Environmental Factors That Can Influence the Strategic Alliance - Assignment Example

Microsoft’s strategic alliance with Nokia Assignment Contents Introduction and Company Background 4 Part External Analysis 4 PESTEL 5 Porter’s Five Forces 6 Industry Lifecycle 8 Critical success Factors 9 Opportunities and threats 9 Part 2: Internal Analysis 9 Competency Framework 10 VRIN framework 10 Comparative analysis of internal capabilities with the CSFs 12 Part 3: Issues and challenges facing the company 12 Part 4: Logic behind the strategic alliance 13 Part 5: Generation of Strategic Growth Options 14 Application of TOWS matrix on MICROSOFT: 15 Application of TOWS matrix on NOKIA: 17 Part 6: Evaluation of Strategic Growth options 19 SFA framework and the ranking table for Microsoft: 19 Evaluation and ranking table: 20 SFA framework and the ranking table for Nokia: 21 Evaluation and ranking table: 21 Part 7: Description of selected strategy 22 Part 8: Conclusion 23 References 24 Introduction and Company Background Microsoft Corporation is a software giant located in the United States. The company is into the business of manufacturing, licencing and selling computers, consumer electronics, software, and services. Microsoft is one of the most valuable corporations in the globe. The company has various business departments for software and hardware. Nokia is a telecommunication and informational technology company with its headquarters in Finland. The company manufactures mobile phones and operating systems and other telecommunications devices and services. Microsoft was facing intense competition from companies like Google Inc. and Apple Inc. whereas the market shares of Nokia was decreasing continuously due to the huge growth of other cell phone manufacturing companies like Samsung Electronics, HTC and Sony corporation. In this background, Microsoft and Nokia formed a vertical strategic alliance in February, 2011 with the objective of creating a new ecosystem in the smartphones segment. The companies agreed to remain mutually independent while combining the resources and competencies unique to each of the businesses. Part 1: External Analysis The analysis of the macro environmental factors that can influence the strategic alliance is done through the use of the popular tools like PESTEL analysis, Porter’s five forces, and the Industry life cycle and through the identification of the critical success factors and opportunities and threats for the alliance. PESTEL Political: The political factors affecting the strategic alliance would be the relevant policies and regulations applicable in the cell phone and technology markets across the globe. The strategic alliance of Microsoft and Nokia should consider the various political factors in the relevant markets. Economic: The economic factors are likely to affect the businesses after the strategic alliances. The high level of competition in the global cell phone and smartphone markets is likely to make pricing a critical economic factor. The demand for mobile phones is elastic therefore; it is affected by any downturns in the economy. Social: The trend of the people of all generations and locations preferring to buy phones with maximum features and benefits is likely to boost the cell phone market further. In this respect, the strategic alliance between Nokia and Microsoft may be positively affected by the increasing social preferences towards innovative products in the cell phone segment. Technological: The technological factors are major factors affecting the businesses in the cell phone and smartphones industry. Advances in technology and innovation are important in driving the success and profitability of the industry (Croslin, 2010, p.112). The Microsoft and Nokia alliance would be much influenced by the new operating systems and technologies used in the cell phone industry. Legal: The legal framework guiding the cell phone manufacturing and marketing industry would be important to follow. The policies and regulations related to the software and hardware manufacturing in the cell phone industry should be considered by Microsoft and Nokia while introducing new models in the global market. Environmental: The manufacturing processes of the business should be made environmental friendly. The business should focus on proper waste management, disposal of old models, implementation of technology that is not harmful to the environment and take steps to comply with the existing environmental aspects following the strategic alliance. Porter’s Five Forces Bargaining power of buyers: The bargaining power of the buyers is high because the customers have a number of options to choose from. The major smartphone manufacturers manufacture and market cell phone models with similar kind of features. The switching cost of the buyers is low and customer loyalty is also likely to be low because of the innovations and value added offerings introduced by the cell phone manufacturers. The software capabilities of Nokia and the physical resources of Microsoft can be used effectively to introduce mobile phones that would help to capture the attentions of more customers (Johnston and Bate, 2003, pp.90-98). Bargaining power of suppliers: The bargaining power of the suppliers is low to medium. This is because the major cell phone companies dominate the market and have high control on the industry. The companies can choose from a wide array of suppliers to get the best sourcing and procurement for the businesses. The established brand images of Microsoft and Nokia and the combined influence of both the brands would help them to reduce the bargaining power of the suppliers in their case. Threat of new entrants: The threat of new entrants is high in this segment. Since the industry is characterized by high growth and potential, therefore, more companies are trying to enter into the industry