ELSEVIER

Technology, Competencies, and Competitiveness:

The Case for Reconfigurable and Flexible Strategies
Marilyn E. Booth
THE QUEEN'S UNIVERSITYOF BELFAST

George Philip
THE QUEEN'S UNIVERSITYOF BELFAST

The past two decades have witnessed the emergence of two diJferent
schools of thought on competitiveness, the technology-driven and competency-driven approaches. This article examines the features of each approach and argues the case for a convergence of these opposing views if
organizations are to succeed in the 1990s and beyond. The technologydriven approach, stresses the importance of information technology. A
corresponding emphasis on rigorous planning and the use of generic
strategies separate this flom competency-driven routes to competitiveness.
Sixteen senior management figures from leading edge companies were
interviewed to establish which, if either, of these two very different approaches to competition was more apparent. Technology was found to be
a possible source of advantage against competitors, although the emphasis
was on its use in conjunction with other valuable, and unique, resources
within the company. The attitudes taken to customers and suppliers reflects
the need to take a much more flexible stance to strategy, as the companies
of the 2990s reinvent themselves to.face the challenges of the future in
a global environment, j susN eEs 1998. 41.29-40. @ 1998 Elsevier
Science Inc.

he search for competitiveness has become an increasingly important issue as organizations strive to come
to terms with an increasingly fast moving global environment; an environment where stakeholder demands for
profitability and stability must be balanced against the need
for ever more dynamic and creative strategies which are necessary for survival in this "brave new world" (Boynton and
Victor, 1991). Companies are bombarded with information
on how to increase their competitive potential, while intervention by government and government-sponsored bodies (DTI,
1995; NIGC, 1995; DED, 1994) highlight the important connection between individual company success and the economic welfare of the region at large (Porter, 1990). Conflicting

Address correspondence to George Philip, The Queen's University of Belfast,

Queen's School of Management, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT7 1NN UK.
Journal of Business Research 41, 29-40 (1998)
@ 1998 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

advice may lead many to question whether there can ever be

any path to success. Given that companies are facing such
changes, how do managers make sense of the complex and
different choices they face?
Since the mid-1980s academic pundits have advanced two
major theories on the achievement of competitiveness. The
first, which takes its origin from the emergence of powerful
and inexpensive PCs, terminals, and communication networks, is prescriptive and based around the potential of information technology (IT) to improve efficiency and create strategic advantage. The second theory, part of which originates
from the traditional marketing discipline, is more dynamic
and multidimensional: it recommends that companies identify
and harness their own unique skills and competencies through
both internal and external consolidation. In other words, according to the first theory, technology is the bulwark of competitiveness, while the ethos of the second is that of the learning organization--playing on one's own strengths to stay
ahead by benchmarking, as well as anticipating and responding effectively to change (Booth and Philip, 1996). In
this article, we examine these two theories and, using the
practical experiences of senior management figures, seek to
understand their relevance to the real world of business. More
specifically, we were interested in studying which view is more
prevalent within the business community, and in establishing
which, if either, will take companies forward into the next
century.

IT-based Approaches
to Competitiveness
This approach is rooted in the belief that IT can be isolated
as a factor in company success. Popularized by Michael Porter
(Porter, 1980, 1985; Porter and Millar, 1985), it is claimed
that IT will offer new and innovative ways to compete through
cost reduction and product differentiation, the key parts of
ISSN0148-2963/98/$19.00
PII S0148-2963(97)00009-X

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

30

M.E. Booth and G. Philip

25

21
20

15.

Figure 1. Analysis of citations (Porter and Millar,

e-

10

]985).

8
E

:'~;

