Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30


CHAPTER Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Understand how to evaluate
Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position
Evaluating a Company's
Resources and
Competitive Position
a Company's Resources and Competitive Position LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Understand how to evaluate a


1. Understand how to evaluate a company's internal situation and capabilities and identify the resource strengths capable of becoming the cornerstone of the company's strategic approach.

2. Grasp how and why activities performed internally by a company and those per- formed externally by its suppliers and forward channel allies determine a company's cost structure and ability to compete successfully.

3. Learn how to evaluate a company's competitive strength relative to key rivals.

4. Understand the role and importance of industry and competitive analysis and internal situation analysis in identifying strategic issues company managers must address.

Chapter 3

Evaluating a Company's Extemal Environment

5. Draw a strategic group map showing the market positions of the companies in your industry. Which companies do you believe are in the most attractive position on the map? Which companies are the 1110st weakly positioned? Which companies do you believe are likely to try to move to a different position on the strategic group map?

6. What do you see as the key factors for being a successful competitor in your industry? List at least three KSFs.

I n Chapter 3 we described how to use the tools of industry and competitive

I n Chapter 3 we described how to use the tools

of industry and competitive analysis to assess

a company's external environment and lay the

groundwork for matching a company's strategy to its external situation. In this chapter we discuss the tech- niques of evaluating a company's resource capabili- ties, relative cost position, and competitive strength

versus rivals, so as to lay the groundwork for match- ing the company's strategy to its internal situation. The analytical spotlight for assessing a company's situation will be trained on five questions:

present strategy

1. How






2. What are the company's resource strengths and weaknesses, and its external opportunities and threats?

3. Are the company's prices and costs competitive with those of rivals?

4. Is the company competitively stronger or weaker than key rivals?

5. What strategic issues and problems merit front- burner managerial attention?

In probing for answers to these questions, four analytical tools- SWOT analysis, value chain analysis, benchmarking, and competitive strength

assessment- will be used. All four are valuable tech-

niques for revealing a company's competitiveness and for helping company managers match their strat- egy to the company's own particular circumstances.


Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy



Table 4.1

Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy

Key Financial Ratios: How to Calculate Them and What They Mean


How Calculated

What It Shows

Profitability ratios

1. Gross profit margin

2. Operating profit margin (or return on sales)

3. Net profit margin (or net return on sales)

4. Return on total assets

5. Return on



6. Earnings

per share

Liquidity ratios

1. Current ratio

2. Quick ratio (or acid-test ratio)

3. Working capital

Leverage ratios

1. Debt-to-assets ratio

Revenues - Cost of goods sold


Revenues - Operating expenses



Operating income


Profits after taxes


Profits after taxes + Interest

Total assets

Profits after taxes

Total stockholders' equity

Profits after taxes

Number of shares of common stock outstanding

Current assets

Current liabilities

Current assets -Inventory Current liabilities

Current assets - Current liabilities

Total debt

Total assets

Shows the percentage of revenues available

to cover operating expenses and yield a profit.

Higher is better, and the trend should be upward .

Shows the profitability of current operations without regard to interest charges and income taxes. Higher is better, and the trend should be upward.

Shows after-tax profits per dollar of sales. Higher is better, and the trend should be upward.


measure of the return on total investment


the enterprise . Interest is added to after-

tax profits to form the numerator, since total assets are financed by creditors as well as by

stockholders . Higher is should be upward.

Shows the return stockholders are earning on

their investment in the 12-15 percent

trend should be upward.

Shows the earnings for each share of common stock outstanding . The trend should be upward , and the bigger the annual percentage gains, the better.

better, and the trend

the enterprise . A return in range is average , and the

Shows a firm 's ability to pay current liabilities using assets that can be converted to cash in the near term . Ratio should definitely be higher than 1.0; ratios of 2 or higher are better still.

Shows a firm's ability to pay current liabilities without relying on the sale of its inventories.

Bigger amounts are better because the company has more internal funds available

to (1) pay its current liabilities on a timely

basis and

additional accounts receivable, and a larger base of operations without resorting to

borrowing or raising more equity capital.

(2) finance inventory expansion ,

Measures the extent to which borrowed funds have been used to finance the firm's operations. Low fractions or ratios are better- high fractions indicate overuse of debt and greater risk of bankruptcy.


Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position



2. Long-term debt-to-

capital ratio

3. Debt-to-equity ratio

4. Long-term debt-to-

equity ratio

5. Times-interest- earned (or coverage) ratio

Activity ratios

1. Days of inventory

2. Inventory turnover

3. Average collection


How Calculated

Long-term debt

Long-term debt + Total stockholders' equity

Total debt

Total stockholders' equity

Long-term debt

Total stockholders' equity

Operating income

Interest expenses


Cost of goods sold + 365

Cost of goods sold


Accounts receivable

Total sales + 365


Accounts receivable

Average daily sales

Other important financial measures


Dividend yield on common stock


Pricelearnings (PIE)



Dividend payout



Internal cash flow

Annual dividends per share Current market price per share

Current market price per share

Earnings per share

Annual dividends per share Eamings per share

After-tax profits + Depreciation

What It Shows

An important measure of creditworthiness and balance sheet strength. Indicates the percentage

of capital investment which has been financed

by creditors and bondholders. Fractions or ratios

below .25 or 25% are usually quite satisfactory since monies invested by stockholders account for 75% or more of the company's total capital. The lower the ratio, the greater the capacity to borrow additional funds. Debt-to-capital ratios above 50% and certainly above 75% indicate a heavy and perhaps excessive reliance on debt, lower creditworthiness, and weak balance sheet strength.

Should usually be less than 1.0. High ratios (especially above 1.0) Signal excessive debt, lower creditworthiness, and weaker balance sheet strength.

Shows the balance between debt and equity in the firm's long-term capital structure. Low ratios indicate greater capacity to borrow additional funds if needed.

Measures the ability to pay annual interest charges. Lenders usually insist on a minimum ratio of 2.0, but ratios above 3.0 signal better creditworthiness.

Measures inventory management efficiency. Fewer days of inventory are usually better.

Measures the number of inventory turns per year. Higher is better.

Indicates the average length of time the firm must wait after making a sale to receive cash payment. A shorter collection time is better.

A measure of the return to owners received in

the form of dividends.

PIE ratios above 20 indicate strong investor confidence in a firm's outlook and earnings growth; firms whose future earnings are at risk or likely to grow slowly typically have ratios below 12.

Indicates the percentage of after-tax profits paid out as dividends.

A quick and rough estimate of the cash

a company's business is generating after

payment of operating expenses, interest, and taxes. Such amounts can be used for dividend

payments or funding capital expenditures.

--products to market, good

after-sale service capabilities , skills in manufacturing a

high-quality product at a low cost, or the capability to fill customer orders accu-

rately and swiftly. A company may have more than one core competence in its


Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy



Part 1

Con c ept s and Te c hnique s fo r Crafting

and Executing Strategy


Companies that lack a stand- alone resource strength that is competitively powerful may nonetheless be able to bundle several resource strengths into a competitively valuable core competence.

In addition, management may

that independently passes all four tests listed above with high marks, but does

have a bundle of resources that can be leveraged to develop a core compe- tence. Although Callaway Golf Company's engineering capabilities and mar- ket research capabilities are matched relatively well by rivals Cobra Golf and Ping Golf, it has bundled good product development resources, technologi- cal know-how, and understanding of golfers and the golfing marketplace to remain the largest seller of golf equipment for more than a decade. Callaway'S unique bundle of resource strengths qualifies as a distinctive competence and is the basis of the company's competitive advantage.

determine that it doesn 't possess a resource

Competitively Valuable Resource Strengths and Competencies

Call for the Use of a Resource-Based Strategy

Companies that

A resource-based strategy possess competitively valuable resource strengths and competencies typi-

cally deploy these resources and capabilities in a manner that boosts the competitive power of their overall strategy and bolsters their position in

and competitive capabilities to the marketplace. Resource-based st,-ategies attempt to exploit company

deliver value to customers in resources in a manner that offers value to customers in ways rivals are

ways that rivals find it difficult unable to match . Indeed, the whole point of a resource-based strategy is to

deliberately develop and deploy competencies and capabilities that add to a company's competitive power in the marketplace and make its overall strat- egy more potent in battling rivals. For example, a company pursuing a broad low-cost strategy might invest in superefficient distribution centers that give it the capability to distribute its products at a lower cost than rivals. Wal-Mart's distribution efficiency is one factor in its being able to underprice rivals. Over a period of more than a decade, Dell has put considerable time and money into cultivating relationships with its key suppliers that give it exceptionally low inventory carrying costs (as well as access to low-cost, quality components for its PC models). Many Dell plants oper- ate with only several hours' inventory of certain parts and components because the suppliers have online access to Dell's daily production schedule and make frequent deliveries (sometimes every two hours) of the precise components that particular work stations on the floor of Dell's assembly plants need to build each PC to a customer's specifications. Resource strengths and competitive capabilities can also facilitate dif- ferentiation in the marketplace. Because Fox News and CNN can devote more air time to breaking news stories and get reporters on the scene quicker than ABC, NBC, and CBS can, many viewers turn to the cable networks when a major news event occurs. Resource-based strategies can also be directed at eroding or at least neu- tralizing the competitive potency of a particular rival's resource strengths by