through various offerings. The new entrants often take up a differentiated approach and focus on providing enhanced features at low pricing. Pricing is a key factor affecting the ability of the industry to absorb new businesses. Threat of substitutes: The threat of substitutes in the cell phone industry is very low. This is because the cell phones are unique and differentiated products which are non-replaceable by any other device in the market till date. The preferential and habitual aspects of the consumer behaviour make the cell phones a necessary product and minimize the chances of any substitute being offered for cell phones. The smartphones have made the users dependant on them and no other technological device has been invented hat can take the place of a smartphone in the minds of the consumers and in the practical application. The tablets and mini hard disk drives phones can fulfil some features of the cell phones in the storage aspect but there is much other functionality that makes the cell phones a compact and valuable thing to own. Competitive Rivalry: The cell phone industry is a highly concentrated industry where a number of major players are ruling the market. Microsoft and Nokia would face intense competition form already established companies like Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics, Sony, HTC and Google Inc. who have been pioneers in the smartphone segments and are currently the implementers of the most popular operating systems like Android and iOS that take up the major market share in the smartphones segment. These companies are already strongly established in the global cell phone industry. Other local small companies from China, India and Japan are also trying to compete through innovation and low pricing in their product offerings. But the main competitor of the Microsoft –Nokia alliance would be Google Inc. due to the high software and hardware capabilities of the business. Industry Lifecycle An industry life cycle consists of four stages: introduction, growth, maturity and decline. The industry lifecycle of a cell phone industry indicates that this industry has reached the maturity stage. This indicates that the cell phone industry needs more unique and differentiated products and is much driven by innovation. The maturity stage indicates that nearly all possible customers are using the products. Technology and value added services would enable the companies to revive their businesses and increase their profitability by attracting new potential customers. The main players in the market are Samsung Electronics, Apple Inc., Sony, HTC, Motorola etc. The smartphone industry is characterized by fast obsoleting of the phone models with the new inventions and developments in the technological foray. The life cycle of an operating system in the mobile phones is ten years on an average. The operating systems of various cell phone operating systems over 10 years are shown in the graph below. (Source: Dodgson, Gann and Salter, 2008, p.24) Critical success Factors The critical success factors for the strategic alliance between Microsoft and Nokia lies in the development of phone models which are competitive in terms of features as well as price. For this, support and acceptability on the part of the customers and technological advancement are important factors. The customer support can be gained by creating product awareness and by capitalizing on the high brand values of Microsoft and Nokia. The technological success factors can be affected by the investments in the research and development activities and by acquiring proper patent rights. Opportunities and threats There are a number of opportunities for the strategic alliance between Microsoft and Nokia in the cell phone industry. These opportunities include: the high growth and potential of the global cell phone markets, the technological inventions relevant to the cell phone industry, the emerging economies, and the increasing preferences of the consumers to buy new high ended phones, the increasing demands for smartphones in the global markets. The threats include: the high concentration of the industry, the intense competition between the major players, the dominance of the market by a few players, increasing choice availability for the customers and the quick obsoleting of the existing cell phones being replaced by newer models with better features. Part 2: Internal Analysis The internal analysis of the strategic alliance is done to understand the competencies and capabilities of the companies relevant to the future performance of the alliance. The internal analysis is done through the development of a competency framework, VRIN model, value chain and finally by mapping the internal capabilities with the critical success factors of the business. Competency Framework The competency framework of the strategic alliance of the Microsoft and Nokia merger can be described and analysed effectively by evaluating the competencies of both Microsoft and Nokia. Microsoft Corporation is the largest and most influential software company in the globe. The company has its competency in software, innovations, technologies and a wide range of physical and financial resources. The competency of the company lies in being a software leader and a manufacturer of the most widely used operating system in the world i.e. Windows operating system for both computers and mobile phones. The competency of Nokia lies in the mobile phone manufacturing segment. The Nokia handsets are considered as high quality, durable and sturdy. The performance of the Nokia phones and the hardware capabilities are major competencies for the company. The combination of Microsofts technologies and innovations and the manufacturing capabilities of Nokia are likely to create a highly competent business after the strategic alliance. VRIN framework The VRIN framework