기술전략세미나 – 석사 2학기 이현서
Mintzberg and Waters (1985)
This paper explores eight types of strategies in perspective of deliberate and emergent characteristics. The purely deliberate and purely emergent strategy are two poles in a continuum of observable strategies and authors identified 8 different types of strategy between these two poles. Through these categorizations, authors demonstrate how strategies are formed in organizations in various structures and environments. By reading this article, I think the main contribution of this paper is to suggest ‘emergent strategy’. Usually, strategy is known as deliberate method to achieve certain objectives and various authors conducted research based on this definition. By adding the emergent side of the strategy, this paper broadened the scope of strategy by considering complexities in organizations and external environment. Moreover, as emergent strategy implies learning behavior of organization, this paper emphasizes ‘strategic learning’ of organizations based on the feedback loop. In emergent strategy, adaptation of strategy is easier and prevalent. As the umbrella strategy case shows, sometimes individual actor deviates from the boundary that the leader set. However, if leader monitors this deviation and sees the positive result, then the boundary can be modified and adjusted accordingly. Thus, in discussing of strategy, this paper added insight of ‘strategic learning’ and gives implication that openness to emergent strategies might bring various learning opportunities.
As I read the article, I figured out some key variables that affect the formation of strategy such as the size of an organization, hierarchy, and environment stability. If authors mention these factors and categorize suggested strategies accordingly, it would have been better to understand each position these strategies take. Another comment is regarding the ‘intention’. Authors also mention that measuring or identifying intention is difficult and therefore there might be difficulties to discern deliberate and emergent strategies. I also agree with them and I think there is an arbitrariness in deciding whether this strategy is deliberate or emergent. One additional question is that still, I doubt about an ‘emergent strategy’. Usually deliberate strategy starts from objective to attain, such as market share, profit and so on. However, (pure) deliberate strategy just occurs without any clear objective or motivation. Then, can we still call this ‘strategy’? I think it is closer to the simple behavior without motivation. Even umbrella strategy, which is a mixture of deliberate and emergent strategy is most prevalent, when we think about the pure emergent strategy, I think additional criteria is needed in order to call this a ‘strategy’.
Peteraf (1993)
This paper suggests a model of competitive advantage considering four factors that lead to sustainable competitive advantage. To briefly summarize arguments, resource heterogeneity creates Ricardian rents while ex post limits to competition maintains rents acquired in the long term. Imperfect factor mobility lets rents remain in organization and shared. Lastly, ex ante limits to competition increases rents by lowering costs.In the theoretical perspective, this paper contributes to the resource based view theory by addressing four contingencies that lead to sustained competitive advantage. Moreover, this paper offers explanation of scope of a firm. Deciding boundaries of the firm is important strategic decisions. By integrating this framework, firms can decide optimal extent of diversification and best utilize their resources. In this respect, this paper can be extended to various fields of research. In specific, research question such as “In what situation firms make or buy technology?”can be answered. Thus, suggested four factors (heterogeneity, ex post limits to competition, imperfect mobility, ex ante limits to competition) can be answers. In this context each factor corresponds to expertise in technology field, IP protection, generalizability of technology, and technology complexity.
“Resource” is a core factor determining firm’s competitive advantage. However, there is a limitation explaining the relationship between resource and firm performance. The understanding of resource is a basis for adequately utilize it. However, I think there is a paradox here. Resource with quality that offers more rents have causal ambiguity that competitors can’t imitate. This means that even owner of this resource can’t discern exact resource that offers value which hampers effective decision making. Therefore, I want to suggest one additional axis in order to compensate this flaw. Heterogeneity and imperfect mobility explain characteristics of resource itself. Ex post limits to competition and ex ante limits to competition fall into category of competitor environment. One more axis “internal environment” would better explain the competitive advantage derived from resource. Internal environment refers to firm’s ability to understand, manage, coordinate and maneuver resource base. Without this factor, other four factors alone can’t assure firm’s competitive advantage.
Noda and Bower (1996)
By contrasting two polarized examples, this paper explains why firms facing similar opportunities respond differently and come up with different strategic commitments. Based on Bower-Burgelman process model, the author analyzes two cases of firms (Bell South, US WEST) and concludes with several propositions. Bell South and US WEST show stark comparison when they cope with wireless communication and this phenomenon can be explained by B-B model. This paper best used field research methodology in order to build theories. It was theoretical driven in order to extend the understanding of B-B model of strategy formulation. With this theoretical lens, I think author sorted the best cases that represent the problem. Moreover, author segmented developmental process of business into three and by using same framework, he analyzed each case. This consistency increased the readers’ understanding of phenomenon and fully developed his logic. Another contribution is that he defined strategy as iterate resource allocation. There are divergent definitions of strategy and this paper emphasizes resource in defining firm’s strategy formulation.
In this case, feedback loop seems crucial in defining strategic position of firms. However, I somewhat have question regarding the behavior of US WEST. This paper argues that firms set aspiration level based on past performance and adjust it. Even though there would be a de-escalation of commitment toward strategy that firm pursues, since it fails to accomplish the aspiration level it might do non-local search in order to attain that level. Therefore, firm would search for explorative solutions and this can lead to redefinition of problem and restructuring of structural and cultural context leading to similar results of Bell South. However, this paper doesn’t consider this possible alternative (Case doesn’t show this behavior though..). Regarding proposition 2, I think early que will affects more when there is a certainty rather than uncertainty. Since firms don’t have any track record of causal relationship of strategies they would be reluctant to rely more on early results. I wonder what theoretical explanation explains this relationship since it doesn’t clearly show in paper. Lastly, B-B process seem similar to problem-solving process and strategy formulation can be additionally understood in perspective of problem-solving process. According to Simon in his book Sciences of the Artificial, problem-solving effort must begin with creating a representation for the problem and problem space in which the search for the solution takes place. “Problem representation” thus matches to definition process in B-B process. Problem solving is iterative in its nature since problem solving is viewed as change in representation. Solving a problem means that modifying/adjusting problem representation in order to clearly guide to the next action. By integrating this theory, this paper can be extended further since problem-solving literature emphasizes the problem space. B-B process lacks the consideration of problem space in which the strategy is formulated. Additional consideration of problem space comprised of various complexities, such as task interdependencies, and newness of problem would further extend strategy making as iterated process of resource allocation.