Rather than try to play catch- identifying and developing substitute resources that accomplish the purpose. up and match the resource For example, Amazon.com lacks a big network of retail stores to compete strengths possessed by a with those operated by rival Barnes & Noble, but Amazon's much larger rival company, a company's book inventory (as compared to any retail store), coupled with its vast selec-

attractive to many

to match.

uses a company's valuable and rare resource strengths


managers may deliberately tion of other products and short

delivery times , is more

cultivate the development of busy consumers than visiting a big-box bookstore. In other words, Ama-

entirely different resources and zon has carefully and consciously developed competitively valuable online

resource capabilities that have proved to be effective substitutes for compet- ing head-to-head against Barnes & Noble's retail stores and those of other brick-and-mortar retailers without having to invest in hundreds of brick- and- mortar retail stores of its own. Whereas many cosmetics companies sell their products through department stores and specialty retailers, Avon and Mary

competencies that effectively substitute for the strengths of the rival.

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position

Kay Cosmetics have substituted for the lack of a retail dealer network by asse mbling a direct sales force numbering in the hundreds of thousands- their sales associates can personally demonstrate products to interested buyers in their homes or at parties, take

orders on the spot, and deliver

the items to buyers' homes. 6


Identifying Company Resource Weaknesses, Missing



et" 've

erc' nci

A resource weakness, or competitive deficiency, is something a company lacks or does

poorly (in comparison to others) or a condition that puts it at a disad vantage in the marketplace. A company's resource weaknesses can relate to (1) inferior or unproven skills, expertise, or intellectual capital in competitively important areas of the busi-

ness; (2) deficiencies in competitively important physical, organizational, or intangible

assets; or (3) missing or competitively

inferior capabilities in key areas. Interna l weak-


are thus shortcomings

in a company s' comp l ement of resources and r epresent

competitive liabilities. Nearly all companies have competitive liabilities of one kind or another. Whether a company's resource weaknesses make it competitively vulnerable depends on how much they matter in the marketplace and whether they are offset by resource strengths that substitute for missing capabilities.

Table 4.2 lists the kinds of factors to consider in compiling a compa-

ny's resource strengths and weaknesses. Sizing up a company's complement of resource capabilities and deficiencies is akin to constructing a strategic balance sheet, where resource strengths represent competitive assets and resource weaknesses represent competitive liabilities. Obviously, the ideal condition is for the company's competitive assets to outweigh its competi-

a 50- 50 balance is definitely not the

tive liabilities by an ample margin- desired condition!


A company 's resource

strengths represent competi- tive assets; its resource weak- nesses represent competitive liabilities.

its resource weak- nesses represent competitive liabilities. y' ternal o s Market opportunity is a big



nesses represent competitive liabilities. y' ternal o s Market opportunity is a big factor in shaping


nesses represent competitive liabilities. y' ternal o s Market opportunity is a big factor in shaping


Market opportunity is a big factor in shaping a company's strategy. Indeed, managers can't properly tailor strategy to the company's situation without first identifying its market opportunities and appraising the growth and profit potential each one holds.

(See Table 4.2, under "Potential Market Opportunities.") Depending on the prevailing circumstances, a company's opportunities can be plentiful or scarce, fleeting or lasting, and can range from wildly attractive (an absolute must to pursue) to marginally inter- esting (because the growth and profit potential are questionable) to unsuitable (because there's not a good match with the company's resource strengths and capabilities). While stunningly big opportunities sometimes appear fairly frequently in volatile, fast-changing markets (typically due to important technological developments or rap- idly shifting consumer preferences) , they are nonetheless hard to see in advance. The more volatile and thus unpredictable that market conditions are, the more limited is

a company's ability to spot important opportunities much ahead of rivals- there are

simply too man y variables in play for managers to peer into the fog of the future, iden- tify one or more upcoming opportunities, and get a jump on rivals in pursuing it. 7 In mature markets, unusually attractive market opportunities emerge sporadically, often after long periods of relative calm. But future market conditions here may be less foggy, thus facilitating good market reconnaissance and making emerging opportunities easier for industry members to detect. But in both volatile and stable markets, the rise of a


Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy

Simply making lists of a company's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is not enough; the payoff from SWOT analysis comes from the conclusions about a company's situation and the implications for strategy improvement that flow from the four lists.

overall situation, and translating these conclusions into strategic actions to bet- ter match the company's strategy to its resource strengths and market oppor- tunities, to correct the important weaknesses, and to defend against external threats. Figure 4.2 shows the three steps of SWOT analysis. Just what story the SWOT listings tell about the company's overall situ- ation is often revealed in the answers to the following sets of questions:

Does the company have an attractive set of resource strengths? Does it have any strong core competencies or a distinctive competence? Are the company's strengths and capabilities well matched to the industry key success factors? Do they add adequate power to the company's strategy,

or are more or different strengths needed? Will the company's current strengths and capabilities matter in the future?

• How serious are the company's weaknesses and competitive deficiencies? Are they mostly inconsequential and readily correctable, or could one or more prove fatal if not remedied soon? Are some of the company's weaknesses in areas that relate to the industry's key success factors? Are there any weaknesses that, if uncorrected,

Figure 4.2

The Three Steps of SWOT Analysis: Identify, Draw Conclusions, Translate into Strategic Action

Identify company resource weaknesses and competitive deficiencies

Identify company


weaknesses and



Identify external threats to the company's future well-being
Identify external
threats to the
company's future

What Can Be Gleaned from the SWOT Listings?

Conclusions concerning the company's overall business situation:

• Where on the scale from " alarmingly weak" to "exceptionally strong" does the attractiveness of the company's situation rank?

• What are the attractive and unattractive aspects of the company's situation?

Implications for improving company strategy:

• Use company strengths and capabilities as cornerstones for strategy.

• Pursue those market opportunities best suited to company strengths and capabilities.

• Correct weaknesses and deficiencies which impair pursuit of important market opportunities or heighten vulnerability to external threats.

• Use company strengths to lessen the impact of important external threats.

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position


would keep the company from pursuing an otherwise attractive opportunity? Does the company have important resource gaps that need to be filled for it to move up in the industry rankings and/or boost its profitability?

• Do the company's resource strengths and competitive capabilities (its competitive assets) outweigh its resource weaknesses and competitive deficiencies (its com- petitive liabilities) by an attractive margin? Does the company have attractive market opportunities that are well suited to its resource strengths and competitive capabilities? Does the company lack the resources and capabilities to pursue any of the most attractive opportunities? Are the threats alarming, or are they something the company appears able to deal with and defend against? All things considered, how strong is the company's overall situation? Where on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is alarmingly weak and lOis exceptionally strong) should the firm's position and overall situation be ranked? What aspects of the company's situation are particularly attractive? What aspects are of the most concern?

The final piece of SWOT analysis is to translate the diagnosis of the company 's situ- ation into actions for improving the company's strategy and business prospects. The following questions point to implications the SWOT listings have for strategic action:

Which competitive capabilities need to be strengthened immediately (so as to add greater power to the company's strategy and boost sales and profitability)? Do new types of competitive capabilities need to be put in place to help the company better respond to emerging industry and competitive conditions? Which resources and capabilities need to be given greater emphasis, and which merit less empha- sis? Should the company emphasize leveraging its existing resource strengths and capabilities, or does it need to create new resource strengths and capabilities? What actions should be taken to reduce the company's competitive liabilities? Which weaknesses or competitive deficiencies are in urgent need of correction? Which market opportunities should be top priority in future strategic initiatives (because they are good fits with the company's resource strengths and competi- tive capabilities, present attractive growth and profit prospects, and/or offer the best potential for securing competitive advantage)? Which opportunities should be ignored, at least for the time being (because they offer less growth potential or are not suited to the company's resources and capabilities)? What should the company be doing to guard against the threats to its well-being?

