Strategic Planning and Management in Google - Case Study Example

Strategic Planning and Management: Google Name Course Name and Code Date Introduction Google strategic choices are premised on the industry and the nature of the business. Google’s strategy defines the operation of the company and also guides the direction in terms of growth that Google takes. Google has continuously invested in strategic approaches, which has continued to support the objective of intensive growth. Google develops and markets different products and has internal processes that sustain competitive advantage. The paper discusses Google internal strategies from the perspective of VRIN. Differentiation and Efficiency Advantages Google employs a broad market scope whereby Google offers products and services to every individual in the world (Google, 2016). The aspect of differentiation is also employed through developing unique capabilities, which makes Google competitive (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). The differentiation aspect is when Google develops unique products. Google advances a policy of innovation and continues to develop products, which include Google Glass, Google Fiber and Google Search engine (Santos-Vijande, López-Sánchez & Trespalacios, 2012). For example, the Google Search product/algorithm is advanced and has a competitive advantage compared with alternatives in the market. The continuous innovation also improves the position of the search engine in the socioeconomic world. For example, it enables the users to access information easily and also enables customization of consumer behavior through generating information, which reflects the requirements of consumers. The differentiation strategies enable Google to continue developing products and services to sustain its competitive advantage (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). Based on the current products and processes, it is evident that Google employ differentiation in ensuring it remains competitive (Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2008). Innovation also contributes to the improvement of existing products and services, which makes it more competitive (Google, 2016). The Google Search engine contributes most revenues because it is used for marketing purposes, and the reason is the advanced infrastructure of the search engine database (Starbuck, Barnett & Baumard, 2008). The search engine uniqueness compared with competitors is the speed of executing speed, integration of advisement words that are attached to the social networking, the relevance of search results (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). The processes have enabled Google to stay ahead of competitors. Google employs efficiency in the manner it develops and maintains the different products and services (Anggraeni, 2014). An efficiency company has to optimize human resources, capitalize on infrastructure, research and development, good marketing, experience, learning, and economies of scale (Hitt, Ireland & Hoskisson, 2012). The efficiency has resulted in the creation of new products and used mistakes to improve the processes (Google, 2016). Moreover, the effective management of human resource contributes to the effectiveness of the organization, which contributes to competitive advantage. Functional and Organizational Capabilities Google does not concentrate mostly on strategies rather on the requirements and expectations of the consumers (Google, 2016). Google develops and provides what the consumers want. In addition, it pursues a cost leadership strategy and technological approach methodology (Meier et al. 2007). The cost cutting measures are transferred to the customer while the technological advantage is accomplished through high performance compared with competitors (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). The technology results in taking more workload, with expected outcomes compared with competitors (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). The speed, efficiency, and relevance have been created, and customers understand that using the facilities and services of Google results in better outcomes compared with alternatives. Google aims to fulfill the requirements of the customers and have created a framework of customer responsiveness (Google, 2016). Customer responsiveness is giving customers services and products based on want, where, when and what (Ribeiro & Portugal Ferreira, 2010). For example, it has given end users and advisers the sea of search, deliverability, reliability, and speed at a cheaper cost. In addition, the Google approach is customer centric meaning the products and services are given to the market before they are launched (Kutvonen, 2011). Google also continues to engage the customers resulting in improvement of the products and services (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). Google welcomes users to its research and development division to enable the users to contribute to the development of products and services. Google also utilize its human resource capital and financial strength to manage and create a competitive advantage for the business. Google provides appropriate resources and support to the employees, which includes tools and techniques (Pan et al., 2007). In addition, Google utilizes an advanced database to manage the employees. Through the advanced algorithm, Google is able to employ innovative employs, and very productive employees (Google, 2016). The competitive advantage of the process is difficult to imitate, and the decisions that Google makes is based on data decisions (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). Hence, the traditional decision making of trust and taking responsibility are alien. Necessary Capabilities and Key Capabilities Necessary capabilities are the skills that enable a company to compete but cannot be seen from the angle of competitive advantage (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). Necessary capabilities are the skills and expertise required to provide services and goods with appropriate quality and cost, but in areas in which the competitors have employed (Seddon, 2014). Google has numerous necessary capabilities and is similar to some extent, to competitors. For example, programming is an important component that guides most technological and innovative processes (Google, 2016). Google uses programming to develop most of its products and services, but at an advanced stage. Therefore, the programming aspect can be imitated by other competitors; hence, it