Stratejik planlamada firma içi analiz PIMS veri tabanı

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Stratejik Planlama literatürlerine geçmiş PIMS modeli ele alınmıştır. PIMS modelinde yer alan kavramlar incelenmiş, ayrıca bir model kurulmuş ve strateji haritası üzerine yerleştirilmiştir. Birinci bölümde, Firmanın içinde bulunduğu durumların incelenmesi için gerekli yöntemler ve kavramlar kısaca ele alınmıştır. İkinci bölümde, Karlılığın stratejik planlama üzerine etkisi, PIMS karlılık modeli ve kazançlılık kavramları incelenmiştir. Üçüncü bölümde, PIMS projesindeki en önemli kavram olan Pazar payı ve pazar payı-iç verim oranı etkileşimi araştırılmıştır. Ayrıca Pazar payının amaçlarını oluştururken gözönünde tutulan stratejilere açıklık getirilmiştir. Dördüncü bölümde ise, PIMS modelinde geçen kavramların rekabetçi çevrede incelenmesi yer almaktadır ve bir model ile tanımlanan verilerin strateji haritası üzerinde gösterimi sağlanmıştır. Böylelikle yönetime etkin bir stratejik plan uygulamada yardımcı olmak amaçlanmıştır.

The assessment of past performance and current and future environmental factors ( internal and external ) is an important step in the planning process. This step can be performed by managers making their own individual assessments without any formal process. Their observations are likely to be strengthened, however, with some formalization of the situation audit. There is no standard format for a situation audit. It will vary form company to company. The situation audit has a number of purpose; for example, to help management identity and analyze the more significant forces in the environment for the company, to firm up vague opinions about the changing environment, to provide a base for continuing the strategic planning process. The first step in the situation audit is an examination of expectations or interests of constituents outside the company. The second is to understand the interests of managers and employees within the company. As companies grow larger the more important are these constituent interests in the planning process. Next is the data base, which is composed of information about past performance, the current situation, and the future. The range of data that might be collected in this area is very wide. Managers must choose what is to be studied and how deeply each factor is to be analyzed. viii The interpretation of data by the managers is partly a function of the managers ' position and responsibility in the organization, their personality, and their perceived role in the organization. The situation audit proceeds to the SWOT UP analysis, or the identification of weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and strengths underlying planning. Strengths are positive internal abilities and situations which might enable the organization to possess a strategic advantage in achieving its objectives. At the business level, strengths are defined in terms of how the SBU can market its products competitively. There are five primary variables in marketing strategy : target market, product, promotion, price and distribution. The strategies developed in these five areas are essential to success; but functional strategies, both economic and managerial, can make important contributions to a successful marketing effort. Strengths at the corporate level for multiple-SBU firms are defined most often in terms of the synergy and balance among the SBUs within the firm. Weaknesses are internal inabilities and situations which might result in or have resulted in firm's not achieving its objectives. Weaknesses are the opposite of strengths. At the business level, marketing is still the principal concern. Sales stagnated and profits dropped. At the corporate level in the multiple-SBU firm, weaknesses are again a function of synergy and balance. Opportunities are external factors and situations which will assist the organization in achieving or exceeding its objectives. At the business level are almost always expressed in terms of market potentials. At the corporate strategy level in multiple-SBU firms, opportunities usually involve acquisitions or mergers. Threats are external factors which might result in or have resulted in the firm's not achieving its objectives. Historically, threats have been defined in terms of the firms competitors, but more recently the focus has expanded to include government, unions, society, and other stakeholder. At the business strategy level, an example of a threat is a technological innovation introduced by a competitors. ix At the corporate strategy level in multiple-SBU firms, threats are often the same as at the SBU level. Additional threats involve acquisitions and merger. Rival multiple-SBU firms may compete to acquire the same SBU. A threat is also represented by an unfriendly response to a takeover attempt. In the second and third chapter, PIMS project has demonstrated the feasibility and the benefits to be realized when companies pool their experience. Information on strategic actions, market and industry situation, and results achieved can be organized into a multipurpose data base, and analysis of this data base has yielded useful general findings. The project sought a basis upon which to estimate ROI for organizations in varying situations. Such a basis could help the organization to select businesses in which to diversify, projects in which to invest, and projects of which to divest and in general to balance the corporation's investment portfolio. Information relating to 37 major variables from these corporation was regressed against the ROI of the organizations. The intent was to determine which of these variables was the most explanatory. Some of the more significant contributory variables found included the following: a) Market Share, b) Product Quality, c) Marketing Expenditures, d) R & D Expenditures, e) Investment Intensity, f) Corporate Diversity, g) Company Factors, These variables believed to determine success vary from industry to industry; but as we saw in the PIMS results, these