Search Results

The chapter studies technological capabilities across around 400 of the world's largest technologically active firms, as measured by their patenting activities. There found a robust evidence of competences diversified across multiple technological fields, quite inertial— although slowly changing over time—and distinctly different across firms—even if influenced by the sector of principal production activity of the firms themselves. Interestingly, these large firms show a range of technologies, which firms may acquire from outside, and in‐house knowledge necessary to utilize them. Most of these firms in addition to core technological competences possess ‘background’ competences located in broad technologies—such as machinery and chemical process—and ‘niche’ competences in particular technological sub‐fields: these firm‐specific technological profiles are proximate predictors of the core activities of the firm.

Rejecting Milton Friedman's classic position, this chapter develops an account of corporate philanthropy as a legitimate corporate activity. The author evaluates arguments for and against the view that corporations are obligated to engage in philanthropy. With the main exception, and from the perspective of efficiency, the chapter proposes that corporate giving be grounded in corporate core competencies. In rare cases, corporate philanthropy is mandatory. In particular, firms that have a “unique human catastrophe rescue competency” may have a moral obligation to render aid as needed.

This chapter addresses promoting social justice through public health policies, programs, and services. It describes public health agencies and social justice and the roles that they can play in promoting social justice. It presents two case studies in which public health practice was oriented to social justice. The chapter puts forward an action agenda for a social justice core competency in public health practice.

This chapter describes the evolution of business strategy. It begins with the 1960s perspective in which strategy was largely equated with corporate planning; the 1970s see an emphasis on diversification and portfolio planning. The 1980s and 1990s are characterized by a focus on core competencies and the development of less analytic, more people‐oriented approaches to management. The still dominant rational approach to strategy is explained and its criticisms discussed. However, it is argued that these criticisms are based on a wish‐driven view of strategy and is not as relevant to a strategy rooted in the distinctive capabilities of the individual firm.

‘Architecture’ is introduced as the first of the three primary sources of distinctive capabilities and it refers to a network of relationship contracts within, or around, the firm. It can be subdivided into internal architecture (relationships with employees), external architecture (relationships with their suppliers and customers) and networks (relationships among a group of firms engaged in related activities). It adds value by helping create organizational knowledge and routines that enable the company to respond flexibly to changing circumstances and allows easy exchange of information. Note that such capabilities can only add value in a long‐term context, which penalizes opportunistic behaviour.

This chapter introduces the concept of the strategic audit. This begins with the identification of the company's distinctive capabilities and the subsequent selection of markets that can make the best use of them. Finally, it is recognized that for these distinctive capabilities to create true competitive advantage, they need to be both sustainable and their added value appropriable by the company.

I summarize our general education model, compare it with other popular approaches, and discuss our approach to common challenges. All students complete the same four freshman seminars; each lasts the year and is fully active: no lectures. Approximately 115 learning objectives span four core competencies: critical and creative thinking and effective communication and interaction. This model differs from the four dominant models found in ~290 representative institutions of higher education. We avoided many challenges by building our plans into the foundations of the university from its inception, using a highly diverse team-based course development and teaching program, and continuing assessment on the learning objectives throughout all four years.

Strategic management does not exist in a vacuum; strategic decisions are strongly influenced by, and often dependent on, certain organizational and environmental attributes. This chapter discusses the context for strategic decision-making, be it a managerial, business, or corporate level choice. First, a firm’s vision, mission, and values are defined and discussed. Second, the chapter unpacks firm resources, capabilities, core competencies, and activities. Finally, the nature of competitive advantage is elaborated, and three types of competitive advantage are distinguished: differentiation, cost leadership, and dual advantage. Overall the chapter provides foundational insight into the factors that make up the context for strategic decision-making.

The second primary distinctive capability is ‘Reputation’, as it is the most important commercial mechanism for conveying information. Reputation can be costly to build, yet once established, it can yield substantial added value, particularly in markets where the quality of the product is immediately observable.

“Architecture” is introduced as the basis of competitive advantage for many companies. It refers to a network of relationship contracts within, or around, the firm. It can be sub‐divided into internal architecture (relationships with employees), external architecture (relationships with their suppliers and customers) and networks (relationships among a group of firms engaged in related activities). It adds value by helping to create organizational knowledge and routines that enable the company to respond flexibly to changing circumstances and allow easy exchanges of information. Such capabilities can only add value in the context of a long‐term relationship, which penalizes opportunistic behaviour.

Case studies and statistical evidence are used in order to show that many companies are successful in building sustainable competitive advantage using their distinctive capabilities. However, distinctive capabilities continue to add value, only if both the capability and the distinctiveness are sustainable. Of the primary distinctive capabilities, reputation is easiest to maintain, innovation is usually the most difficult, whereas for strategic assets, handling public policy is crucial.

The final primary distinctive capability is ‘Innovation’. However, firms may often fail to secure the returns from innovation for themselves. In this context, the chapter analyses the problems of achieving competitive advantage that is both sustainable and appropriable.

The successful strategy of a firm originates in the requisite match between its internal capabilities and its external relationships. This is the basis of its ability to add value, i.e. to create an output that is worth more than the cost of the inputs it uses. To achieve this, these capabilities need to be distinctive (not easily replicated by other companies), sustainable (persist over time), and appropriable (to principally benefit the company that holds them). There are three broad categories of such distinctive capabilities. “Architecture” refers to a network of relationship contracts within or around the firm. It adds value by helping to create organizational knowledge and routines that enable the company to respond flexibly to changing circumstances and allow easy exchanges of information. The second is “reputation” which is the main commercial mechanism for conveying information to purchasers of complex commodities. Finally, by protecting and exploiting “innovation”, the company can derive a third distinctive capability, given that it can appropriate the gains associated with it.

Using the example of six British supermarket chains, competitive advantage is explained and quantified. When there is no explicit comparator, competitive advantage can be measured in relation to the marginal firm in the industry. In other words, the weakest firm that still finds it worthwhile to serve the market provides the baseline against which the competitive advantage of all other firms can be set. Architecture, innovation, and reputation are reviewed as the main sources of competitive advantage.

The political leaders of Africa come in all sizes, shapes, and persuasions. There are liberal democratic heads of state and heads of government, presidents and prime ministers; elected democratic leaders who become wily autocrats; strong authoritarians who brook no opposition and respect few freedoms; military men ruling because their followers are well-armed; kleptocrats who govern so that they can steal from the state and its citizens; a few who profess strong support for the public interest; and many who serve clan, family, and narrow conceptions of national “interest.” There are few women. Ideology plays little part in the very different styles and mechanisms of governance that these political leaders display. But nearly all of them are transactional; hardly anyone today is transformational in the manner of several of Africa’s founding fathers, such as Nelson Mandela.