Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
at Apple Inc.
research
56
Quantum physics
A key aspect of Apples strategy is the
ability to balance intense efficiency in
operations (in f act the highest
efficiency levels in its peer group) with
outstanding serial innovation and
addictive product design, both of
which command premium pricing and
redefine markets. This combination
defies conventional wisdom, which
maintains that if a companys
competitive advantage is based on
intense efficiency and value, it wont
invest beyond whats necessary in
innovation, design or service, and in
fact will strive to cut costs everywhere
along its value chain so as to align
these elements with its strategy.
Conversely, conventional wisdom
holds that a company competing on
innovation, outstanding design or
service excellence will not be able to
reach intense levels of efficiency since
these capabilities are costly to develop
and maintain.
Apple has accomplished serial
innovation and outstanding design
in terms of its offerings and its
own business model, as well as
simultaneous cost leadership, having
become more eff icient than the
traditional cost leader, Dell.
Apple has achieved what might be
seen as the holy grail of strategy, and
www.wbs.ac.uk | core | 57
research
58
Cooks controls
Indicators of differentiation
Indicators of efficiency
Innovation is only
one part of Apples
quantum strategy.
What is harder to
understand, is how all
this can be done at a
level of efficiency that
is superior to that of
the traditional cost
leader, Dell
It was celebrated as Americas most
innovative company by Business Week
for seven consecutive years (2005 2011) and has topped Fortunes
worlds most admired companies for
the fourth year in a row (2008 - 2011).
Apples design prowess, and ability
to seamlessly integrate hardware and
software while attracting the best
people, is widely recognised.
Apples approach to differentiation
is exemplary. It focuses on developing
innovation capability through having
the best people and pushing them
Resources
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C.
2004. Building ambidexterity
into an organisation. MIT
Sloan Management Review,
Summer: 47-55
Burrows, P. 2000. Yes,
Steve, you fixed it. Congrats!
Now whats act two? Business
Week, July 31st.
Heracleous, L. & Wirtz, J.
2010. Singapore Airlines
balancing act. Harvard
Business Review, July-August:
145-149.
Markides, C. and Charitou,
C. D. 2004. Competing with
dual business models: A
contingency approach.
Academy of Management
Executive, 18(3): 22-36.
Miller, D. 1988. Relating
Porters business strategies
to environment and structure:
Analysis and performance
implications. Academy of
Management Journal, 31:
280-308.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H.
1986a. Porters (1980) generic
strategies and performance:
An empirical examination
with American data. Part I:
Testing Porter. Organisation
Studies, 7: 37-55.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H.
1986b. Porters (1980) generic
strategies and performance:
An empirical examination
with American data. Part II:
Performance implications.
Organisation Studies, 7:
255-261.
OReilly, C. A. and Tushman,
M. L. 2004, The ambidextrous
organisation, Harvard
Business Review, April: 2-9.
Porter, M. 1980. Competitive
strategy. NY: Free Press.
Porter, M. 1985. Competitive
advantage: Creating and
sustaining superior
performance. NY: Free Press.
www.wbs.ac.uk | core | 59
research
Quantum performance