other words, Phillips et al. find a positive market-to-book or stock-market returns and its variants
relationship between differentiation and market share. (Montgomery et al., 1984). Nevertheless, this approach
Karnani (1984) indicates that the substitutability still remains very much financial in its orientation and
relationship between cost position and differentiation is assumes the dominance and legitimacy of financial goals
governed by a multiplicative relationship. Therefore, in the firm’s system of goals (Venkatraman and Ram-
there is an interaction effect between cost position and anujam, 1986).
differentiation; that is, if a firm is very weak in either A broader conceptualization of business performance
aspect, it is likely to be a poor performer. According to would include emphasis on indicators of operational per-
Karnani (1984), the above dichotomisation offered by formance (i.e., nonfinancial) in addition to indicators of
Porter (1980) is invalid. Differentiation is a continuum, financial performance. Under this framework it would
and it is not true that a firm has to have either low or high be logical to treat such measures as market-share, new
differentiation. Similarly, cost position is a continuum. product introduction, product quality, marketing effec-
tiveness, manufacturing value-added, and other measures
of technological efficiency within the domain of business
3. Organisational performance performance (Smith and Grimm, 1987; Tushman and
Romanelli, 1985; Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986).
Performance is a recurrent theme in most branches of
management, including strategic management, and it is
of interest to both academic scholars and practicing man- 4. Research methodology
agers. While prescriptions for improving and managing
organisational performance are widely available (Nash, This study was a survey of all companies that partici-
1983), the academic community has been preoccupied pated in the first and second rounds of the Australian
with discussion and debates about issues of terminology, Best Practice Program (1991, 1992) conducted by the
level of analysis (i.e., individual, work unit, or organiza- Australian Manufacturing Council in collaboration with
tion as a whole), and conceptual bases for assessment of the Department of Industrial Relations. A total of 237
performance (Ford and Schellenberg, 1982). companies participated in the Australian Best Practice
The performance concept and the broader area of Program of which some 23 companies described service
organisational effectiveness, and its importance has been as their main domain of business and was therefore
widely recognized by several scholars (Connally et al., excluded from this study. A total of 214 manufacturing
1980). companies forms the sample frame for this study.
The treatment of performance in research settings is The sample was limited to 1991, 1992 because the
perhaps one of the thorniest issues confronting academic Australian Best Practice Program has only existed since
research today. With the volume of literature on this 1991. A third round has been excluded from the study as
topic increasing, there appears to be little hope of reach- this round is yet to be decided. The names and associated
ing any agreement on basic terminology and definitions details of these companies were classified and could not
(Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986). Several authors be released by the Australian Manufacturing Council.
have argued the importance of organisational or business A common thread linking 214 companies selected for
S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518 511
this study was their corporate intention of improving 5.1. Cost leadership
their competitive position by introducing work-place
reforms and adopting an overall organisational change All the factors of cost leadership exhibited overlap-
program (AMC, March 1991). This common linkage ping variance of above 40% and therefore may be con-
along with the fact that all the companies were manufac- sidered very good to excellent in explaining the underly-
turing was considered directly relevant for the nature of ing phenomenon within each factor. Table 1 reports the
this study. results of the factor analysis of cost leadership variables.
The data reported in this paper were obtained from The five factors extracted from 16 items of cost leader-
214 Australian manufacturers involved in the 1991, 1992 ship accounted for 68.4% of the total variance.
Best Practice Program conducted by the Australian
Manufacturing Council and the Department of Industrial 5.2. Differentiation
Relations. The research questionnaire comprises three
sections: Table 2 reports the results of the factor analysis of
Section 1. General Information the differentiation strategy variables. Responses to the
Section 2. Generic Strategy Scale 14 items of differentiation produced four factors that
쐌 Cost Leadership (19 items) accounted for 61.8% of the total variance.
쐌 Differentiation (17 items)
쐌 Focus (6 items) 5.3. Focus
Table 1
Principal components factor analysis matrix of cost leadership variables
SL IM HCD EI VC
a
Cronbach liability coefficient.
Table 2
Principal components factor analysis matrix of differentiation variables
CS TL PD LD
a
Conbrach reliability coeffiecient.
S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518 513
Table 3
Principal components factor analysis matrix of focus variables
PNM CNM
a
Cronbach reliability coefficients.