A company's resource strengths should generally form the cornerstones of strategy because they represent the company's best chance for market success. to As a rule, strat- egies that place heavy demands on areas where the company is weakest or has unproven ability are suspect and should be avoided. If a company doesn't have the resources and competitive capabilities around which to craft an attractive strategy, managers need to take decisive remedial action either to upgrade existing organizational resources and capabilities and add others as needed or to acquire them through partnerships or strategic alliances with firms possessing the needed expertise. Plainly, managers have to look toward correcting competitive weaknesses that make the company vulnerable, hold down profitability, or disqualify it from pursuing an attractive oppOttunity. At the same time, sound strategy making requires sifting through the available mar- ket opportunities and aiming strategy at capturing those that are most attractive and suited to the company's circumstances. Rarely does a company have the resource depth


Part 1

Concept s and Te chnique s for Crafting and Exec uting Strategy

to pursue all available market opportunities simultaneously without spreading itself too thin . How much attention to devote to defending against external threats to the compa- ny's market position and future performance hinges on how vulnerable the company is , whether there are attractive defensive moves that can be taken to lessen their impact, and whether the costs of undertaking such moves represent the best use of company resources.


Company managers are often stunned when a competitor cuts its price to

The higher a company's costs "unbelievably low" levels or when a new market entrant comes on strong with a very low price. The competitor may not, however, be dumping (an

economic term for selling below cost), buying its way into the market with

a superlow price, or waging a desperate move to gain sales- it may simply vulnerable it becomes. have substantially lower costs. One of the most telling signs of whether a company's business position is strong or precarious is whether its prices and costs are competitive with industry rivals. For a company to compete successfully, its

costs must be in lin e with those of close rivals. Price- cost comparisons are espec ially critical in a commodity-product industry where the value provided to buyers is the same from seller to seller, price competition is typically the ruling market force, and lower-cost companies have the upper hand .

But even in industries where products are differentiated and competition centers on the different attributes of competing brands as much as on price, rival companies have to keep their costs in line and make sure that any added costs they incur- and any price premiums they charge-create ample value that buyers are willing to pay extra for. While some cost disparity is justified so long as the products or services of closely competing companies are suffic iently differentiated, a high-cost firm 's market posi-

tion becomes increasingly vulnerable the more its costs

Two analytical tools are particularly useful in determining whether a company's prices and costs are competitive: value chain analysis and benchmarking.

are above those of close

ri vals, th e more competitively

exceed those of close rival s.

The C

th e more competitively exceed those of close rival s. The C V Va P. Every

V Va


competitively exceed those of close rival s. The C V Va P. Every company 's business

Every company 's business consists of a collection of activities undertaken

CORE CONCEPT in the course of designing , producing, marketing, delivering , and supportin g

A company 's value chain its product or service. All of the various activities that a company performs

internally combine to form a value cha in- so called because the underlying intent of a company's activities is to do things that ultimately create value

the related suppo rt activities . for buyers. A company's value chain also includes an allowance for profit because a markup over the cost of performing the firm's value-creating activities is customarily part of the price (or total cost) borne by buyers- unless an enterprise succeeds in creating and delivering sufficient value to buyers to produce an attractive profit, it can't survive for long. As shown in Figure 4.3 (on page 118), a company's value chain consists of two broad categories of activities: (I) the primary activities that are foremost in creating value for customers, (2) and the requisite support activities that facilitate and enhance the performance of the primary activities . 11 For example , the primary value-creating

identifi es t he prim ary activities

that create custome r value and

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position


activities for a maker of bakery goods include supply chain management, recipe devel- opment and testing, mixing and baking, packaging, sales and marketing, and distribu- tion; related support activities include quality control, human resource management, and administration. A wholesaler's primary activities and costs deal with merchandise selection and purchasing, inbound shipping and warehousing from suppliers, and out- bound distribution to retail customers. The primary activities for a department store retailer include merchandise selection and buying, store layout and product display, advertising, and customer service; its support activities include site selection, hiring and training, and store maintenance, plus the usual assortment of administrative activi- ties. A hotel chain 's primary activities and costs are in site selection and construction, reservations, operation of its hotel properties (check-in and check-out, maintenance and housekeeping, dining and room service, and conventions and meetings), and man- aging its lineup of hotel locations; principal support activities include accounting, hir- ing and training hotel staff, advertising, building a brand and reputation, and general administration. Supply chain management is a crucial activity for Nissan , L. L. Bean , and PetSmart but is not a value chain component at Google or Bank of America. Sales and marketing are dominant activities at Procter & Gamble and Sony but have minor roles at oil drilling companies and natural gas pipeline companies. Thus, what con- stitutes primary and secondary activities varies according to the specific nature of a company's business, meaning that you should view the listing of the primary and sup- port activities in Figure 4 .3 as illustrative rather than definitive.

A Company's Primary and Secondary Activities Identify the Major

Components ofIts Cost Structure Segregating a company's operations into dif-

ferent types of primary and secondary activities is the first step in understanding its cost structure. Each activity in the value chain gives rise to costs and ties up assets. Assigning the company's operating costs and assets to each individual activity in the chain provides cost estimates and capital requirements- a process that accountants call activity-based cost accounting. Quite often, there are links between activities such that the manner

in which one activity is done can affect the costs of performing other activities. For

instance, how a product is designed has a huge impact on the number of different parts

and components, their respective manufacturing costs, and the expense of assembly.

The combined costs of all the various activities in a company's value chain define the company's internal cost structure. Further, the cost of each activity contributes

to whether the company's overall cost position relative to rivals is favorable or unfa-

vorable. The tasks of value chain analysis and benchmarking are to develop the data for comparing a company's costs activity-by-activity against the costs of key rivals

and to learn which internal activities are a source of cost advantage or disadvantage.

A company's relative cost position is a function of how the overall costs of the activi-

ties it performs in conducting business compare to the overall costs of the activities performed by rivals .

the overall costs of the activities performed by rivals . a r. f e A company's


r. f e

A company's value chain reflects the evolution of its own particular business and

internal operations, the technology and operating practices it employs, its strategy, the approaches it is using to execute its strategy, and the underlying economics of the activities themselves . 12 Because these factors differ from company to company (even

value chains of rival companies some-

among companies in the same industry) , the

times differ substantially- a condition that complicates the task of assessing rivals'


Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy

Figure 4.3










A Representative Company Value Chain

Activities and Costs \. A Representative Company Value Chain I I I I I Product R&D,
Activities and Costs \. A Representative Company Value Chain I I I I I Product R&D,






Product R&D, Technology, and Systems Development

Human Resources Management

General Administration


• Supply Chain Management-Activities, costs, and assets associated with purchasing fuel, energy, raw materials, parts and components, merchandise, and consumable items from vendors; receiving, storing, and disseminating inputs from suppliers; inspection; and inventory management.

• Operations-Activities, costs, and assets associated with converting inputs into final product form (production, assembly, packaging, equipment maintenance, facilities, operations, quality assurance, environmental protection).

• Distribution-Activities, costs, and assets dealing with physically distributing the product to buyers (finished goods warehousing, order processing, order picking and packing, shipping, delivery vehicle operations, establishing and maintaining a network of dealers and distributors).

• Sales and Marketing-Activities, costs, and assets related to sales force efforts, advertising and promotion, market research and planning, and dealer/distributor support.

• Service-Activities, costs, and assets associated with providing assistance to buyers, such as installation, spare parts delivery, maintenance and repair, technical assistance, buyer inquiries, and complaints.


• Product R&D, Technology, and Systems Development-Activities, costs, and assets relating to product R&D, process R&D, process design improvement, equipment design, computer software development, telecommuni- cations systems, computer-assisted design and engineering, database capabilities, and development of computerized support systems.

• Human Resources Management-Activities, costs, and assets associated with the recruitment, hiring, training, development, and compensation of all types of personnel; labor relations activities; and development of knowledge-based skills and core competencies.

• General Administration-Activities, costs, and assets relating to general management, accounting and finance, legal and regulatory affairs, safety and security, management information systems, forming strategic alliances and collaborating with strategic partners, and other "overhead" functions.

Source : Based on the discussion in Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage (New York : Free Press , 1985). pp. 37--43.