is used to analyse the value, rarity, imitability and non-substitutability of the products. The VRIN framework for the strategic alliance can be developed by considering these factors for the products of Microsoft and Nokia. Valuable: The products of Microsoft are considered as valuable products in terms of benefits and performance. The customers perceive the brand as a value delivering brand. The operating system of Microsoft has been very popular product in the technological field. Nokia was once an unmatched player in the global cell phones market. The hardware of the company are still deemed to be highly value creating but the software capabilities have lost their market importance to the competitor brands. Rare: The products of Microsoft have been able to maintain their rarity even in the background of accelerated technological innovations. Microsoft Office is the most preferred choice of software for personal and professional use by the customers. Also, the Windows operating system remains the number one operating system in terms of market share. The Microsoft products are non-substitutable till now. The rarity factor for Nokia is low because the company has not been able to respond adequately to the changing customer preferences. The operating system of Nokia phones, Symbian has become almost obsolete with other operating systems like Android and Apple operating systems eating up the market share. Imitable: The Microsoft products and technologies are developed with top end developers of the world and much secrecy is maintained regarding the development of these products. The company has high resource capabilities which help them to innovate and create rare and inimitable products. The products of Nokia are much easier to imitate because the technologies and processes used have become common in the cell phone industry. Non-substitutable: The user friendliness and the high end technical base of the Microsoft products make the products much developed. But the competitor companies like Google and Apple develop products that can replace the products of Microsoft to a certain extent (Bowonder, Dambal, Kumar and Shirodkar, 2010, pp.19-32). On the other hand the substitutability of the Nokia products which are primarily smartphones and normal cell phones is difficult. The substitutes of smart phones have not yet been developed. Comparative analysis of internal capabilities with the CSFs The alliance created value for the companies and the vendors, partners and suppliers of the companies as well. The alliance gave Microsoft access to the world class manufacturing capabilities of Nokia and also enabled it to create a robust supply chain and distribution system. The competitors like Google and Apple are likely to be affected by the Microsoft and Nokia merger. But Microsoft should be careful to handle Nokia so that the alliance does not face difficulties similar to the Google and Motorola alliance. The ecosystem of the technological industry has become more developed with Microsoft and Nokia combining their competencies to create a business driven by highly integrated software, hardware and services. The internal capabilities of the two companies may be used effectively to achieve the critical success factors for the strategic alliance. The combination of the software and resource competencies of Microsoft and the design and manufacturing capabilities of Nokia would be helpful in creating a powerful company that can compete with the other players in the technological field like Google, Apple, Sony, Samsung etc. (Carlopio, 2010, p.45). The companies expected to create value out of a synergy with smartphone manufacturing capabilities with high end software and technology related capabilities. The vendors and partners will achieve more competencies through the relationship between the two big brands. Part 3: Issues and challenges facing the company The strategic alliance between the two organizations has been in effect from the past 2 years. Nokia was facing challenges to survive in the market with its out-dated software and Microsoft was unable to enter into the smart phone market with its software due to lack of hardware. Such an alliance had led to mix outcomes, as Samsung has surpassed Nokia in the smart phone industry. On the contrary Google’s Android operating software still occupies the maximum percentage of the market share. Even Mozilla had ventured plans of offering software’s for the smart phone industry making it more difficult for the alliance to occupy much of the market share. The Lumia Windows smart phone is a high priced product though it had received a fairly good result after its launch but has failed in achieving the market leader position in the industry. The major issue was that the strategic alliance was not being able to achieve the desired market share; it was facing a tough competition from the existing players in the industry (Khandy, 2014, pp.114-115). The products were not competitive enough to achieve a market leader position and the designs were more standardised. Such a large number of players with the latest software facilities and that too offering the best price made its subsequently very difficult for the alliance to achieve a mutual benefit. Part 4: Logic behind the strategic alliance The strategic alliance between Microsoft and Nokia was done for mutual benefits of both the companies. Microsoft wanted to compete with the other players in the technological market like Google Inc. The strategic alliance aimed at creating a new eco space in the technological field. The huge success of Android introduced by Google Inc. created a concern for Microsoft as well as created a drop in the market share of the Symbian and Ovi platforms of Nokia. The alliance with Nokia was expected to make Microsoft competent enough to compete with Google and Apple through its entrance into