variables, such as market share, seem to be determinants of success in almost all business. Industry attractiveness criteria might include size, market growth and pricing, market diversity, mental factors, legal factors, and human factors. x The company using these variables has determined that any business it chooses to enter must score well on them. These variables also vary from company to company, depending on numerous variables- risk propensity, top management values. PIMS program offers further empirical support of idea by showing that, as relative market share increases, pretax ROI increases. From a competitive strategy viewpoint, there are several major implications of these ideas and findings. First, it appears that industry profitability is highest when rivalry is low, that is, when there is one dominant firm in the industry. Second, it clearly pays to be dominant firm in an industry, as the PIMS data illustrates. Third, the profitability of nonleading firms appears to be more closely correlated with their size relative to the leading firm than by their absolute size. According to PIMS findings, high capital intensity can depress overall industry profitability, especially when market share is low. One of the principal reasons for the low ROI observed in businesses with high capital intensity is the intense efforts placed on achieving high-volume and thus high-capacity utilization in such industries; that is, the problem appears to be more one of high break-even points than of the level of capital intensity per se. Where cyclical business conditions accompany high capital intensity, as in the paper -making industry, the intensity of the competion for business varies over the business cycle, producing substantial cyclical swings in profit performance. While the PIMS findings suggest that excessive capital intensity depresses ROI in most situations, their findings on vertical integration also suggest that the timing and the nature of the capital investments undertaken by a business may have as important an effect on profitability as the level of the investments undertaken. More specifically, the PIMS data suggest that high vertical integration depresses profitability in early stages of product /market evolution, but increases it in the later stages of product/market evolution. The reasons for this may be that early investments in vertical integration may be made at the expense of more profitable investments in marketing related activities but that later investments in vertical integration may help accelerate experience curve effects. xi Early investments in vertical integration may be made at the expense of alternate production investments that would produce superior experience curve effects, but that later investments in vertical integration help the integrating firm gain relative power in the raw-material- to-parts-to-components-to-assembly-to-distribution-to- consumer production chain and thus help maintain better margins. both answers eventually may turn out to be correct. What is clear at this time, however, is that, in most instances, firms should not attempt to integrate forward or backward in the early stages of product/market evolution. In the fourth section, an integrative tool, called a strategy map, is introduced for describing the nature of a given competitive environment. The approach can also suggest specific courses of actions for competing businesses in those environments. The search for an advantage within a given competitive arena is competitive strategy. Part of the difficulty in studying competitive strategy, however, is that both strategy and resulting performance are complex, multidimensional, and interrelated systems of variables. Strategy are viewed as a set of complex, multidimensional interrelationships, most have incorporated performance as a simple, undimensional construct like profitability, typically using ROI to capture it. In the "real world", however, the performance of a strategic business unit can be evaluated in a number ways, each of which indicates an entirely different dimension; for example, it may be evaluated in terms of profitability, growth, or market position. Performance dimensions are sometimes incompatible with one another. Managers must make decisions to deemphasize achievement levels for some dimensions of performance in order to improve performance of others. Without help in evaluating these complex trade-offs, however, managers have often had little more than intuition to guide them in selecting various performance objectives and strategies. Few methodologies are available to empirically derive the simultaneous trade-offs between alternative performance goals and the paths for achieving them (i.e., strategies). Our purpose is to develop a methodology that captures the complex interplay of strategy and performance for a given group of SBU's or firms in an industry. xii The strength of the method is its ability to capture and communicate visually through a map the complex relations among competitive strategy field to develop a basic model that ties together the key elements in the development of any competitive strategy map. This theoretical development is followed with an examination of some of important methodological developments in the field. The maps are developed through a methodology which captures the simultaneous, multidimensional, and interrelated nature of business strategy and performance for a group of business within an industry. Specifically, I (a) present a multidimensional scaling methodology for describing the competitive nature of a given industry, (b) examine the necessary tradeoffs that a competitor must make in targeting its performance goals, and (c) explore the relative importance the different strategy variables have achieving these performance goals in the given competitive environment. An empirical application using PIMS data is presented- strategy maps are derived for a mature, industrial supplier to illustrate how the method can be employed as a descriptive tool in competitive strategy.