Strategic Management of Five International Companies - Literature review Example

Strategic Management Campus: Bundoora  Lecturer: Mr. Grant Pyle Tutor: Ms. Jenny Martinez Lecture time: 10 AM Tutorial Time: Tuesday (11AM) Introduction This essay examines strategic management issues of five international companies offering multiple services and products to the international market spread over a larger geographical area. As sustainable competitive advantage required for organizational success is explored, the key areas investigated are; the level of business level strategies, corporate level strategy and diversity. Organizations using strategic management systems bring about accelerated growth as they are able to successfully implement innovation and change as well as make faster decisions (Banham, 2010, p.20). Being critical to their success, a number of organization especially international firms have integrated these systems to gain competitive advantage and leverage in the global market. Under Resource Based-View (RBV) of a firm, the criteria for judging resources of a firm include value, rarity, imperfect inimitability and non-substitution (Bridoux, 2010). Since it focuses on the internal forces of the firm, RBV is an essential strategic management tool (Ferreira, 2011). This implies that the firm should devise strategies to improve effectiveness and efficiency, have unique resources and capabilities, social complexity and lack ready substitutes to its products. The five organizations chosen are; Chevron, Apple, Siemens, Coca-Cola, and Boeing selected based on industry and country of origin. Sustainable competitive advantage and organizational success When other firms are not only unable to implement a value creating strategy but also incapable of duplicating the benefits of their firm’s strategy, then the firm has sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). The VRIO model shown in the diagram shows that the product is valuable when it is physically unique and not many firms are in possession. It is rare if it possesses tacit knowledge and path dependency and is inimitable if having social complexity or causal ambiguity (Gupta, 2013).Lastly, the product or service is organized to exploit if it has no equivalent capabilities or strategic resources. Chevron Chevron is an American multinational active in more than 180 countries and is headquartered in San Ramon, California. The company’s primary activities include exploration of oil and gas and marketing and refining of gasoline (Chevron, 2014). Major products are petrochemicals, additives, lubricants and fuels. The significant areas of operations to the company are South Africa, Australia, South Korea, Southeast Asia and US Gulf Coast. Many companies dealing with oil and gas have plans of reducing capital expenditures in future. These firms include Royal Dutch Shell and BP. However, Stabell (2001) argues that Chevron spending does not consider the frugality taken by these competing firms. Government regulations and restrictions are huge entry barriers to late entrants which provide a sustained competitive advantage to Chevron. The massive capital expenditure levels in 2014, occasionally seen as bloated by analysts, stands at $6.4 billion to explore natural gas in China (Zamir et al. 2014:30). China being the fourth largest consumer of gas globally, the project is considerably feasible. The deal involves production of 7.6 billion cubic meters of gas annually are a 30-year concession. Moreover, Chevron has plans of allocating $33-36 billion to capital expenditures in 2015 (Zamir et al. 2014). The firm uses downstream and upstream strategy in chemicals and refining, and in energy production respectively. Furthermore, property rights are some of the inimitable resources possessed by Chevron (Shea & Hutchin, 2007). These include drilling rights and land ownership with a strong legal protection resource base. The company is also excellent on cost leadership and differentiation strategies. Diversity: On diversity, Chevron (2014) observes that the company has two women and two colored people in the fourteen boards of directors. This also applies to the composition of the corporate affairs. However, most of the senior management is aged above 50 years implying that middle aged persons occupy lower cadre. Promotion of diversity, integrity and protecting environment and people are the core values in which Chevron deliver results (Stabell, 2001). Moreover, the company accepts diversity of skills, experiences and ideas from its employees to fulfill its business needs and enrich the work environment. There are also opportunities for women-owned, minority and small businesses to participate in the Chevron supply chain. The company enhances diversity in a number of ways. First, is by committing to Global Sullivan Principles, and second, is through scholarships, grants and contributions to diversity programs (Oliver, 1997). Lastly, it participates in Small Business Program or Award-winning supplier diversity (Chevron, 2014). The company targets underrepresented groups through outreach programs and recruitment. It has formed personnel development committees, employee networks and diversity councils. Moreover, it has also formed discussion groups, employee developmental assignments and trainings. Corporate level strategies: Chevron has set a Strategic Plan 2001-2015 to align the organization and differentiate