the smartphone segment. The alliance was a strategic move on the part of Microsoft to acquire the capabilities and unique skills existing in the business of Nokia. Nokia on the other hand, was losing its market share rapidly. This mainly happened because of the tough competition faced from the other mobile manufacturing companies like Samsung, Sony and HTC and Nokia itself not being able to respond quickly and sufficiently to the changing demand conditions and technological advancements in the global cell phone market. The vertical strategic alliance between Microsoft and Nokia was managed carefully by the CEOs of both the companies so as to maximize the benefits from the deal and prevent any negative impacts of the merger on the companies. The planned partnership was built by the consideration of different aspects relevant to the alliance. Coordination, information sharing and cooperation are identified as the key drivers of the success of any strategic relationship. Microsoft has paid USD 1 billion to Nokia in order to support the development of the new Windows phone. This investment from Microsoft indicated the objective of the companies to establish a congruent relationship. The alliance has also taken into consideration the informal relationships, communication and trust management to reduce transaction cost and opportunism and improve efficiency. The CEOs focused on management issues and created a mutually beneficial synergy in the alliance terms and processes. Part 5: Generation of Strategic Growth Options The strategic alliance between Nokia and Microsoft were facing couple of challenges to achieve the market leader position in the smart phone industry. There are some other options or rather strategies that both of the companies can individually have adopted rather than entering into a strategic alliance. TOWS matrix is an effective strategic tool that would help to determine the alternative strategies on the basis of the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats of the respective companies. The TOWS matrix is a strategic analysis tool used to analyse the external and internal condition of the organization. The stages of the TOWS matrix is firstly identification and analysis of the strengths and weakness of the company, secondly identification of the opportunities and threats surrounding the company, and finally determination of the strategic direction and positions for business development. There are four basis strategies that are derived from the positive and negative factors of the company. The SO situation or maxi-maxi strategy that is related to the factor that dominates the strengths in the environment and the opportunities internal to the organization, it is rather focused on diversification and strong expansion. The WO strategy or mini-maxi strategy this relates to the company having vulnerabilities in terms of weaknesses but at the same time has opportunities to explore, thus the strategy includes more of exploring the opportunities with equal importance given to tackle its weaknesses. The ST situation or maxi-mini strategy corresponds to the company exploring its large base of internal strengths in order to overcome the external threats. The WT situation or the mini-mini strategy relates to the company not having enough strength to withstand the external threats, so the company is more focused in striving for survival rather than any further development activities, and it even involves the company opting for mergers with other organization. Application of TOWS matrix on MICROSOFT: The maxi-maxi strategy for the SO situation of having skilled manpower, opportunity for expanding their network and strong brand name would be opening up of new outlets. Its strength of having a user friendly application and the opportunity of having financial muscle and growing awareness can formulate the strategy of launching campaigns in semi-urban areas and remote areas. The ST strategy for the threats faced by the company in terms of fast changing technology, rate of piracy and client satisfaction can be co-related with its strengths of brand name, huge capital, and skilled manpower and result into strategies such as rigorous training of the manpower, and launching of anti-pirated software. The WT situation of falling sales, high software prices, piracy, and high exchange rate can be substituted by the strategies of launching anti-piracy programs and even extending the updating time limit up to 1year. The WO situation of the company is dependency on the hardware and expansion of the sector, the strategy that can substitute this situation is production of hardware (Proctor, 2014, pp.145-146). The company has the internal strength of skilled manpower, fastest product development activities, and its updated MS-Office suit that is required by any professionals. The company on the basis of the TOWS matrix could have adopted strategy of extending their programs to the rural market, developing their own advanced hardware system, and providing free updating of their software to their client base. Application of TOWS matrix on NOKIA: (Sadler, 2003, p.156) The above diagram clearly describes the possible alternative strategies that the company could have adopted instead of entering into a joint venture. The SO strategies on the basis of the strengths and opportunities are to penetrate into the market with a new product line and competitive prices, and increasing their presence in the Germany and Asia-Pacific with more innovative products. The WO strategy option on the basis of weakness and opportunities are to offer customer driven products so as to penetrate into the market place, improve customer service, penetrate into the Japan market through partnerships, and even focus on the US markets with the help of new products and joint ventures. The ST strategies on the basis of the threats and strengths