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resource s and Competitive Position


relative cost positions. For instance, music retailers like Blockbuster and F.YE., which purchase CDs from recording studios and wholesale distributors and sell them in their own retail store locations, have different value chains and different cost structures than rival online music stores like Apple's iTunes Store and Yahoo! Music , which se ll downloadable files directly to music shoppers. Competing companies may differ in their degrees of vertical integration. The operations component of the value chain for a manufacturer that makes all of its own parts and components and assembles them into a finished product differs from the operations of a rival producer that buys the needed parts and components from outside suppliers and only performs assembly operations. Likewise, there is legitimate reason to expect value chain and cost differences between a company that is pursuing a low-cost/ low-price strategy and a rival that is positioned on the high end of the market. The costs of certain activities along the low-cost company's va lue chain should indeed be relatively low, whereas the high-end firm may understandably be spe ndin g relatively more to per- form those activities that create the added quality and extra features of its products. Moreover, cost and price differences among rival companies can have their origins in activities performed by suppliers or by distribution channel allies involved in gett in g the product to end users. Suppliers or wholesalelreta il dealers may have excessively high cost structures or profit margins that jeopardize a company's cost-competitive- ness even though its costs for internally performed activities are competitive. For example, when determining Michelin's cost-competitiveness vis-a-vis Goodyear and Bridgestone in supplying replacement tires to vehicle owners, we have to look at more than whether Michelin's tire manufacturing costs are above or below Goodyear's and Bridgestone's. Let's say that a motor vehicle owner looking for a new set of tires has to pay $400 for a set of Michelin tires and only $350 for a set of Goodyear or Bridge-

stone tires. The

$50 difference can stem not on ly from Michelin's higher manufactur-

ing costs (reflecting, perhaps, the added costs of Michelin's strategic efforts to build a

better-quality tire with more performance features) but also from (I) differences in what the three tire makers pay their suppliers for materials and tire-making components, and (2) differences in the operating efficiencies, costs, and markups of Michelin's w hole-

sale- retail dealer outlets versus

those of Goodyear a nd Bridgestone.


As the tire industry example makes clear, a company's va lue chain is embedded in a

larger system of activities that includes the value chains of its supp li ers and the value chains of whatever distribution channel a lli es it uses in getting its product or service to end llsers. 13 Suppliers' value chains are relevant because suppliers perform activities and incur costs in creating and delivering the purchased inputs used in a company's own value-creating activities. The costs, performance features, and qua lity of these inputs influence a company's own costs and product differentiation capabilities.

Anything a company can do to help its supp li e rs drive down the costs of their

value chain activities or improve the quality and performance of the items competitiveness depends not

being supplied can enhance its own competitiveness- a powerful reason for working co ll aboratively with suppliers in managing supp ly chain activities. 14 The value chains of forward channel partners and/or the customers to whom a company sells are relevant because (1) the costs and margins of a company 's distributors and retail dealers are part of the price the ultimate consumer pays, and (2) the activities t hat distribution a lli es perform affect customer satisfaction. For these reasons, companies normally work closely

A company 's cost-

only on the costs of internally performed activities (its own value chain) but also on costs in the value chains of its suppliers and forward channel allies.


Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy

with their forward channel allies (who are their direct customers) to perform value chain activities in mutually beneficial ways. For instance, motor vehicle manufac- turers work closely with their local automobile dealers to keep the retail prices of their vehicles competitive with rivals' models and to ensure that owners are satisfied with dealers' repair and maintenance services. Some aluminum can producers have constructed plants next to beer breweries and deliver cans on overhead conveyors

directly to the breweries' can-filling lines; this has resulted in significant savings in production scheduling, shipping, and inventory costs for both container producers and breweries. IS Many automotive parts suppliers have built plants near the auto

reduce warehousing

and shipping costs, and promote close collaboration on parts design and produc- tion scheduling. Irrigation equipment companies; suppliers of grape-harvesting and winemaking equipment; and firms making barrels, wine bottles, caps, corks, and labels all have facilities in the California wine country to be close to the nearly 700 winemakers they supply.16 The lesson here is that a company's value chain activities are often closely linked to the value chains of their suppliers and the forward allies or customers to whom they sell. As a consequence, accurately assessing a company s competitiveness from the perspective ofthe consumers who ultimately use its products or services thus requires that company managers understand an industlY s entire value chain system for deliv- ering a product or service to customers, not just the company s own value chain. A typical industry value chain that incorporates the value chains of suppl iers and for- ward channel allies (if any) is shown in Figure 4.4. However, industry value chains vary significantly by industry. The primary value chain activities in the pulp and paper industry (timber farming, logging, pulp mills, and papermaking) differ from the pri- mary value chain activities in the home appliance industry (parts and components manufacture, assembly, wholesale distribution, retail sales). The value chain for the soft drink industry (processing of basic ingredients and syrup manufacture, bottling and can filling, wholesale distribution, advertising, and retail merchandising) differs from that for the computer software industry (programming, disk loading, market- ing, distribution). Producers of bathroom and kitchen faucets depend heavily on the activities of wholesale distributors and building supply retailers in winning sales to

assembly plants they supply to facilitate just- in-time de liveries,

Figure 4.4

Representative Value Chain for an Entire Industry

Supplier-Re lated Value Cha ins


costs, and

margins of


A Company's Own Value Chain







Forward Channel

Value Chains

costs, and margins Forward Channel Value Chains Buyer or end-user value chains Source: Based in part

Buyer or


value chains

Source: Based in part on the single-industry value chain displayed in Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage (New York: Free Press , 1985) , p. 35 .

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position



and Competitive Position 121 ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 4.1 The following table presents the representative costs and

The following table presents the representative costs and markups associated with producing and distributing a music CD retailing for $15 in brick-and-mortar music stores.

Value Chain Activities and Costs in Producing and Distributing a CD

1. Record company direct production costs:

Artists and repertoire Pressing of CD and packaging

2. Royalties

3. Record company marketing expenses

4. Record company overhead

5. Total record company costs


7. Record company's selling price to distributor/wholesaler

8. Average

9. Average wholesale price charged to retailer

Record company 's operating profit

wholesale distributor markup to cover distribution activities and profit margins


Average retail

markup over wholesale cost

11. Average price to consumer at retail

















Source: Developed by the authors from information in "F ight the Power," a case study prepared by Adrian Aleyne, Babson College, 1999 and ot her sources.

homebuilders and do-it-yourselfers but producers of papermaking machines internal- ize their distribution activities by selling directly to the operators of paper plants. Illus- tration Capsule 4. I shows representative costs for various activities performed by the producers and marketers of music CDs.

Activity-Based Cost Accounting: ATool for Determining



. ie

Once the major value chain activities are identified, the next step in evaluating a com- pany's cost-competitiveness involves using the company's cost accounting system to

determine the costs of performing specific value chain activities, using what accoun- tants call activity-based costing. l ? Traditional accounting identifies costs according to broad categories of expenses- wages and salaries, employee benefits, supplies, main- tenance, utilities, travel, depreciation, R&D, interest, general administration, and so on. But activity-based cost accounting involves establishing expense categories for specific value chain activities and assigning costs to the activity responsible for creat-

ing the cost. An illustrative example is shown in

companies that have explored the feasibility of activity-based costing have adopted

this accounting approach.

Table 4 .3. Perhaps 25 percent of the


Part 1

Concepts and Technique s for Crafting and Executing Strategy

Table 4.3

The Difference between Traditional Cost Accounting and Activity-Based Cost Accounting: An Example from Air Conditioner Manufacturing

Traditional Cost Accounting Categories for Air Conditioner Manufacturing

Wages and benefits Computers and software

Product transportation

Energy Facility and vehicle rent

Cost of Performing Specific Air Conditioner Manufacturing Activities Using Activity-Based Cost Accounting


Operating production machinery $ 435,400


Maintaining product and customer data Moving parts from warehouse to assembly area





Production-run setup for seven model types 723,300


Production scheduling for seven model types



Receiving and handling raw materials



Shipping finished goods to customers Customer service (communications with customers





concerning design changes and production status) Total costs




Business and training travel Miscellaneous

Depreciation Advertising Office and utilities

Total costs

Source : Developed from information in Heather Nachtmann and Mohammad Hani AI-Rifai, "An Application of Activity Based Costing in the Air Conditioner Manufacturing Industry," Engineering Economics 40 (2004) , pp. 221-36.