N
g,

,,

~,-

,e-

,e-

year

Porter's generic strategies, (cost leadership, differentiation, and

focus).
Porter's views on industry structure and strategic types
have been widely used as a basis for research aimed at establishing how companies can achieve competitive advantage
through information technology; a linkage sustained by the
range of case study evidence which served to further the claims
of the technology-driven approach, and supported by Porter
himself:
[T]he question is not whether Information Technology will
have a significant impact on a company's competitive position, rather the question is when and how the impact will
strike (Porter and Millar, 1985, p. 160).
For many investigating the linkages between IT and strategy, the framework laid down provides a valuable starting
point (Cash and Konsynski, 1985; Griffiths, 1989; Jackson,
1991; Ives and Learmonth, 1984; McFarlan, 1984; Sabherwal
and Tsoumpas, 1993), and it has been shown (Bergeron,
Bluteau, and Raymond, 1991) that companies can use the
work of Porter to identify areas where IT could be used in a
competitive fashion. The case for IT's strategic potential is
strengthened further by the year-to-year increase in IT/competitive strategy literature (Philip, Gopalakrishnan, and Mawalkar, 1995). Figure 1 shows a corresponding increase in
attention being paid to the work of Porter. A citation analysis
was performed on the 1985 paper, "How Information Gives
You Competitive Advantage," (Porter and Millar, 1985). The

recommendations made are still the focus of attention for

many researchers addressing the part IT has to play in the
creation of competitive advantage. However, it must be taken
into account that not all these papers will be complementary
in tone.
Earl (1989) showed that companies in many industries
did increase their overall performance through the use of IT,
although he also stresses the important role which management has to play in harnessing the technology's full potential
(Earl, 1989, 1993). While many companies do see IT as a
competitive weapon, its effective management has risen higher
on the executive agenda (Galliers, Merali, and Spearing, 1994;
Lefebvre, Lefebvre, and Pefontaine, 1994; Niederman, Brancheau, and Wetherbe, 1991) as many companies fail to realize
any sustainable tangible or economic benefits from the technology (Mahmood, 1993; Strassman, 1994; Willcocks, 1992).
Touche Ross Management Consultants (1995), along with
several other researchers (King and Grover, 1991), have put
forward two main reasons for this failure to realize anticipated
benefits from the technology. First, despite IT's ubiquitous
presence in organizations, it is not a resource which is actively
managed. Indeed our own research has shown that many
companies lack technology management skills. Second, companies fail to distinguish between IT and information, with
the result that the medium (technology) often becomes more
important than the message (information).
. . although more technology has been implemented, the
problems with information remain u n s o l v e d . . , the focus

Technology and Competency Approaches

is still on IT . . . . (Touche Ross Management Consultants,

1995, p. 3).
Companies such as ASB Bank (Barton and Peters, 1992),
Rosenbluth Travel (Clemons, 1991), and Otis Elevator (Jelassi,
1993) have shown how IT can be a factor in company success.
Similarly, companies such as McKesson and American Airlines
have undoubtedly benefited from innovative IT-based applications. One has to ask, however, is it the single factor in the
good fortune of these companies? The focus on case studies
which the proponents of this approach have tended to rely
on, has recently come under scrutiny (Segars and Grover,
1994; Kettinger, Grover, Guha, and Segars, 1994). Can the
situation in one company be replicated in others, especially
when information systems can be so quickly copied?
Porter (1980) argues that the path to competitiveness lies
in overcoming the five forces of industry structure, (namely
customers, suppliers, new entrants, substitute products, and
industry rivals) through the use of the three mutually exclusive
generic strategies (cost, differentiation, and focus). A concurrent emphasis on exhaustive planning decreases the uncertainty surrounding the whole process of competition. Evidence
has shown that such an approach can lead to significant advantages, including an improvement in financial performance
(Orpen, 1994). Others have suggested that poor performance
is directly linked to the lack of a coherent strategy, (Miller
and Friesen, 1986a, 1986b). However, the work of Miller and
Friesen (1986a, 1986b) also suggests that the choice of strategy
is not the only factor in creating advantage, but that it depends
on a range of strengths within the business.
Porter's focus on exhaustive planning has begun to be
widely questioned, although evidence has been found to support the existence of generic strategies (Dess and Davis, 1984;
Hambrick, 1983). Others, however, have questioned the range
of strategic options (Mintzberg, 1992) and the inherent dangers associated with a focus on one particular front or issue
(Miller, 1992). Indeed, Porter's overall approach can be considered as indicative of the "traditional strategic formulas"
which some writers on strategy want to dispense with (Quinn,
Doorley, and Paquette, 1990, p. 58). Despite these and other
criticisms (Hen&y, 1990), the work of Porter still provides the
basis for much research into strategy and strategy formulation.
As the debate on strategy making continues, the role of IT
comes under further scrutiny as well. Hopper (1990) contends
that the time when companies could view IT as a competitive
weapon may have passed (if it ever truly existed); a view
shared by others who have come to regard the technology as
a competitive necessity, as opposed to an actual source of
competitiveness (Applegate, Cash, and Quinn Mills, 1988;
Grainger-Smith and Oppenheim, 1994). For the modern company IT will undoubtedly prove an important tool in the
competitive arena, and will be an essential part of business
life. The importance placed on IT in today's organization is
highlighted by the fact that, for some, it also has an important
part to play in competency-driven routes to success.