Table 4
Principal components factor analysis matrix of organisational performance variables
FP FM L ME
a
Cronbach reliability coefficients.
adopted to identify strategic groups for each sub-scale smaller companies targeting on a narrow market seg-
of competitive advantage. ment. In this study, some companies have recorded
According to Porter (1985), cost leadership and differ- either high mean scores on both cost leadership and dif-
entiation are the only two main types of strategic choices ferentiation strategies, or medium to low mean scores in
available to a company, while a focus strategy is an issue both these strategies, which according to Porter would
of scope rather than a strategy and is only suitable for be generally classified as stuck in the middle companies
514 S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518
and may only be successful in some limited type of advantage and factors of organisational performance,
industries. The stuck in the middle companies in this namely: financial performance, financial management,
study have been classified into two groups. Companies leverage, and market effectiveness. In addition, the mean
that recorded a very high mean in both cost leadership scores for the dimensions of competitive advantage were
and differentiation strategies were classified as star com- also compared for significant differences in relation to
panies which aim to effectively and successfully utilize overall performance.
both strategies. Companies that recorded medium to low
mean scores in both strategies were classified as stuck 7.1. Cost leadership on organisational performance
in the middle companies. On the basis of the above factors
analysis, five groups were developed. It should be noted
that focus group companies were treated as a separate The results presented in Table 5 indicate that overall,
entity and did not have any influence on other strategic high and medium cost leaders recorded significantly
groups. The five groups are listed below (see Fig. 1). higher mean scores on all factors of organisational per-
formance compared to low cost leadership companies.
Group 1—stuck in the middle (N ⫽ 53). In this
High cost leadership companies recorded significantly
group, only those companies that scored low mean
higher mean scores compared to medium or low cost
scores (0–2) on both cost leadership and differen-
leadership companies for financial performance (X ⫽
tiation strategies were included.
2.90, 2.43 and 1.91, respectively), financial management
Group 2—star (N ⫽ 21). The companies included in
(X ⫽ 3.13, 2.50 and 2.19, respectively), leverage (X ⫽
this group recorded high mean scores (3.1 or higher)
2.50, 2.25 and 2.19, respectively), and market effective-
on both cost leadership and differentiation strategies.
ness (X ⫽ 3.01, 2.55 and 1.93, respectively). These find-
Group 3—cost leaders (N ⫽ 22). This group consists
ings reveal that high cost leadership companies seem to
of companies that recorded the highest mean scores
place significantly more importance on all aspects of
(3.1–4) for cost leadership and relatively low to
organisational performance. Further, high cost leadership
medium mean scores for any other strategy.
companies also recorded significantly higher mean
Group 4—differentiators (N ⫽ 14). Similarly, this
scores for overall/total performance.
group consists of companies that recorded the high-
Medium cost leadership companies recorded a sig-
est mean scores for differentiation, and relatively low
nificantly higher mean score than low cost leadership
to medium mean scores for any other strategy.
companies for financial performance (X ⫽ 2.43 and 1.91,
Group 5—focus companies (N ⫽ 9). The companies
respectively), market effectiveness (X ⫽ 2.55 and 1.93,
included in this group scored the highest mean scores
respectively), and overall performance (X ⫽ 2.17 and
for focus, and relatively low to medium scores for
1.74, respectively). This finding reveals that medium
other strategies. Focus companies were treated as a
cost leadership companies place significantly more
separate entity.
importance on financial performance to maintain smooth
cash flow and market effectiveness.
Analysis of variance was utilized to examine the As shown in Table 6 overall the results indicate that
relationships between the dimensions of competitive both high and medium differentiators recorded signifi-
cantly higher mean scores on all factors of organisational
performance compared to low differentiation companies.
High differentiators recorded significantly higher mean
scores compared to medium and low differentiation
companies for financial performance (X ⫽ 3.03, 2.44 and
1.94, respectively), financial management (X ⫽ 3.11,
2.64 and 2.10, respectively), leverage (X ⫽ 2.54, 2.27
and 1.88, respectively), and market effectiveness (X ⫽
2.26, 2.21 and 1.77, respectively). These findings reveal
that high differentiators seem to place significantly more
importance on all aspects of organisational performance.