The degree to which a company's costs should be disaggregated into specific activities depends on how valuable it is to develop cross-company cost comparisons for narrowly defined activities as opposed to broadly defined activities. Generally speaking, cost estimates are needed at least for each broad category of primary and secondary activities, but finer classifications may be needed if a company discovers that it has a cost disadvantage vis-a-vis rivals and wants to pin down the exact source or activity causing the cost disadvantage. It can also be necessary to develop cost estimates for activities performed in the competitively relevant portions of suppliers' and customers' value chains- which requires going to outside sources for reliable cost information. Once a company has developed good cost estimates for each of the major activ- ities in its value chain and perhaps has cost estimates for subactivities within each primary/secondary value chain activity, then it is ready to see how its costs for these activities compare with the costs of rival firms . This is where benchmarking comes 111.

enchmarking: ATool for Assessing Whether a Company's

enchmarking: ATool for Assessing Whether a Company's Valu CORE C ONCEPT Benchmarking is a potent tool



Benchmarking is a potent

tool for learning which compa- nies are best at performing par- ticular activities and then using their techniques (or best prac- tices) to improve the cost and effectiveness of a company's own internal activities.




Many companies today are benchmarking their costs of performing a given activity against competitors' costs (and/or against the costs of a noncom- petitor that efficiently and effectively performs much the same activity in

another industry). Benchmarking is a tool that allows a company to deter- mine whether the manner in which it pel/arms particular fimctions and activities represents industry "best practices" when both cost and effective- ness are taken into account.

Benchmarking entails comparing how different companies perform various value chain activities- how materials are purchased, how suppliers are paid, how inventories are managed, how products are assembled, how fast the company can get new products to market, how the quality control

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company 's Resources and Competitive Position


function is performed, how customer orders are filled and shipped, how employees are trained, how payrolls are processed, and how maintenance is performed-and then making cross-company comparisons of the costs of these activities. 18 The objec- tives of benchmarking are to identify the best practices in performing an activity, to learn how other companies have actually achieved lower costs or better results in performing benchmarked activities, and to take action to improve a company's com- petitiveness whenever benchmarking reveals that its costs and results of performing an activity are not on a par with what other companies (either competitors or non- competitors) have achieved. Xerox became one of the first companies to use benchmarking when, in 1979, Japanese manufacturers began selling midsize copiers in the United States for $9,600

each- less than Xerox's production costs. 19 Xerox management suspected its Japanese

competitors were dumping, but it sent a team of line managers to Japan , including the head of manufacturing, to study competitors' business processes and costs. With the aid of Xerox's joint venture partner in Japan, Fuji-Xerox, who knew the competitors well, the team found that Xerox's costs were excessive due to gross inefficiencies in the company's manufacturing processes and business practices. The findings triggered a major internal effort at Xerox to become cost-competitive and prompted Xerox to begin benchmarking 67 of its key work processes against companies identified as employing the best practices . Xerox quickly decided not to restrict its benchmark- ing efforts to its office equipment rivals but to extend them to any company regarded as "world class" in performing any activity relevant to Xerox's business. Other com- panies quickly picked up on Xerox 's approach. Toyota managers got their idea for just-in-time inventory deliveries by studying how U.S. supermarkets replenished their shelves. Southwest Airlines reduced the turnaround time of its aircraft at each sched- uled stop by studying pit crews on the auto racing circuit. Over 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies reportedly use benchmarking for comparing themselves against rivals on cost and other competitively important measures. The tough part of benchmarking is not whether to do it, but rather how

to gain access to information about other companies' practices and costs. Benchmarking the costs of

Sometimes benchmarking can be accomplished by collecting information

from published reports, trade groups, and industry research firms and by rivals provides hard evidence

talking to knowledgeable industry analysts, customers, and suppliers. Some-

times field trips to the facilities of competing or noncompeting companies cost-competitive . can be arranged to observe how things are done, compare practices and pro- cesses, and perhaps exchange data on productivity and other cost compo- nents. However, such companies, even if they agree to host facilities tours and answer

questions, are unlikely to share competitively sensitive cost information . Furthermore, comparing one company's costs to another's costs may not involve comparing apples to apples if the two companies employ different cost accounting principles to calculate the costs of particular activities. However, a third and fairly reliable source of benchmarking information has emerged. The explosive interest of companies in benchmarking costs and identifying

best practices has prompted consulting organizations (e.g. , Accenture , A. T. Kearney,

The Benchmarking Exchange, Towers Perrin, and Best Practices, LLC) and several councils and associations (e .g. , APQC, the Qualserve Benchmarking Clearinghouse, and the Strategic Planning Institute's Council on Benchmarking) to gather benchmark- ing data, distribute information about best practices, and provide comparative cost data without identifying the names of particular companies. Independent reporting that disguises the names of individual companies protects competitively sensitive data

company activities against

of whether a company is

the names of individual companies protects competitively sensitive data company activities against of whether a company


Part 1

C o nc epts and Tec hniqu es fo r Crahin g and Exec uting Strategy

124 Part 1 C o nc epts and Tec hniqu es fo r Crahin g and



Because discussions between benchmarking partners can involve competitively sensitive data, conceivably raising questions about possible restraint of trade or improper business conduct, many benchmarking organizations urge all individuals and organizations involved in benchmarking

to abide by a code

behavior. One of the most widely used codes of co nduct is the one developed by APQC (formerly the American Productivity and Quality Center) and advocated by the Qualserve Benchmarking Clearinghouse ; it is based on the following principles and guidelines:

• Avoid discussions or actions that could lead to or imply an interest in restraint of trade, market and/or customer allocation schemes, price fixing, dealing arrangements, bid rigging, or bribery. Don 't discuss costs with com- petitors if costs are an element of pricing.

• Refrain from the acquisition of trade secrets from another by any means that could be interpreted as improper, including the breach of any duty to maintain secrecy. Do not disclose or use any trade secret that may have been obtained through improper means or that was di sclosed by another in violation of duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.

• Be willing to provide your benchmarking partner with the same type and level of information that you request from that partner.

• Communicate fully and early in the relationship to clar- ify expectations, avoid misunderstanding, and establish mutual interest in the benchmarking exchange.

• Be honest and complete.

• The use or communication of a benchmarking partner's name with the data obtained or practices observed requires the prior permission of the benchmarking partner.

of conduct g rounded in et hical business

• Honor the wishes of benchmarking partners regarding bow the information that is provided will be handled and used.


example, "We don ' t want to

ta lk about things that will give either of us a competi-

tive advantage, but rather we want to see where we both can mutually improve or gain benefit."

• Check with legal counsel if any information gathering procedure is in doubt. If uncomfortable, do not proceed. Alternatively, negotiate and sign a specific nondisclo- sure agreement that will satisfy the attorneys represent- ing each partner.

• Do not ask competitors for sensitive data or cause benchmark ing partners to feel they must provide data to continue the process.

• Use an ethical third party to assemble and "blind" com- petitive data, with inputs from legal counsel in direct competitor sharing. (Note: When cost is closely linked to price, sharing cost data can be considered to be the same as sharing price data.)

• Any information obtained from a benchmarking part- ner shou ld be treated as internal , privileged communi- cations. If "confidential" or proprietary material is to be exchanged, then a specific agreement should be exe- cuted to specify the content of the material that needs to be protected, thc duration of the period of protection , the conditions for permitting access to the material , and the specific handli ng requirements necessary for that materia l.

• In benchmarking with competitors, establ ish

ground rules up front. For

So urce: APQC, www.apqc org . a nd th e Qual se rve

Benc hm arkin g Clea rin gho use. www.awwa.org (accessed April 30. 200 8) .

and lessens the potential for unethical behavior on the part of company personnel in gathering their own data about competitors. Illustration Capsule 4.2 presents a widely recommended code of conduct for engaging in benchmarking.


Value chain analysis and benchmarking can reveal a great deal about a firm 's cost- competitiveness. Examining the costs of a company's own value chain activities and comparing them to rivals ' indicates who has how much of a cost advantage or

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position


disadvantage and which cost components are responsible, Such information is vital in strategic actions to eliminate a cost disadvantage or create a cost advantage. One of the fundamental insights of value chain analysis and benchmarking is that a co mpany 's

competitiven ess

ties relative to how well competitors manage theirs. 2o

on cost depends on how efficiently it manages its value chain activi-

There are three main areas in a

company's overall value chain where important differences in the costs of competing firms can occur: a company's own activity segments, suppliers' part of the industry value chain, and the forward channel portion of the industry chain.