it from the competition. In pursuing global market share, the company lays emphasis on four key corporate strategies (Wankel, 2009:264). First, Chevron needs to outperform its competitors through sustainable financial returns under the financial-return objective. Second, upstream business strategies especially in the natural gas business aimed at growth profitability in core areas. Third, downstream business strategies are through investment in renewable energy sources, concentration on synergies under selective growth and focus on improving returns (Akram et al. 2015). Fourth, company-wide strategies focus on leveraging technologies, building organizational capabilities and investment on people. Concession ventures such as the 2001 Texaco merger and acquisition was a major leverage to the company and a boost to the wide marketing network (Banham, 2010). Owing to weak demand for fuel, the company is focusing on gas businesses with interest in Asian markets. Business level strategies: Chevron seeks to simplify the organization and improve efficiency by cutting on refinery capital expenditures. To realize savings in refinery operations, the business downsized its employees by 2,000 in 2010 in both worldwide staff and downstream staff (Ferreira, 2011). Asset sale of downstream operations included lubricants, aviation and fuels in Central America and Caribbean. However, the upstream focus is Asian assets and natural gas. Bridoux (2010) points out that it does so by streamlining the organization, exiting unprofitable markets and engaging in aggressive cost reduction initiatives. The company continues to target lubricants and chemicals as profitable growth opportunities to lead in the industry (Gebremichael, 2014). Growing shareholder distributions and high quality investment queue is supported by the company’s financial strength. Apple Apple is a technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. The company products are laptop computers, iPhones, iPads and iTunes (Banham, 2010). The launch of these products especially the iPad and iPhone caused market domination and uniqueness of the product features. Continuous research in hardware development and its applications has made Apple apps to run on one product despite them having little in common (Andrevski & Ferrier, 2008). However, He (2012) argues that Apple’s smartphone market may lose in the coming years in the face of stiff competition from Google’s Android and Blackberry. The elegant looks of the products especially the iTune has created a sustained competitive advantage that has forced Walmart to exit digital music. Instead of focusing on the enterprise market, Apple targets a highly fragmented consumer market. These tons of small customers result in service demand over time, features and pricing. By building a fortress around its experiences, services and products, Apple dominates devices and music with consideration of patents in iProjector (Jung, 2014). The company has recurring income streams by integrating devices, OS and apps. Based on a classical business strategy theory, Apple has adopted horizontal integration strategy across channels and devices and vertical integration for retail, software and chip design that is difficult to be imitated. Moreover, iPod came out as a rare resource because no other music player could use the current hard-drive technology (Gupta, 2013). Besides, iTunes came strongly as non-substitutable after many years of innovative capabilities alongside iPod. Through the retail network, Tell (2002) shows that Apple Stores a big advantage over other companies having created a workable distribution channel.  Apple can fix problems, create scarcity when they want, raise the level of service and control the experience because they have huge control in the channel through to the customer. Diversity: All employees at Apple enjoy and share similar rights regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnicity, and race and gender identity. Although this belief is fundamental at Apple, the company in 2014 was extensively criticized for lack of diversity in its supply chain (Jung, 2014). Fortunately, the company is encouraging employees to share their cultures through Diversity Network Associations (DNAs). Apple employee groups that represent diverse interests, orientations, religions and ethnicities engage and learn from hence creating a more open culture to new ideas (He, 2012:48). In 2014, Apple contributed more than $50 million in strengthening inclusion and diversity efforts in their company and technology world (Jung, 2014). Given the varying cultures and perspectives within a diverse group of people, creativity is increased. Creative and innovative ideas are enhanced by various skill sets, backgrounds and experiences. Corporate level strategies: Apple employs constrained diversification to maximize the effect of their shared resources. Inherently, the company runs software and hardware computer platforms and competencies are utilized in the business to development computers and mobile phones. Apple shares resources between businesses and products such as AppleTV, iPod, Macintosh, iPhone and iPad (He, 2014). For example, Apple’s operating system, OS X, is run by AppleTV, iPhone, iPad, and Macintosh. By doing so the company creates economies of scope and cost savings owing to shared resources across multiple businesses. In the last ten decade, Apple has bought stake in two companies and acquired 21 companies. HP and Apple in 2004 formed a strategic alliance to deliver a digital music player that is HP-branded but based on Apple’s iTunes and Apple’s iPod store and music player targeting HP’s customers (Orlando, 2004).  