Further, high differentiators also recorded a significantly
higher mean score for overall/total organisational per-
formance, and medium differentiation companies
Fig. 1. The distribution of companies by extended generic types. recorded significantly higher mean scores for financial
S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518 515
Table 5
One-way analysis of variance for mean scores of respondents classified by cost leadership groups on factors of organisational performance (N ⫽ 120)
a
Scale: 0 ⫽ no contribution, 1 ⫽ minimum contribution, 2 ⫽ moderate contribution, 3 ⫽ considerable contribution, 4 ⫽ high contribution.
*p ⬍ 0.05, ***p ⬍ 0.001.
Table 6
One-way analysis of variance for mean scores of respondents classified by differentiation groups on factors of organisational performance (N ⫽ 120)
a
Scale: 0 ⫽ no contribution, 1 ⫽ minimum contribution, 2 ⫽ moderate contribution, 3 ⫽ considerable contribution, 4 ⫽ high contribution.
*p ⬍ 0.05, ***p ⬍ 0.001.
performance (X ⫽ 2.64, 1.94), financial management (X higher mean scores for financial performance and finan-
⫽ 2.64, 2.10), and market effectiveness (X ⫽ 2.59, 2.08) cial management compared with low focus companies.
compared to low differentiators. Further, medium differ- In the case of leverage, no significant differences were
entiators also recorded a significantly higher score for found in the recorded mean scores of focus companies.
overall/total organisational performance compared to High focused companies placed more importance on
low differentiation companies. market effectiveness compared to medium and low
focused companies, and for overall performance, both
7.3. Focus on organisational performance factors high and medium focused companies recorded signifi-
cantly higher mean scores than low focused companies.
The results shown in Table 7 indicate that both high
and medium focus companies recorded significantly
Table 7
One-way analysis of variance for mean scores of respondents classified by focus groups on factors of organisational performance (N ⫽ 120)
a
Scale: 0 ⫽ no contribution, 1 ⫽ minimum contribution, 2 ⫽ moderate contribution, 3 ⫽ considerable contribution, 4 ⫽ high contribution.
*p ⬍ 0.05, ***p ⬍ 0.001.
516 S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518
Table 8
One-way analysis of variance for mean scores of respondents classified by generic competitive strategy choices on factors of organisational perform-
ance (N ⫽ 120)
Financial 2.27 3.04 2.64 2.53 2.70 4.19** 5–2, 3–2, 4–2,
performance 1–2,
Financial 2.49 3.24 2.74 2.56 2.37 5.15*** 3–2, 4–2, 1–2,
management 5–2
Leverage 2.24 2.48 2.44 2.10 2.11 0.95
Market 2.40 3.05 2.94 2.33 2.88 5.04*** 3–2, 5–2, 1–2,
effectiveness 4–2, 5–3, 1–3,
4–3
Overall 2.08 2.77 2.41 2.22 1.83 8.69*** 4–3, 1–3, 1–2,
organisational 5–2, 5–3
performance
a
1 ⫽ stuck in the middle, 2 ⫽ stars, 3 ⫽ cost leaders, 4 ⫽ differentiators, 5 ⫽ focus companies.
**p ⬍ 0.01, ***p ⬍ 0.001.
8. Choice of generic strategies of competitive tegies under certain circumstances are more successful
advantage on organisational performance than those organizations dedicated to single strategic
thrust. In fact, the finding of performance differences in
The results shown in Table 8 indicate those star com- our sample is surprising since the sample consists of
panies (Group 2) recorded significantly higher mean highly successful companies under Australian con-
scores for both financial performance and financial man- ditions. In a random sample these differences would
agement than any other groups. This finding suggests have been reality magnified. These results make an
those star companies that utilize both cost leadership and important contribution in that they are based on rigor-
differentiation strategies effectively are more likely to ously developed scalar measures of high reliability and
enhance their financial performance and financial man- internal consistence.
agement compared with any other group. None of the
groups recorded significantly different mean scores for
the leverage factor (F ⫽ 0.95, df ⫽ 113, p > 0.05).