Remedying an Internal Cost Disadvantage

When a company's cost disad-

vantage stems from performing internal value chain activities at a higher cost than key rivals, managers can pursue any of several strategic approaches to restore cost


1. Implement the use of best practices throughout the company, particul arly for high- cost activities.

2. Try to eliminate some cost-producing activities altogether by revamping the value chain. Examples include cutting out low-value-added activities or bypassing the value chains and associated costs of distribution allies and marketing directly to end users (the approach used by Dell in pes and by airlines that encourage pas- sengers to purchase tickets directly from airline Web sites instead of from travel agents).

3. Relocate high-cost activities (e.g., manufacturing) to geographic areas (e.g., Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe) where they can be performed more cheaply.

4. See if certain internally performed activities can be outsourced from vendors or performed by contractors more cheaply than they can be done in-house.

5. Invest in productivity-enhancing, cost-saving technological improvements (robot- ics, flexible manufacturing techniques, state-of-the-art electronic networking).

6. Find ways to detour around the activities or items where costs are high- computer chip makers regularly design around the patents held by others to avoid paying royalties; automakers have substituted lower-cost plastic and rubber for metal at many exterior body locations.

7. Redesign the product and/or some of its components to facilitate speedier and more economical manufacture or assembly.

8. Try to make up the internal cost disadvantage by reducing costs in the supplier or forward channel portions of the industry value chain- usually a last resort.

Supplier-related cost


lower-priced substitute inputs, and collaborating closely with suppliers to identify mutual cost-saving opportunities. 22 For example, just-in-time deliveries from suppli- ers can lower a company's inventory and internal logistics costs and may also allow its suppliers to economize on their warehousing, shipping, and production scheduling costs-a win- win outcome for both. In a few instances, companies may find that it is cheaper to integrate backward into the business of high-cost suppliers and make the item in-house instead of buying it from outsiders. If a company strikes Ollt in wringing savings out of its high-cost supply chain activities, then it must resort to finding cost savings either in-house or in the forward channel portion of the industry value chain to offset its suppl ier-related cost disadvantage.

Remedying a Supplier-Related Cost Disadvantage

can be attacked by pressuring suppliers for lower prices, sw itching to


Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy

Remedying a Cost Disadvantage Associated with Activities Performed

by Forward Channel Allies There are three main ways to combat a cost disad- vantage in the forward portion of the industry value chain:

1. Pressure dealer-distributors and other forward channel allies to reduce their costs and markups so as to make the final price to buyers more competitive with the prices of rivals.

2. Work closely with forward channel allies to identify win- win opportunities to reduce costs. For example, a chocolate manufacturer learned that by shipping its bulk chocolate in liquid form in tank cars instead of IO-pound molded bars, it could not only save its candy-bar-manufacturing customers the costs associated with unpacking and melting but also eliminate its own costs of molding bars and packing them.

3. Change to a more economical distribution strategy, including switching to cheaper distribution channels (perhaps direct sales via the Internet) or perhaps integrating forward into company-owned retail outlets.

If these efforts fail, the company can either try to Iive with the cost disadvantage or pursue cost-cutting earlier in the value chain system.

Translating Proficient Performance of Value Chain Activ' .

Proficient Performance of Value Chain Activ' . A company that does a first-rate job of managing

A company that does a first-rate job of managing its value chain activi- Performing value chain ties relative to competitors stands a good chance of achieving sustainable activities in ways that give competitive advantage. As shown in Figure 4.5, a company can outmanage a company the capabilities rivals in performing va lu e chain activities in either or both of two ways: (I) to either outmatch the by astutely developing core competencies and maybe a distinctive compe- competencies and capabilities tence that rivals don't have or can't quite match and that are instrumental in

of ri vals or else beat them on helping it deliver attractive value to customers, and / or (2) by simply doing costs are two good ways to an overall better job than rivals of lowering its combined costs of perform-

secure competitive advantage .

various value chain activities, such that it ends up with a low-cost

ing all the

advantage over rivals. The first of these two approaches begins with management efforts to build more organizational expertise in performing certain competitive ly important value chain activities, deliberately striving to develop competencies and capabilities that add power to its strategy and competitiveness. If management begins to make selected competencies and capabilities cornerstones of its strategy and continues to invest resources in building greater and greater proficiency in performing them, then one (or maybe several) of the targeted competencies/capabilities may rise to the level of a core competence. Later, following additional organizational learning and investments in gaining still greater proficiency, a core competence could evolve into a distinctive competence, g iving the company superiority over rivals in performing an important value chain activity. Such superiority, if it gives the company significant competitive clout in the marketplace, can produce an attractive competitive edge over rivals and, more important, prove difficult for rivals to match or offset with competencies and

capabilities of their own making. As a general rule, it is substantial(v harder for rivals to achieve "best in industlJi" proficiency in peliorming a key value chain activity than it is for them to clone thefeatures and attributes of a hot-selling product or service.23

This is especially true when a company w ith a distinctive competence avoids becoming

Figure 4.5

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position


Translating Company Performance of Value Chain Activities into Competitive Advantage

Option 1: Beat rivals in performing value chain activities more proficiently

Company Company proficiency in gains a performing Company competitive one or two performs advantage value
proficiency in
gains a
one or two
value chain
activities in
based on
its value
rises to the
level of a
Option 2: Beat rivals in performing value chain activities more cheaply
The goal
becomes to
gains a
activities in
its value
based on
no value
lower costs
than rivals
Is Ignored

complacent and works diligently to maintain its industry-leading expertise and capabil- ity. GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world's most competitively capable pharmaceutical companies, has built its business position around expert performance of a few com- petitively crucial activities: extensive R&D to achieve first discovery of new drugs, a carefully constructed approach to patenting, ski ll in gaining rapid and thorough clinical clearance through regulatory bodies, and unusually strong distribution and sales-force

of its value chain has produced unmatched

capabilities. 24 FedEx's astute management

competencies and capabilities in overnight package delivery. The second approach to building competitive advantage entails determined manage- ment efforts to be cost-efficient in performing value chain activities. Such efforts have to be ongoing and persistent, and they have to involve each and every value chain activity.

The goal must be continuous cost reduction, not a one-time or on-againloff-again effort.


Part 1

Co nce pt s and Tec hniques fo r C rafting and Exec utin g Strategy

Companies whose managers are truly committed to low-cost performance of value chain activities and succeed in engaging company personnel to discover innovative ways to drive costs out of the business have a real chance of gaining a durable low-cost edge over rivals. It is not as easy as it seems to imitate a company's low-cost practices. Compa- nies like Wal-Mart, Dell, Nucor Steel, Southwest Airlines, Toyota, and French discount retailer Carrefour have been highly successful in managing their value chains in a low- cost manner.


Using value chain analysis and benchmarking to determine a company's competitive- ness on price and cost is necessary but not sufficient. A more comprehensive assess- ment needs to be made of the company's overall competitive strength. The answers to two questions are of particular interest: First, how does the company rank relative to competitors on each of the important factors that determine market success? Second, all things considered, does the company have a net competitive advantage or disadvan- tage versus major competitors? An easy-to-use method for answering the two questions posed above involves developing quantitative strength ratings for the company and its key competitors on each industry key success factor and each competitively pivotal resource capability. Much of the information needed for doing a competitive strength assessment comes from previous analyses. Industry and competitive analysis reveals the key success fac- tors and competitive capabilities that separate industry winners from losers. Bench- marking data and scouting key competitors provide a basis for judging the competitive

strength of rivals on such factors as cost, key product attributes, customer service, image and reputation, financial strength, technological skills, distribution capability, and other competitively important resources and capabilities. SWOT analysis reveals how the company in question stacks up on these same strength measures .

industry 's

key success factors and most telling measures of competitive strength or weakness (6 to 10 measures usually suffice). Step 2 is to rate the firm and its rivals on each factor. Numerical rating scales (e.g., from I to 10) are best to use, although ratings of stronger ( + ), weaker ( - ), and about equal (=) may be appropriate when information is scanty and assigning numerical scores conveys false precision . Step 3 is to sum the strength ratings on each factor to get an overall measure of competitive strength for each company being rated. Step 4 is to use the overall strength ratings to draw conclu- sions about the size and extent of the company's net competitive advantage or disad- vantage and to take specific note of areas of strength and weakness. Table 4.4 provides two examples of competitive strength assessment, using the hypothetical ABC Company against four rivals. The first example employs an unweighted rating system. With unweighted ratings, each key success factor/competi- tive strength measure is assumed to be equally important (a rather dubious assump- tion). Whichever company has the highest strength rating on a given measure has an implied competitive edge on that factor ; the size of its edge is mirrored in the margin of difference between its rating and the ratings assigned to rivals- a rating of 9 for one company versus ratings of 5, 4, and 3, respectively, for three other companies indicates a bigger advantage than a rating of 9 versus ratings of 8, 7, and 6. Summing a