is not a necessary capability. Key capabilities can be defined as the skills that are required to advance the aspect of competitive advantage resulting in sustainable superior performance. The key capabilities are categorized under VRIN that brings together numerous aspects include valuable, rare, inimitable and non-sustainable (Google, 2016). The search engine, for example, is valuable because it is difficult to imitate. It also defines the numerous products and services that Google offers to its customers (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). The infrastructure that Google uses is rare, and the technique to manage a human resource is also unique. It is rare because the software used to manage a human resource is expensive and technically advanced, and it becomes a challenge to for customers to imitate (Helfat et al., 2009). The Google’s products and services are protected through numerous legislative approaches. Some of the protecting strategies include complexity, secrecy, copyrights, joint use through supporting capabilities and patents. It becomes inimitable because a competitor will not be able to benefit because of the numerous legal hurdles. Furthermore, the numerous products and services are not substitutable to some extent. It is difficult to substitute the search unique and other products and services. Hence, Google has numerous key capabilities that give it a competitive advantage. Constraints and Traps Google has not shown its algorithm or even basic formula that is used to internet searches resulting in numerous experts stating that the company is hiding behind secrecy laws (Warnier, Weppe & Lecocq, 2013). However, Google, in the recent past has started providing a small amount of information about its unique search engine (Google, 2016). The day the competitors will know about the algorithm will affect the company immensely. Google business model relies on advertising and advertising rates. In the recent past, the revenues from advertisements are decreasing affecting negatively the profitability of the company (Talaja, 2012). The economic situation also affects the way Google operates and has provided an opportunity to competing companies such as Apple to improve on advertisement platforms (Google, 2016). The overdependence of advertising is a negative aspect because relying on one aspect is risky (Marler, 2009). The potential dip in terms of profitability or advertisements leads would affect the entire operations of Google (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). Therefore, Google has to re-strategize towards creating additional products and services such as embracing mobile commerce and e-commerce to generate more revenues for the business (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). Compatibility of Google products and services is also another constraint (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014; Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). Most of the current products and services are not compatible with next generation computing platforms, which include tablet computers and mobile (Andersén, 2011). Research has shown that more consumers prefer mobiles and tablets meaning the revenues generation will target the mobile and tablets platforms (Google, 2016). Google has to appreciate the strengths of mobile and tablets and develop products and services that incorporate the requirements and expectations of next-generation products and services. Conclusion In conclusion, Google internal strategic approach exemplifies the VRIN framework. The numerous strategies and approaches advance differentiation and efficiency. For example, the strong infrastructure enables different processes to be completed, and the advanced algorithm creates a competitive advantage compared with competitors. However, reliance on advertisements may affect the future of the company because deep in advertising affects the entire revenue generation for Google. References Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29-49. Andersén, J. (2011). Strategic resources and firm performance. Management Decision, 49(1), 87-98. Anggraeni, E. (2014). The Impact of Internal and External Resources, and Strategic Actions in Business Networks on Firm Performance in the Software Industry. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Position, leverage and opportunity: a typology of strategic logics linking resources with competitive advantage. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2‐3), 241-256. Google. (2016). Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. London: John Wiley & Sons. Hill, C., Jones, G., & Schilling, M. (2014). Strategic management: theory: an integrated approach. Cengage Learning. Hitt, M., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. (2012). Strategic management cases: competitiveness and globalization. Cengage Learning. Kutvonen, A. (2011). Strategic application of outbound open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 460-474. Marler, J. H. (2009). Making human resources strategic by going to the Net: reality or myth?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 515-527. Meier, K. J., O'Toole, L. J., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 357-377. Pan, S. L., Tan, B. C., Huang, J., & Poulsen, B. (2007). The development paths of non-strategic capabilities. European Management Journal, 25(5), 344-358. Ribeiro Serra, F., & Portugal Ferreira, M. (2010). Emerging determinants of firm performance: a case study research examining the strategy pillars from a resource-based view. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 8(1), 7-24. Santos-Vijande, M. L., López-Sánchez, J. Á., & Trespalacios, J. A. (2012). How organizational learning affects a firm's flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1079-1089. Seddon, P. B. (2014). Implications for strategic IS research of the resource-based theory of the firm: a reflection. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(4), 257-269. Starbuck, W. H., Barnett, M. L., & Baumard, P. (2008). Payoffs and pitfalls of strategic learning. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66(1), 7-21. Talaja, A. (2012). Testing VRIN framework: resource value and rareness as sources of competitive advantage and above average performance. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 17(2), 51-64. Warnier, V., Weppe, X., & Lecocq, X. (2013). Extending resource-based theory: considering strategic, ordinary and junk resources. Management Decision, 51(7), 1359-1379. Read More