References
In the case of market effectiveness, both star compa-
nies and companies pursuing cost leadership strategies
Armstrong, L., 1987. Sony’s Challenge. Business Week, 1 June, 64–
recorded significantly higher means than any other 69.
group. This finding suggests that companies pursuing Buzzell, R.D., Gale, B.T., Sultan, R.G.M., 1975. Market share—a key
effective multiple strategies as well as cost leadership to profitability. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 97–
principles are more closely associated with market effec- 107.
tiveness compared to any other groups. In terms of over- Cameron, K.S., Whetten, D.A., 1983. Organisational Effectiveness: A
Comparison of Multiple Models. Academic Press, New York.
all performance, both star companies and cost leadership Connally, T., Conlon, E.J., Deutsch, S.J., 1980. Organisational effec-
companies recorded significantly higher means than any tiveness: a multiple-constiuency approach. Acadenmy of Manage-
other groups. ment Review 5, 211–217.
Cowling, K., 1972. Market Structure and Corporate Behavior. Gary
Mills, London.
Dess, G.G., Davis, P.S., 1984. Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as
9. Conclusions determinants of strategic group membership and organisational per-
formance. Academy of Management Journal 27 (3), 467–488.
The results of empirical research suggest there are sig- Douglas, S.P. and Rhee, D.K., 1989. Examining Generic Competitive
nificant differences in the configuration of variables by Strategy Types in U.S. and European Markets, Journal of Inter-
organizations adopting different generic strategies. There national Business Studies, Fall, pp. 437–463.
Drazin, R., 1990. Professionals and innovation: structural–functional
are also significant performance differences across gen- versus radical–structural perspectives. Journal of Management
eric types. However, our results do not support Porter Studies (UK) 27 (3), 245–263.
(1980, 1985) since they suggest those comination stra- Fine, C.H., 1983. Quality control and learning in productive systems.
S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518 517
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Graduate Tushman, M.L., Romanelli, E., 1985. Organisational evolution: inter-
School of Business, CA. action between external and emergent processes and strategic
Ford, J.D., Schellenberg, D.A., 1982. Conceptual issues of linkage in choice. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organ-
the assessment of organisational performance. Academy of Man- isational Behaviour, vol. 8. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
agement Review 7, 49–58. Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V., 1986. Measurement of business
Galbraith, C., Schendel, D., 1983. An empirical analysis of strategy performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches.
types. Strategic Management Journal 4, 153–173. Academy of Management Review 11 (4), 801–814.
Ginsberg, A., Venkatraman, N., 1985. Contingency perspectives of Wensley, R., 1987. Marketing strategy. In: Baker, M. (Ed.), The Mar-
organisational strategy: a critical review of empirical research. keting Book. Institute of Marketing, Heinemann, London.
Academy of Management Review 10, 421–434. White, R.E., 1986. Generic business strategies, organisational context
Hall, W.K., 1980. Survival strategies in a hostile environment. Harvard and performance: an empirical investigation. Strategic Management
Business Review 58 (5), 75–85. Journal 7, 217–231.
Hamermesh, R.G., Anderson, M.J., Harris, J.E., 1978. Strategies for Wind, Y., Robertson, T., 1983. Marketing strategy: new direction for
low market share businesses. Harvard Business Review, May–June, theory and research. Journal of Marketing, Spring, 12–25.
95–102. Woo, C.Y., Cooper, A.C., 1982. The surprising case for low market
Hax, A.C., Majluf, N.S., 1984. Strategic Management: An Integrative share. Harvard Business Review, November–December, 106–113.
Perspective. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Wright, P., Knoll, M., Caddie, B., Pryingle, C., 1990. Strategic profiles,
Henderson, B.D., 1983. The anatomy of competition. Journal of Mar- market share and business performance. Industrial Management,
keting, Spring, 7–11. lll: Des plaines, May/June, 23–28.
Hofer, C.W., 1983. ROVA: a new measure for assessing organisational Yetton, P., Craig, J., Davis, J., Hilmer, F., 1992. Are dimonds a coun-
performance. In: Lamb, R. (Ed.), Advances in Strategic Manage- try’s best friend? A critique of Porter’s theory of national compe-
ment, vol. 2. JAI Press New York, pp. 43–55. tition as applied to Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Australian
Jenny, F., Weber, A.P., 1976. Profit rates and structural variables in Journal of Management 17 (1), 89–120.
French manufacturing industries. European Economic Review 7,
187–206.