Step I in doing a competitive strength assessment is to make a list of the

Table 4.4

Illustrations of Unweighted and Weighted Competitive Strength Assessments

A. Sample of an Unweighted Competitive Strength Assessment

Key Success Factor/Strength Measure


Strength Rating (Scale: 1 = Very weak; 10 = Very strong)

Rival 1

Rival 2

Rival 3

Rival 4

Quality/product performance










Manufacturing capability





Technological skills





Dealer network/distribution capability





New product innovation capability





Financial resou rces





Relative cost position





Customer service capabilities






Unweighted overall strength rating






overall strength rating 61 58 71 25 32 Quality/product performance 0.10 8 0 . 8 0





0 .80








Rep utation/im age











0 .60

Manufacturing capab ility



0.2 0









Technological skills











Dealer network/distribution capability











New product innovation capability











Financ ial resources







0 .70




Re lative cost position











Customer service capabilities











Sum of importance weights


Weighted overall

strength rating















Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy

company's ratings on all the measures produces an overall strength rating. The higher a company's overall strength rating, the stronger its overall competitiveness versus rivals. The bigger the difference between a company's overall rating and the scores of lower- rated rivals, the greater its implied net competitive advantage. Conversely, the bigger the difference between a company's overall rating and the scores of higher-rated rivals, the greater its implied net competitive disadvantage. Thus, ABC's total score of61 (see the top half of Table 4.4) signals a much greater net competitive advantage over Rival 4 (with a score of 32) than over Rival I (with a score of 58) but indicates a moderate net competitive disadvantage against Rival 2 (with an overall score of71). However, a better method is a greater net competitive advantage over Rival 4 (with a score of 32) than over Rival I weighted rating system (shown in the

A weighted competitive bottom half of Table 4.4) because the different measures of competitive strength analysis is strength are unlikely to be equally important. In an industry where the prod-

conceptually stronger than an ucts/services of rivals are virtually identical, for instance, having low unit unweighted analysis because costs relative to rivals is nearly always the most important determinant of


the inherent weakness competitive strength. In an industry with strong product differentiation, the


assuming that all the most significant measures of competitive strength may be brand awareness,

strength measures are equally


amount of advertising, product attractiveness, and distribution capability.

In a weighted rating system, each measure of competitive strength is assigned

a weight based on its perceived importance in shaping competitive success.

A weight could be as high as 0.75 (maybe even higher) in situations where

one particular competitive variable is overwhelmingly decisive , or a weight could be as low as 0.20 when two or three strength measures are more important than the rest. Lesser competitive strength indicators can carry weights of 0.05 or 0.10. No matter whether the differences between the importance weights are big or little, the sum ofthe

weights must add up to

1. O.

Weighted strength ratings are calculated by rating each competitor on each strength measure (using the 1 to 10 rating scale) and multiplying the assigned rating by the assigned weight (a rating of4 times a weight of 0.20 gives a weighted rating, or score, of 0.80). Again, the company with the highest rating on a given measure has an implied competitive edge on that measure, with the size of its edge reflected in the dif- ference between its rating and rivals' ratings. The weight attached to the measure indi- cates how important the edge is. Summing a company's weighted strength ratings for all the measures yields an overall strength rating. Comparisons of the weighted overall strength scores indicate which competitors are in the strongest and weakest competi- tive positions and who has how big a net competitive advantage over whom. Note in Table 4.4 that the unweighted and weighted rating schemes produce different orderings of the companies. In the weighted system, ABC Company drops from second to third in strength, and Rival 1 jumps from third into first because of its high strength ratings on the two most important factors. Weighting the importance of the strength measures can thus make a significant difference in the outcome of the assessment.

High competitive strength ratings signal a strong competitive position and possession of competitive advantage; low ratings signal a weak position and competitive disadvantage.

e s

Competitive strength assessments provide useful conclusions about a com- pany's competitive situation. The ratings show how a company compares against rivals, factor by factor or capability by capability, thus revealing where it is strongest and weakest, and against whom. Moreover, the over- all competitive strength scores indicate how all the different factors add up-w hether the company is at a net competitive advantage or disadvantage against each rival. The firm with the largest overall competitive strength

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position


rating enjoys the strongest competitive position, with the size of its net competitive advantage reflected by how much its score exceeds the scores of rivals. In addition, the strength ratings provide guidelines for designing wise offensive and

defensive strategies. For example, consider the ratings and weighted scores in the bot-

tom half of Table 4.4. If ABC Co.

and market share, such an offensive probably needs to be aimed directly at winning customers away from Rivals 3 and 4 (which have lower overall strength scores) rather than Rivals I and 2 (which have higher overall strength scores). Moreover, while ABC

has high ratings for technological skills (a 10 rating), dealer network/distribution capa- bility (a 9 rating), new product innovation capability (a 9 rating), quality/product perfor- mance (an 8 rating), and reputation/image (an 8 rating), these strength measures have low importance weights- meaning that ABC has strengths in areas that don't translate into much competitive clout in the marketplace. Even so, it outclasses Rival 3 in all five areas, plus it enjoys lower costs than Rival 3 (ABC has a 5 rating on relative cost posi- tion versus a I rating for Rival 3)-and relative cost position carries the highest impor- tance weight of all the strength measures. ABC also has greater competitive strength than Rival 3 as concerns customer service capabilities (which carries the second-highest importance weight). Hence, because ABC's strengths are in the very areas where Rival 3 is weak, ABC is in good position to attack Rival 3- it may well be able to persuade a number of Rival 3 's customers to switch their purchases over to ABC's product.

wants to go on the offensive to win additional sales

But in mounting an offensive to win customers away from Rival 3, ABC should note that Rival 1 has an excellent relative cost position- its rating of 10, combined with the importance weight of 0.30 for relative cost, means that Rival 1 has meaningfully lower costs in an industry where low costs are

competitively important. Rival 1 is thus strongly positioned to retaliate against rivals and point d irectly

against ABC with lower prices if ABC's strategy offensive ends up drawing customers away from Rival I . Moreover, Rival 1's very strong relative cost position vis-a-vis all the other companies arms it with the ability to use its lower-cost advantage to underprice all of its rivals and gain sales and market share at their expense. If ABC wants to defend against its vulnerability to

potential price-cutting by Rival I , then it needs to aim a portion of its strat- egy at lowering its costs. The point here is that a competitively astute company should use the strength scores in deciding what strategic moves to make- what strengths to exploit in winning business away from rivals and which competitive weaknesses to try to correct. When a company has important competitive strengths in areas where one or more rivals are weak, it makes sense to consider offensive moves to exploit rivals' competitive weaknesses. When a company has important competitive weaknesses in areas where one or more rivals are strong, it makes sense to consider defensive moves to curtail its vulnerability.

A company 's competitive strength scores pinpoint its strengths and weaknesses

to the kinds of offensive/ defensive actions it can us e to exploit its competitive strengths and reduce its competitive vulnerabil ities .


The final and most important analytical step is to zero in on exactly what strategic issues that company managers need to address- and resolve- for the company to be more financially and competitively successful in the years ahead. This step involves


Part 1

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy

Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy drawing on the results of both industry and

drawing on the results of both industry and competitive analysis and the

evaluations of the company's own competitiveness. The task here is to get a clear fix on exactly what strategic and competitive challenges confront the company, which of the company's competitive shortcomings need fixing, what obstacles stand in the way of improving the company's competitive position in the marketplace, and what specific problems merit front-burner attention by company managers. Pinpointing the precise things that man- agement needs to worry about sets the agenda jar deciding what actions to take next to improve the company:S performance and business outlook.