Apple showed interest in the acquisition of mobile advertising firm, AdMob, in 2014. However, Google bought the company and swooped quickly at $750 million (Jung, 2014). Under a valuable alliance Microsoft, Apple agreed to bundle Internet Explorer in all computers at Apple while Microsoft accepted to develop, for the Mac, Microsoft Office software. Business level strategies: Apple differentiates its products by controlling the software and hardware together (He, 2012:48). This way guarantees device quality, creates features, and innovations exclusive to the platform. This level of quality cannot be matched by competitors (Barney, 1991). Succeeding in the mobile market is not only the best strategy for Apple, but serves its constantly re-defined goals. Substantial changes are made quickly the software and hardware is controlled as there are no other manufactures to handle (Ferreira, 2011). Moreover, products are more valuable and the build is difficult for competitors to access their hardware and software features. Hardware-software of Apple has adopted the integration strategy which has helped to eliminate non-compatibility issues. Jung (2014) shows that Apple guarantees users immediate updates and access operating system since it controls the iPhone’s software and hardware platforms. Owing to uniform hardware characteristics across the platforms, Apple seeks high profit margins through differentiation and incremental innovation without the need for an overwhelming market share (He, 2012). A high percentage of profit in the industry’s share results from strong profit margins without necessarily having a corresponding market share. Siemens Siemens AG is headquartered in Munich and Berlin and is a largest German engineering multinational conglomerate company. The company is involved in turbine construction, mobile phones, and medical equipment and transmission cables (Pagiavlas, 2015). Siemens business’s planning focus is one real change and is visible in the performance for some time. Some of its competitors are other large complex multinational corporations such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Northern Telecom and General Electric. Managers are involved in the long-term enterprise well-being and not the technicalities of the planning process. In leap-frog to smaller competitors, Akram et al. (2015) notes that Siemens does not engage in large unwieldy bureaucracies but acts through market or technical innovations in a true entrepreneurial manner. Well thought-out business strategies are being executed in a consistent, coherent and with surprising speed (Lazzarani, 2011). Away from more traditionally managed competitors, Siemens has been have been winning market shares repeatedly. According to Chaston (2012: 38), lack of competitive advantage in Siemens has hindered the company from edging other heavy engineering companies operating in low cost such as China. Fortunately, the company is winning contracts to build heavy turbines for power stations in very mature market sectors (Chaston, 2012). This is because the company has exploited new knowledge to lower operating costs by creation of new generation turbines. Capital financing assistance is another valuable resource to customers as they are guaranteed energy savings claims (Gebremichael, 2014). By avoiding head-to-head confrontation and investing in wind energy market, the company has inimitable resource. This has been possible through exploitation of new and existing knowledge on off-shore winds. The company is organized to exploit High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) with new knowledge and product diversity to achieve market leadership (Chaston, 2012:38). The rarity of this technology is that it allows thinner cables to transmit large amounts of technology leading to lower energy losses in the event of grid transmission. In another venture in medical diagnostic equipment, prices have become uncompetitive despite Siemens producing high-quality machines. Investment in new knowledge is of great value to the company since it taps into the emerging markets such as Taiwan, India and China in terms of medical equipment (Wankel, 2009). The firm has not only entered medical technology but has relocated manufacturing of new generation X-ray machines in China and India. Diversity: Dedication and creative potential of more than 367,000 employees is a unique strength of Siemens. Despite that, the company has been under criticism for excessive caution, lack of focus and slowness. Diverse teams are a great advantage as it taps into the enormous range of talents of its employees to strengthen their power to innovate and increase the wealth of ideas (Chaston, 2012:13). Nevertheless, Siemens is very centralized and remains a very German company to this day. This has made some competitors such as ABB to be ahead in terms of repartition of headquarter functions, regional management and board structure. Although Siemens intends to become the leader in diversity, Tell (2002) argues that it faces a challenge in expanding diversity among its top management members. In Siemens USA, employees share common diversity interests through