This chapter demonstrated
three traditional approaches for assessing and measuring firm performance and competitive advantage, as
well as two conceptual frameworks designed to provide a more holistic, albeit more qualitative, perspective
on firm performance. We also discussed the role of business models in translating a firm’s strategy
into actions.
Conduct a firm
profitability analysis using accounting data.
To measure competitive
advantage, we must be able to (1) accurately assess firm performance, and (2) compare and benchmark the focal firm’s performance to other
competitors in the same industry or the industry average.
To
measure accounting profitability, we use standard metrics derived from publicly available accounting data.
Commonly
used profitability metrics in strategic management are return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE),
return on invested capital (ROIC), and return on revenue
(ROR). See the key financial ratios in five tables in the “How to Conduct a Case Analysis”
module.
All
accounting data are historical and thus backward-looking. They focus mainly on tangible assets, and do not consider intangibles
that are hard
or impossible to measure and quantify, such as an innovation competency.
Applying shareholder value creation to assess and evaluate competitive
advantage.
Investors are
primarily interested in total return to shareholders, which includes stock price appreciation plus dividends received over
a specific period.
Total
return to shareholders is an external performance metric; it indicates how the
market views
all publicly
available information about a firm’s past, current state, and expected future performance.
Applying
a shareholders’ perspective, key metrics to measure and assess competitive
advantage are the return
on (risk) capital and market capitalization.
Stock
prices can be highly volatile, which makes it difficult to assess firm performance.
Overall macroeconomic
factors have a direct bearing on stock prices. Also, stock prices frequently reflect the psychological mood of the investors,
which can
at times be irrational.
Shareholder
value creation is a better measure of competitive advantage over the long term due to the “noise” introduced by
market volatility, external factors, and investor sentiment.
Economic value
creation and different sources of competitive advantage.
The relationship
between economic value creation and competitive advantage is fundamental in
strategic management.
It provides the foundation
upon which to formulate a firm’s competitive strategy of cost leadership or differentiation.
Three
components are critical to evaluating any good or service: value (V), price (P), and cost (C). In this perspective, cost
includes opportunity costs.
Economic
value created is the difference between a buyer’s willingness to pay for a good or service and the firm’s cost to produce it (V 2 C).
A
firm has a competitive advantage when it is able to create more economic value than
its rivals. The
source of competitive advantage can stem from higher perceived value creation (assuming equal cost) or lower cost (assuming equal value creation).
Applying a
balanced scorecard to assess and evaluate competitive advantage.
The balanced-scorecard
approach attempts to provide a more integrative view of competitive advantage.
Its
goal is to harness multiple internal and external performance dimensions to
balance finansial and strategic goals.
Managers
develop strategic objectives for the balanced scorecard by answering four key
questions: (1) How do customers view us? (2)
How do we create
value? (3) What core competencies do we need? (4) How do shareholders view us?.
Applying a
triple bottom line to assess and evaluate competitive advantage.
Noneconomic factors
can have a significant impact on a firm’s financial performance, not to mention its reputation and customer goodwill.
Managers
are frequently asked to maintain and improve not only the firm’s economic performance but also its social and ecological performance.
Three
dimensions—economic, social, and ecological—make up the triple bottom line. Achieving positive results in all three areas can lead to a sustainable
strategy—a strategy that can endure over time.
A
sustainable strategy produces not only positive financial results, but also positive
results along the
social and ecological dimensions.
Using
a triple-bottom-line approach, managers audit their company’s fulfillment of its social and ecological obligations to
stakeholders such as employees, customers, suppliers, and communities in as serious a way as they track its finansial performance.
The
triple-bottom-line framework is related to stakeholder theory, an approach to understanding a firm as embedded in a network of internal and external
constituencies that each make contributions and expect consideration in return.
How business
models put strategy into action.
The translation of a
firm’s strategy (where and how to compete for competitive advantage) into action takes place in the
firm’s business model (how to make money).
A
business model details how the firm conducts its business with its buyers, suppliers,
and partners.
How
companies do business is as important to gaining and sustaining competitive advantage as what they do.
Some
important business models include razor– razor-blade,
subscription-based, pay-as-you-go, and freemium.
Comments
Post a Comment