The "worry list" of issues and problems that have to be wrestled with can include such things as how to stave off market challenges from new foreign competitors, how to combat the price discounting of rivals, how to reduce the company's high costs and pave the way for price reductions, how to sus- tain the company's present rate of growth in light of slowing buyer demand,

strategic issues and problems whether to expand the company's product line, whether to correct the com- that merit front-burner pany's competitive deficiencies by acquiring a rival company with the miss- management attention. ing strengths, whether to expand into foreign markets rapidly or cautiously, whether to reposition the company and move to a different strategic group, what to do about growing buyer interest in substitute products, and what to do to combat the aging demographics of the company's customer base. The worry

Actually deciding upon a strategy and what specific actions to take is what comes after developing the list of

Zeroing in on the strategic issues a company faces and compiling a "worry list" of problems and roadblocks creates a strategic agenda of problems that merit prompt managerial attention.

agenda of problems that merit prompt managerial attention. ," purpose of the worry list is to


purpose of the worry list is to identify the specific issues/

problems that management needs to address, not to figure out what specific actions to take. Deciding what to do- which strategic actions to take and which strategic moves

to take- comes later (when it is time to craft the strategy and choose among the various strategic alternatives). If the items on the worry list are relatively minor- which suggests the

strategic issues and obstacles company's strategy is mostly on track and reasonably well matched to the that stand in the way of the company's overall situation, company managers seldom need to go much

beyond fine-tuning of the present strategy. If, however, the issues and prob- lems confronting the company are serious and indicate the present strategy is not well suited for the road ahead, the task of crafting a better strategy has got to go to the top of management's action agenda.

company's financial and competitive success in the years ahead.

A good strategy must contain ways to deal with all the

list thus always centers on such concerns as "how to

and "whether to


," "what to do about

and "whether to "-the ," "what to do about KEY POINTS There are five key questions


There are five key questions to consider in analyzing a company's own particular com- petitive circumstances and its competitive position vis-a-vis key rivals:

1. How well is the present strategy working? This involves evaluating the strategy from a qualitative standpoint (completeness, internal consistency, rationale, and suitability to the situation) and also from a quantitative standpoint (the strategic and financial results the strategy is producing). The stronger a company's current over- all performance, the less Iikely the need for radical strategy changes. The weaker a company's performance and/or the faster the changes in its external situation

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position

(which can be gleaned from industry and competitive analysis), the more its current strategy must be questioned.

2. What ar e th e c ompan y 50 r e sour c e strengths and weaknesses, and its external

opportunities and threats ? A SWOT analysis provides an overview of a firm 's

situation and is an essential component of crafting a strategy tightly matched to the company's situation. The two most important parts of SWOT analysis are


nesses, opportunities, and threats tells about the company's overall situation, and (2) acting on those conclusions to better match the company's strategy to its resource strengths and market opportunities, to correct the important weaknesses, and to defend against external threats. A company's resource strengths, competen- cies, and competitive capabilities are strategically relevant because they are the most logical and appealing building blocks for strategy; resource weaknesses are important because they may represent vulnerabilities that need correction. Exter- nal opportunities and threats come into play because a good strategy necessar- ily aims at capturing a company's most attractive opportunities and at defending against threats to its well-being.

whether a

of strengths, weak-

drawing conclusions

about what story the compi lation

3. Ar e the compan y 50 prices and costs competitive ? One telling sign of

company's situation is strong or precarious is whether its prices and costs are com- petitive with those of industry rivals. Value chain analysis and benchmarking are essential tools in determining whether the company is performing particular func- tions and activities cost-effectively, learning whether its costs are in line with com-

petitors, and deciding which internal activities and business processes need to be scrutinized for improvement. Value chain analysis teaches that how competently a company manages its value chain activities relative to rivals is a key to building a competitive advantage based on either better competencies and competitive capa- bilities or lower costs than rivals.

4. Is the company competitively stronger or weaker than key rivals? The key apprais-

als here involve how the company matches up against key rivals on industry key success factors and other chief determinants of competitive success and whether and why the company has a competitive advantage or disadvantage. Quantita- tive competitive strength assessments, using the method presented in Table 4.4, indicate where a company is competitively strong and weak, and provide insight into the company 's ability to defend or enhance its market position. As a rule a company's competitive strategy should be built around its competitive strengths and should aim at shoring up areas where it is competitively vulnerable. When a company has important competitive strengths in areas where one or more rivals are weak, it makes sense to consider offensive moves to exploit rivals' competi- tive weaknesses. When a company has important competitive weaknesses in areas where one or more rivals are strong, it makes sense to consider defensive moves to curtail its vulnerability.

5. What strategic

issues and problems merit front-burner managerial attention? This

analytical step zeros in on the strategic issues and problems that stand in the way

of the company's success. It involves using the results of both industry and com- petitive analysis and company situation analysis to identify a "worry list" of issues to be resolved for the company to be financially and competitively successful in


"what to do about

"- the purpose of the worry list is to

the years ahead. The worry list always centers on such concerns as " how to

," and "whether to

identify the specific issues/problems that management needs to address. Actually

Part 1


and Techniques for Crafting and Exec uting Strategy

deciding on a strategy and what specific actions to take is what comes after the list of strategic issues and problems that merit front-burner management attention is


Good company situation analysis, like good industry and competitive analysis, is a valuable precondition for good strategy making. A competently done evaluation of

a company's resource capabilities and competitive strengths exposes strong and weak points in the present strategy and how attractive or unattractive the company's com- petitive position is and why. Managers need such understanding to craft a strategy that is well suited to the company's competitive circumstances.


1. Review the information in Illustration Capsule 4.1 concerning the costs of the different value chain activities associated with recording and distributing music CDs through traditional brick-and-mortar retail outlets. Then answer the follow- ing questions:

a. Does the growing popularity of downloading music from the Internet give rise to a new music industry value chain that differs considerably from the traditional value chain? Explain why or why not.

b. What costs would be cut out of the traditional value chain or bypassed in the event recording studios sell downloadable files of artists' recordings direct to online buyers?

c. What happens to the traditional value chain if more and more consumers use peer-to-peer file-sharing software to download music from the Internet rather than purchase CDs or downloadable files?

4. 1 and the financial statement information for

Avon Products below, calculate the following ratios for Avon for both 2006 and

2. Using the information in Table


a. Gross profit margin

b. Operating profit margin

c. Net profit margin

d. Times-interest-earned (coverage) ratio

e. Return on shareholders' equity

f. Return on assets

g. Debt-to-equity ratio

h. Long-term debt-to-capital ratio

i. Days of inventory

j. Inventory turnover ratio

k. Average collection period

Based on these ratios, did Avon's financial performance improve, weaken, or remain about the same from 2006 to 20077

Chapter 4

Evaluating a Company's Resources and Competitive Position

Consolidated Statements of Income for Avon Products,

Inc., 2006-2007 (in millions, except per share data)

Years ended December 31




Total revenue

$ 9,938.7

$ 8,763.9

Costs, expenses and other:


Cost of sales



Selling, general, and administrative expenses



Operating profit



Interest expense





(42 .2)

(55 .3)

Other expense, net



Total other expenses



Income before taxes and minority interest



Income taxes



Income before minority interest



Minority interest



Net income

$ 530.7

$ 477.6

Earnings per share:



$ 1.22

$ 1.07


$ 1.21

$ 1.06

Weighted-average shares outstanding:








Consolidated Balance Sheets for Avon Products, Inc.

(in millions. except per share data)

Years ended December 31






Current assets Cash, including cash equivalents of $492.3 and $825.1 Accounts receivable (less allowances of $141 .1 and $119.1) Inventories




$ 1,198.9





Prepaid expenses and other Total current assets







Part 1

C oncept s and Tec hn iqu es

for Crafting and Exec utin g Strategy

Years ended December 31



Property, plant and equipment, at cost Land Buildings and improvements Equipment






65 .3









Less accumulated depreciation


(1 ,084.2)

(1 ,012 .1)




Other assets


922 .6


Total assets



5,716 .2

$ 5,238.2

Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity

Current liabilities Debt maturing within one year Accounts payable Accrued liabilities Income taxes Total current liabilities Long-term debt Other liabilities (including minority interest of $38.2 and $37.0) Total liabilities








1,221 .3





2,525 .2




751 .9



$ 4,447.8

Shareholders' Equity


Common stock, par value $0.25 -

authorized 1,500




shares; issued 736.3 and 732.7 shares


Additional paid-in capital Retained earnings Accumulated other comprehensive loss




1,549 .8


3,396 .8



Treasury stock, at cost-308.6 and 291.4 shares

(4 ,367.2)

(3 ,683.4)


shareholders' equity






liabilities and shareholders' equity



$ 5,238 .2

Source: Avon Products Inc. 2007 10-K.


1. What hard evidence can you cite that indicates your company's strategy is working fairly well (or perhaps not working so well , if your company's performance is lag- ging that of rival companies)?

2. What resource strengths and resource weaknesses does your company have? What external market opportunities for growth and increased profitability exist for your company? What external threats to your company 's future well-being and profitability do you and your co-managers see? What does the preceding SWOT