resource groups that provide them with opportunities for networking, volunteerism and development (Murray, 2013). Corporate level strategies: Acquisition of Dade Behring for $11.4 billion leveraged the company in medical diagnostic technology. However, big project overspends and large infrastructural projects going wrong due to bribery cases to win contracts saw the company lose $1.6 billion on fines (Chaston, 2012: 37). Towards the peak of the technology boom, Siemens was able to raise billions by spinning off its components and semiconductor businesses. Although no other big huge acquisitions followed, the company perceived sustainability as a critical success factor. Sustainability is a key pillar of corporate strategy and serves as the basis for success future business of Siemens (Pagiavlas et al. 2005). To a greater extent unlike before, Siemens is promoting diversity in its management ranks. Nowadays, in the corporate level strategy, the company has given diversity a permanent place but demographic changes and shortage of highly qualified people is a challenge to its long-term success (Shea & Hutchin, 2008). Business level strategies: Siemens can sell off marginally profitable units but the management is always under pressure to perform. The company’s business strategy is to innovate and undertake research and development (Oliver, 1997). By engaging in innovation, this culture has enabled cost leadership by achieving higher earnings, increased sales and reduced costs. As the company intends to become a pioneer in supply diversity it does not encourage failures in the supply chain (Akram et al. 2015:5). Coca-cola Coca-Cola or Coke has its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia and produces carbonated soft drinks. With more than 3,500 beverages, the company’s brands sells around the world including sports drinks, soft drinks, coffee, sports drinks tea, water, diet and sparkling colas, fruit juices and other beverages (Mohiuddin, 2013). Offering hundreds of brands, the Coca-Cola Company is a global leader in the beverage industry. For many years, the company has been able to earn economic profits for shareholders owing to durable competitive advantages. Through innovation, Coca Cola has an extensive business model and is a vivid case of a company with sustained competitive advantage (Cabral, 2012). Moreover, it not only edges on innovation, but also in substantial and intelligent distribution network. Tasting better than other cola drinks, it is an inimitable resource because of the secret recipe, the concentrate. In 200 markets worldwide currently, Coca-Cola is offering over 400 brands (Rothaermel, 2008). Arguably, Tanwar, (2013:14) shows that the company is re-inventing old products yet it also has the ability to exploit and continue developing new products. Coca-Cola is accessible to billions of people worldwide because of its most valuable and comprehensive distribution system. Consumer goods companies find it difficult to supply to people in areas Coca-Cola is delivering its products (Schuler & Macmillan, 1984). For example, most village shops in Africa sell cold Coke more than any other local or regional brands. So well developed are the production techniques that it costs a fraction of the selling price to make any of Coca-Cola’s products (Cabral, 2012). Building out the distribution channel has provided Coca-Cola bottling plants with high profit margins. The power of customer purchase is reflected in the coca-cola distribution and bottling network where Coke is available everywhere (Powell & Arregle, 2010). Coke’s distribution network is difficult to be imitated by any start-up today. This gives the company a huge competitive advantage even when the product is waning in popularity (Barney, 1991). Coke not only remains competitive due to more standardized products but has a very big share in the segment of carbonated drinks. Diversity: Through companywide foundation for inclusion, Coca Cola Enterprises have steady focus on diversity. Across its Company's value chain, the firm adopted a global initiative of 5 million women entrepreneurs to enable the economic empowerment of women (Cabral, 2012). It does so by providing access to peer networking opportunities, loans and business skills training hence addressing key barriers that women entrepreneurs face. The firm believes that investing in the success of the Company is by enabling the success of everyone throughout its value chain. However, in 1999, the firm agreed today to pay $192.5 million to settle a lawsuit involving alleged racial discrimination of African-American employees in its US operations (Mohuiddin, 2013). The lawsuit alleged poor work environment, skewed promotions and wide disparities in pay. While mirroring the rich diversity of the marketplace served, the mission of Coca-Cola Company is leadership in Diversity and global inclusion (Rothaermel, 2008).   