of the company would be developing more customer oriented products and offering competitive prices, lowering the overall cost so as to offer cost efficient products with the advantage of brand image and learning curve, and to implement more of target advertising. The WT strategies on the basis of weakness and threats would be giving periodical discounts and offering customers specific products, and more use of brand image in their product promotions. Hence these are the alternative strategies that Nokia could have adopted instead of entering into a strategic alliance with Microsoft so as to improve upon their OS and gain back its market share. Implementation of any of the strategies could have benefitted the company to gain competitive advantage and even the market share. The company should have focused on reducing the overall operating cost, and offering more of competitive price for its products and develop their software so as to meet the changing needs of the customers, this could be achieved through partnership in Japan to improvise their software system. Enhancing customer service would be beneficial for the company. Part 6: Evaluation of Strategic Growth options The SFA framework was invented by Johnson and Scoles in order to determine the viability of the strategic options. The framework consists of three success criteria such as suitability, acceptability, and feasibility. These three criteria are to be applied on the alternative options that are generated by the TOWS matrix so as to determine which of the options would be most suitable for both of the companies. SFA framework and the ranking table for Microsoft: The suitability criteria are to judge whether the strategy is aligned to the mission and vision of the company, utilizes the strengths of the company, and explores the possible opportunities. The acceptability criteria are concerned with the possible performance outcomes for the strategy in terms of risk, return, and shareholder’s reaction. The feasibility criteria deal with more of practicalities as to whether the strategy can be implemented successfully on the basis of resources and competencies of the organization (Cole, 2003, pp.56-57). The suitability criteria would be market share growth in the next 4 years, utilization of the brand image, and optimizes the profitability for new product development and expansion. The feasibility factor would be cost within $60M budget, the current skilled workforce sufficient, and the financial muscle sufficient. The acceptability factor would return on investment in less than 3 years, positive stakeholder reaction, and ROCE improved to 20% in the next 4 years. The alternative strategies for Microsoft is Strat1 – extending their programs to the rural market, Strat 2 – development of their own hardware, Strat 3 – bundling of their products, Strat 4 – free updating of their software so as to enhance their client service. The ranking for the following strategies on the basis of the criteria would be based on the scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is weak and 5 is strong. Evaluation and ranking table:   Criteria Strategies     Strat 1 Strat 2 Strat 3 Strat 4 Suitability Market share growth by 10% in the next 4 years 3 4 2 2   Utilization of the brand image 4 3 3 2   Optimizes the profitability for new product development and expansion 2 4 2 1 Feasibility Cost within $60M budget 2 2 1 2   Current skilled workforce sufficient 3 3 2 3   Financial muscle sufficient 2 3 3 2 Acceptability Return on investment in less than 3 years 2 4 2 1   Positive stakeholder reaction 2 3 3 3   ROCE improved to 20% in the next 4 years 3 3 2 3   Total 23 29 20 19 The Strat 1 is ranked less on market share growth, the internal financial strength, return on investment, and the profit optimization for product development, the reason is that launching programs in rural areas would require more of financial capability, and also encompasses risk as to whether the strategy would be feasible to acquire rural market. The Strat 3 requires sufficient cost as the bundling of more products is beneficial for capturing market share but it does not provide the guarantee that it would increase the profit levels for the company. The stakeholder’s reaction would also not be that positive as this kind of strategy incorporates pushing the product into the market. The Strat 4 in terms of feasibility and acceptability would not be successful as it would increase the cost factor for the firm and would initiate very low profit margins from the clients. The return on investment for this strategy would be low as the initial cost for providing with free updating would be high. The Strat 2 is high suitability in terms of brand utilization, the feasibility is moderate compared to the cost incurred in implementing the strategy, and the acceptability rate would be high as the implementation of a new hardware would help the company overcome their dependency on hardware and they can acquire more of market share through their innovative product line. SFA framework and the ranking table for Nokia: Strat 1 for the company would be to offer customer oriented products at competitive prices, Strat 2 would be to enhance the customer service level, Strat 3 would be to focus mainly on the US markets through joint ventures and new product line, and Strat 4 would be brand image in their product promotions. The suitability criteria would be market share growth in the next 3 years, and utilization of the brand image. The feasibility factor would be cost within $30M budget and current skills and workforce sufficient. The acceptability factor would be return on investment in less than 3 years, and positive stakeholder reaction. The ranking for the following strategies on the basis of the criteria would be based on the scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is weak and 5 is