Karnani, A., 1984. Generic competitive strategies—an analytical
approach. Strategic Management Journal 5, 367–380. Shahid Yamin earned his doctorate from Mon-
Lambin, J.J. (Ed.), 1976. Advertising, Competition, and Market Con- ash University in Melbourne, Australia. He is
currently a lecturer (Assistant Professor) at the
duct in Oligopoly over Time. North Holland Publishing Co,
Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash
Amsterdam. University. His research interests are in strategic
McGee, J., Thomas, H., 1986. Strategic groups: theory, research, and management/marketing, international business,
taxonomy. Strategic Management Journal 7, 141–160. innovation and organisational performance.
Miles, R.H., 1982. Coffin Nails and Corporate Strategies. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C. (Eds.), 1978. Organisational Strategy, Struc-
ture, and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Miller, D., 1986. Configurations of strategy and structure: towards a
synthesis. Strategic Management Journal 7, 233–249.
Miller, D., 1992. The generic strategy trap. Journal of Business Strat- A. Gunasekaran is an Associate Professor of
egy, January/February, 37–41. Operations Management in the Department of
Miller, D., Friesen, P.H., 1986. Porter’s (1980) generic strategies and Management at the University of Massachusetts,
performance: an empirical examination with American data. Part Dartmouth, USA. He has a Ph.D. in Industrial
1: testing Porter. Organisational Studies 7, 37–55. Engineering and Operations Research from the
Mitchell, R., 1987. The health craze has Kellogg feeling, G-R-R-Reat. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (India).
Business Week, 30 March, 52–53. He has over 100 articles published in journals
such as the International Journal of Production
Montgomery, C.A., Thomas, A.R., Kamath, R., 1984. Divistiture, mar-
Research, International Journal of Systems
ket valuation, and strategy. Academy of Management Journal 27, Science, International Journal of Operations and
830–840. Production Management, Computers in Indus-
Nash, M., 1983. Managing Organisational Performance. Jossey-Bass, trial Engineering: An International Journal, Eur-
San Francisco. opean Journal of Operational Research, Logistics Information Manage-
O’Schaunessy, J., 1984. Competitive Marketing. Allen & Unwin, Bos- ment, TQM Magazine, Management Decision, Managerial Auditing
ton, MA. Journal, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Phillips, L.W., Chang, D.R., Buzzell, R.D., 1983. Product quality, cost Computers in Industrial Engineering, International Journal of Production
position and business performance: a test of some key hypotheses. Economics, Journal of Operational Research Society, Enterprise Inno-
vation and Change, International Journal of Production Economics, Inter-
Journal of Marketing 47 (2), 26–43. national Journal of Technology Management, Technovation, Computers in
Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy, Techniques for Analysing Industry: An International Journal, Total Quality Management, Managerial
Industries and Competitors. Free Press, New York. Auditing Journal, Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, and Inter-
Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Advantage Creating and Sustaining national Journal of Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. He has presented
Superior Performance. Free Press, New York. over 40 papers in conferences and given a number of invited talks in more
Scherer, F.M., 1980. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Per- than 20 countries. He is on the Editorial Board of over ten international
formance. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. journals that include International Journal of Production Planning and
Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R.D., Heany, D.F., 1974. Impact of strategic Control, International Journal of Systems Science, Computers in Industry,
CERA, Technovation, Journal of Product and Process Development,
planning on profit performance. Harvard Business Review, March– Logistics Information Management, Business Process Management Jour-
April, 137–145. nal, Journal of Operations Management, Supply Chain Management: An
Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M., 1987. Environmental variation, strategic International Journal, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Man-
change, and firm performance: a study of railroad deregulations. agement. He has edited special issues for a number of highly reputed
Strategic Management Journal 8, 363–376. International Journals. Dr Gunasekaran has been involved in several
518 S. Yamin et al. / Technovation 19 (1999) 507–518
national and international collaborative projects that are funded by private Felix Mavondo obtained his Ph.D from Monash
and government agencies. He is the Editor-In-Chief of the International University where he is a Senior Lecturer. His
Journal of Agile Management Systems. Dr Gunasekaran is currently inter- main areas of interest are Strategic
ested in researching Agile Manufacturing, Concurrent Engineering, Man- Marketing/Management, Organisation Adap-
agement Information Systems, Technology Management, Supply Chain tation and Innovation, Organisational Perform-
Management, Computer-Integrated Manufacturing and Total Quality Man- ance and Statistical Issues in Social Sciences.
agement.