Corporate level strategies: There is a lot of flexibility in Coca-Cola’s pricing strategy. Under the control of coke, the bottling System provides the company with an advantage over its rivals such as Pepsico (Tanwar, 2013). This competitor lacks its own bottling companies and so cannot enjoy much of flexibility in the pricing strategies. Coke enjoys a good brand name while expanding into new market (Dyer & Singh, 1998). This means that it can also succeed in any industry if it enters the industry with same brand name. To expand their business in front of competitors, it engages in mergers and acquisitions with other global business partners and competitors. However, from regional to global players, the company faces intense competition in various markets (Kucukaslan, 2007). The company is facing stiff competition especially from nonalcoholic beverages including fruit drinks, nectars and juices. Despite this competition, the company is the largest marketer, distributor and manufacturer of non-alcoholic beverage syrups and concentrates in more than 200 countries (Tanwar, 2013:15). The firm has recognized the need for strategic outsourcing, vertical Integration and horizontal integration in the wake of brand building and globalization. Corporate strategy allows a company or its unit to engage in value creation of one or more of its function based on premium price or differentiation to lower cost (Murray, 2013). Mergers and acquisitions in the form of horizontal integration have numerous pitfalls of which the strategy is capable of bringing the firm in conflict with antitrust authorities. While intending to make Coca Cola more than just a soft drink, the management positions the firm to be more enjoyable, little lighter and fun times and better life for consumers (Powell & Arregle, 2010). Coca Cola bases its corporate strategy upon opportunities of serving billions of beverages each day. Coca Cola understands the beverage industry better by selling one billion cokes daily and forty eight billion fruit drinks around the globe monthly (Kucukaslan, 2007). Coca-Cola, in terms of global opportunity, has only two beverage industry shares; design a business system and adopt a strategy to benefit from this opportunity (Bridoux, 2010:302). Based on these strategies, Coca-Cola receives instant recognition and builds critical mass right from the day it starts operations. The firm is capitalizing on its brand and brand promise such as selling Coca-Cola, make living, quality, retail margin, jobs, value, and propriety. Business level strategies: Profitability of the company through horizontal integration is a method that reduces costs, replicates a business model, manages industry rivalry, and increases the firms bargaining power over its suppliers and buyers (Jung, 2014). Coca-Cola is committed to differentiation and product development strategies and due to high brand awareness; it has been able to infiltrate existing markets with new products. Given the favorable trademark reputation, Coca-Cola is able to capitalize on this strategy. Coca-Cola separates and makes itself unique from other firms by using the differentiation strategy (Mohiuddin, 2013). By using the differentiation strategy, Coke creates a service and product that is valued and unique. Customers pay a premium for non-price attributes. Using unique advertising and marketing campaigns differentiates, Coke entices its customers to continue purchasing the product and to stay loyal to their brand. People feel good about themselves, and that is why they prefer slim curvy body shape which the firm is quick to exploit by using variety of bottle shapes. Coca-Cola Freestyle machine is another great differentiation strategy as the machine allows customers to mix with many different flavors and match their favorite Coca-Cola beverages (Oliver, 1997). Using the differentiation strategy will see Coke separated from its competitors and continue to work hard. To do this, Coca-Cola has to maintain brand loyalty of customers by constantly introducing new beverages to the market (Murray, 2013). Using the alcohol drinking culture is also another way to differentiate from competitors. For example, many drinks are ordered as whiskey and Coke, Captain and Coke or rum and Coke. Collaboration is also useful with firms such as whiskey companies or Captain Morgan. This can happen such that when 3 ounce bottles of liquor is sold; an attached Coke bottle is also sold alongside. Finally, people have loved for decades the great tasting drink of Coca-Cola. Cabral (2012) recommends that consumers will continue to buy this product only if Coca-Cola adopts innovative ways to present it and works hard to maintain their great Coke taste. Coca-cola creates unique images for its products and differentiates by spending large and enormous amounts of money in advertising. Compared to its competitors, the company has been successful in gaining a leading position and in providing different products to customers (Chaston, 2012). Boeing The Boeing Company is a multinational corporation based in the US that manufactures and designs rockets, satellites, rotorcraft and airplanes. The company also provides product support and leasing services. The valuable resource is reengineering and product design that help create cost-effective and efficient products (Kennedy-Reid & Ihrig, 2013). Companies using cutting-edge technology find product design very important. On the other hand, one of its competitors, Intel, is improving product design hence keeping the microchip processor prices down. Boeing uses reengineering to create products improvements and to cut costs by redesigning. The firm’s competitive advantage is and has always been innovation (Netland & Aspelund, 2013). The diverse line of products has made Boeing a formidable option to meeting customer specifications and customized products. The firm is valuable because 60 percent of commercial jetliners are Boeing