strong. Evaluation and ranking table:   Criteria Strategies     Strat 1 Strat 2 Strat 3 Strat 4 Suitability Market share growth by 10% in the next 3 years 3 2 3 2   Utilization of the brand image 4 3 3 4 Feasibility Cost within $30M budget 2 3 2 2   Current skills and workforce sufficient 3 4 2 3 Acceptability Return on investment in less than 3 years 3 2 2 1   Positive stakeholder reaction 4 2 2 2   Total 19 16 14 14 The Strat 2 would not ensure market share growth by 10% as it is based on retaining the customer base rather than making some innovative changes in the product line so as to acquire new market share, it would be the financial strength of the company and also it has sufficient skills and workforce to support the strategy but it would not guarantee that the return on investment would be high and within the expected time frame. The Strat 3 would encompass more of investment as to form such joint ventures, though the ROI would be high if not within 3 years but it would initiate an increase in the operating cost. The stakeholder’s reaction may not be positive towards focusing only on the US markets through multiple ventures and new product line. The feasibility would be low as it would encompass a lot of risk and investment in order to focus on the desired market. The Strat 4 is ranked low on return on investment and the market share growth as the brand promotion do not ensure that the consumer market would be attracted towards some out-dated product, on the other hand the company would spend large sum of money in promotions which would result into not more than half return on such investment. The Strat 1 has high feasibility as the resources are sufficient with the company to implement such a strategy, and the suitability is also moderate in terms of developing brand image and market share (Steinhilber, 2013, pp.134-135). The acceptability criteria is high as in the highly competitive market customer oriented product that too at a competitive price would facilitate the company to overcome the challenges that it was facing down the line. Part 7: Description of selected strategy The most suitable strategy for Microsoft on the basis of the SAF framework is to develop own hardware. The company is facing a lot of challenges on being dependent on others for hardware. They can establish their market share growth if they start producing their own hardware so as to expand into some new sectors. This strategy if adopted would enhance the competitive advantage of the company in a way that it would be able to expand more and not be dependent on any firm for their operations. The resources required for hardware development would be sourcing of some skilled manpower which has proficiency in hardware designing, and even limiting their overhead expenses so as to invest the available financial resources in the company in order to develop their hardware. Microsoft can even expand on their retail outlets so as to capture more market share and acquire the return on investment in the forecasted year. Nokia according to the SAF framework can adopt the strategy of developing a more customer oriented product line and offering at a competitive price. This would benefit the company by achieving a competitive advantage as the consumer market is more focused towards getting the updated products that too at an affordable price. In order to make their product prices competitive that company can outsource the software’s, and add on facilities that would be make its products more customer centric and at low operating. It would a team of skilled workforce who would do the designing of a new product line, and it would require some financial resources of the firm but within the budgetary limitation. Part 8: Conclusion The strategic alliance between Nokia and Microsoft was mainly formed to mitigate the challenges that the firms were facing individually. Both the firms wanted to capture more of market share, and to gain a competitive advantage. The strategic alliance though did not result to be that profitable, as Google still occupies 70% of the smart phone market with its android OS. On the other hand even Nokia is striving to reach the top position of the smartphone industry with its Windows Lumia. There are very strong players in the market which offer the best of products and services at a competitive making it eventually tough for such a strategic alliance to survive. On the contrary with the application of strategic analysis tools there are certain alternative strategies that individually both the firms could have adopted so as to gain better market share and profit margins and avoided such an alliance. References Bowonder, B., Dambal, A., Kumar, S. & Shirodkar, A. 2010. Innovation Strategies for Creating Competitive Advantage. Research Technology Management. Vol. 14(1), pp. 19-32. Carlopio, J. 2010. Strategy by Design: A Process of Strategy Innovation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cole, G.A. 2003. Strategic Management. Singapore: Cengage Learning EMEA. Croslin, D. 2010. Innovate the Future: A Radical New Approach to Innovation. Massachusetts: Pearson Education. Dodgson, M., Gann, D. & Salter, A. 2008. The Management of Technological Innovation: Strategy and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Johnston, R. E. & Bate, J. D. 2003. The Power of Strategy Innovation: A New Way of Linking Creativity and Strategic Planning to Discover Great Business Opportunities. New York: McGraw Hill. Khandy, I. 2014. Rebranding by Strategic Alliances: Case of Nokia & Microsoft. UK: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Proctor, T. 2014. Strategic Marketing: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Sadler, P. 2003. Strategic Management. Great Britain: Kogan Page Publishers. Steinhilber, S. 2013. Strategic Alliances: Three Ways to Make Them Work. UK: Harvard Business Press. Read More