jets. It is organized to exploit by focusing on energy as an area critical in commercial jetliners (Banham, 2010:17). Having acquired many government contracts through NASA and the military, Boeing has sustained a competitive advantage. In the aerospace industry, Powell and Arregle (2010) observe that Boeing has positioned itself to remain competitive. Use product design is an inimitable resource that has seen the company use technology in a better and more affordable way to guarantee success. Gasparotti and Jos (2009) hints that Boeing has created a new delivery method that result in large cost savings by sharing with its customers the development of service or product. Many supermarkets and self-check-in kiosks now offer self-checkout lanes facilitated by airline companies (Murray, 2013). The benefits of scale or experience are reflected in the company’s superior access to information. For example, through billions of dollars of cumulative investments in Research & Development, Boeing has acquired superior know-how regarding commercial jet aircraft. The company allowed for sustained competitive advantage after reaching a higher degree of cost efficiency over its rivals. Business level strategies: Financial performance over the last 5 years has been occasioned by business strategies centered on increasing reliance on cost-cutting, global suppliers, and shedding of assets. According to Lazzarani (2011) running a healthy core business is one strategy that touches the daily activities of workers inside Boeing such as designing space vehicles and building the highest-quality and safest rotorcraft and airplanes. The company works hand in hand with customers to understand the requirements of the marketplace and address customers' needs by collaborating with partners to develop networked solutions (Banham, 2010). These partnerships are meant to reduce operational and product cost while improving on the processes. Boeing Realty Corp and Boeing Australia are some of the two subsidiaries that tackle this strategy from different angles. Boeing Commercial Airplanes leverage core strengths associated with the challenges that airlines globally face in meeting mechanic and pilot training requirements (Schuler and McMillan, 1984). Tremendous opportunities for growth have been created by technology and detailed customer knowledge that combines support services and aircraft operations. Growth is taking place in the subsidiaries as Boeing reign on the abilities of Commercial Aviation Services organization. However, Orlando (2004) shows that other macro-environment factors, fierce rivalry between the incumbent firms and risks of entry by potential competitors are some of the threats facing Boeing. To combat these market threats, the company implements some strategies such as customer switching cost, barrier to entry and brand loyalty (Andrevski & Ferrier, 2008). Although they may not be sufficient, some strategies help reduce external competitive forces. Moreover, moonshine teams were established to focus on equipment redesign and production of small scale machines. Wandering of tools and parts were eliminated when moving assembly lines were set up as well as crane lifts and expensive tug pulls (Gupta, 2013:15). Regarding six sigma quality improvement process and lean production, Boeing has been able to manage warehouse inventory, slack capital, and space and time not adding in value. Corporate level strategies: Boeing intends to become a global leader in supply of equipment and machines to the civil sector and the military. It will do so by getting a mixed portfolio and secured business sections. McDonnell Douglas and Boeing have engaged in mergers to strengthen their huge presence in space and defense side of aerospace (Wankel, 2009). According to Bridoux (2004), commercial aerospace accounts for 60 percent of revenues because of the broad-based aerospace and as it moved its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, it signaled interests beyond business. The company produces right sized aircrafts at low cost thus increasing profits in the renewed demand for non-stop flights (Stabell, 2001). Stiff competition was given to Airbus A380 and A350 aircrafts when the company launched 787 long haul aircrafts (Powell & Arregle, 2010). Meanwhile, wide bodied 767 and narrow bodied 757 shows investments attaining breakeven from positive cash flows. Moreover, by subcontracting a significant portion of work such as for Boeing 777, it reduced a lot on development costs. Conclusion Companies attain sustained competitive advantage if they are organized to exploit, have unique, inimitable, and rare resources that can be used to edge out competitors. The report has shown that Coke has secret concentrate recipe and unique history. Boeing bases its growth on path dependence while Apple uses tacit knowledge to create sustained competitive advantage. Moreover, Chevron has claims to land and property rights that are massive and difficult for any new entrant to penetrate. The essay finds that these advantages are the reasons why these companies have been and will continue being successful. Reference List Akram, K., Mehmood, N., & Khan, I. (2015). A conceptual linkage between knowledge management , competitive advantage and competitive maneuverings of organizations. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(2), 1–6. Andrevski, G., & Ferrier, W. (2008). Toward An “Austrian” Theory Of Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Role Of Value-Enhancing Competitive Actions (2nd ed.). Lexington: University of Kentucky. Banham, H. C. (2010). For Small And Medium Enterprises ( SMEs ). Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8(10), 19–26. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Brakaj, E. P. (2013). How the Albanian External Environment Affect the construction industry. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 15(1), 295–309. Bridoux, F. (2004). A resource-based approach to performance and competition: an overview of the connections between resources and competition. Luvain, Belgium Institut et de Gestion, Universite Catholique de Louvain, (1984), 1–21. Cabral. (2012). Living Up To Expectations : Corporate Reputation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. New York: Harvard Business School. Chaston, I. (2012). Strategy for sustainable competitive advantage: Surviving declining demand and China’s Global development,. Routledge. Chevron. (2014). 2014 Annual Report. Dragnić, D. (2014). Impact of Internal and External Factors on the Performance of Fast-Growing Small. Management – Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 12(5), 119–160. Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The Relational View: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. Ferreira, J. J., Garrido Azevedo, S., & Fernández Ortiz, R. (2011). COntribution of Resource-Based view and entrepreneurial orientation on small firm growth. Cuadernos de Gestión. Gasparotti, C., & Jos, D. De. (2009). the Internal and External Environment Analysis of Romanian Naval Industry With Swot Model. Management and Marketing, 4(3), 97–110. Gupta, A. (2013). Environmental and pest analysis : An approach to external business environment. Merit Research Journal of Art, Social Science and Humanities, 1(2), 13–17. He, N. (2012). How to Maintain Sustainable Competitive Advantages: Case Study on the Evolution of Organizational Strategic Management. International Journal of Business Administration, 3(5), 45–51. Jung, S. C. (2014). The Analysis of Strategic Management of Samsung Electronics Company through the Generic Value Chain Model. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 8(12), 133–142. Kennedy-reid, S., & Ihrig, M. (n.d.). Strategic Knowledge Mapping at Boeing : An I-Space Pilot. Chicago: Boeing and I-Space Institute. Küçükaslan, a, & Ersoy, N. (1997). the Determinants of Competitive Advantage and Success Factors of Firms Within the Global Competition. Management, 18(3), 509–533. Lazzarini, S. G. (2011). Strategizing by the Government : Industrial Policy and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Sao Paolo: Insper Institute of Education and Research. Mohiuddin, M., & Qin, X. (2013). Irrationality: Sources of Competitive Advantage. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2(5), 32–44. Murray, S. (2013). The Nature and source of competitive advantage. In W. J. Duncan (Ed.), Analysis of Competitive Advantage (2nd ed., pp. 188–219). New york: Wiley & Sons. Netland, T. H., & Aspelund, A. (2013). Company-specific Production Systems and Competitive Advantage : A resource-based view on the Volvo Production System. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(11/12), 1511–1531. Oliver, C., & Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable Competitive Advantage : Combining Institutional And Resource- Based Views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(November 1996), 697–713. Orlando, C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural Diversity In Management , Firm Performance , And The Moderating Role Of Entrepreneurial Orientation Dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 255–266. Pagiavlas, N., Marburger, P., & Young, S. (2005). Mobile business - comprehensive marketing strategies or merely it expenses ? A case study of the us airline industry. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3), 251–261. Powell, T. C., & Arregle, J. (2010). Firm Performance and the Axis of Errors (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rothaermel, F. T. (2008). Chapter 7 Competitive Advantage In Technology Intensive Industries. In L. E. Swayne (Ed.), Competitive advantage in technology intensive industries (Vol. 18, pp. 201–225). Elsevier Ltd. Schuler, R. S., & Macmillan, I. C. (1984). Gaining Competitive Advantage through Human Resource Management Practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3), 241–255. Shea, M., & Hutchin, J. (2007). Can sustainability be a source of competitive advantage in the insurance industry (3rd ed.). West Chester: University of Pennsylvania. Stabell, C. (2001). New Models for Value Creation and Competitive Advantage in the Petroleum Industry by Department of Strategy (3rd ed.). Oslo: Nordberg Hurtigtrykk. Tanwar, R. (2013). Porter ’ s Generic Competitive Strategies. Journal of Business and Management, 15(1), 11–17. Tell, F. (2002). Strategy, capabilities and corporate coherence: Exploring some dynamics of learning. In EURAM COnference (pp. 1–23). London. Wankel, C. (2009). Encyclopedia of Business in todays world: A-C,. Sage publications. Zamir, Z., Sahar, A., & Zafar, F. (2014). Strategic Alliances ; A Comparative Analysis of Successful Alliances in Large and Medium Scale Enterprises around the World. Educational Research International, 3(February), 25–39. Mendeley Reference List Read More