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

31

Competencies, Capabilities,
and Multifaceted Strategies
Unlike the technology-driven approach, the competencydriven approach to competitiveness places emphasis on using
IT in conjunction with other (unique) skills which the organization has at its disposal (Clemons, 1991; Land, 1994). Competencies can be considered as an "experience-based, tacit
know-how which is acquired, developed and improved over
a period of time rather than explicit knowledge" (Doz, 1989,
p. 48). Nonaka (1991) reasons that it is this organizationwide, sometimes "tacit" knowledge which has enabled some
of the world's most successful companies to offer ever more
flexible responses to customers. They have been variously
described as "core competencies" (Doz, 1989; Pralahad and
Hamel, 1990), "invisible assets" (Itami, 1989), and "distinctive
capabilities" (Kay, 1993). All agree that it is the unique combination of factors within the firm, as well as its individual
character which impact on the competitive position. The individual character of the firm is expressed in terms of assets,
skills, and organizational knowledge, or "collective learning"
(Doz, 1989). The more unique and idiosyncratic the competencies, the stronger and more sustainable the advantage,
(McGrath, McMillan, and Venkataraman, 1995).
This view is presented in greatest detail in the work of
John Kay (1993). Kay's "Structure of Strategy" recognizes that
successful firms tend to gain advantage from a unique combination of "distinctive capabilities" which can be used to give
a firm an orientation for the strategic position to adopt. Four
such capabilities have been identified, namely architecture,
reputation, innovation, and strategic assets.
Kay's approach to competitiveness shares some similarities
with that of Porter in that both question overall sustainability
of advantage and recognize that any advantage must be unique
to the firm concerned. However, while Porter offers three
generic strategies, Kay reasons that there are no magic recipes
through which success can be achieved. Instead, he suggests
that firms will tend to focus on three main areas, depending on
which of the capabilities are strongest: pricing and positioning
initiatives; advertising and branding; as well as exploiting
relationships with other players in the supply chain.
The importance of business relationships is emphasized in
the literature on collaborative advantage (Gomes-Casseras,
1994; Kanter, 1994), while others suggest that closer ties
with suppliers can lead to shared cost reductions (Burnes
and Whittle, 1995; Coleman and Bhattacharya, 1995). For
Lamborghini (1989, p. 63) linkages with other players in the
supply chain are useful ways for companies to compete in an
era of change:
In today's conditions only a real synergistic relationship
between a company and its territory can provide an innovative and challenging support to the development of the
competitiveness of a company.

32

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

Changing traditional modes of competing is also the order

of the day for Bakker, Jones, and Nichols (1994, p. 13), who
suggest that "more of the same won't do"; that reliance on
either cost or differentiation is no longer enough to ensure
sustainable advantage. Creativity in terms of competitive action and relationships with other organizations can result from
this need to break away from "how things have always been
done." Tampoe (1994, p. 66) calls for a deeper understanding
of the sources of competitiveness, while recognizing that organizations have to move faster than ever simply to keep apace
with the competition:
In today's hothouse atmosphere it is not good enough to
produce a mouse trap today because someone else will
produce a better and cheaper mouse trap tomorrow and
take your competitive edge a w a y . . , we have accelerated
the evolutionary cycle. This means that organizations have
to dig deeper to understand where their competitive edge
comes from.
Companies must try to identify, and hence cultivate, the
sources of advantage which they have at their disposal.
One more departure from prescriptive approaches to strategy is found in regard to actual formulation of strategy: "the
strategy of successful firms is adaptive and opportunistic"
(Kay, 1993, p. 4). Kay's wide range of strategic options leads
to more flexible approaches to planning for the future. Hamel
and Pralahad (1989, p. 64) take a similar view, regarding
approaches such as that advocated by Porter in terms of "a
snapshot of a moving car." Rigorously planned strategies,
which are adhered to at all costs are considered as archaic,
and too static for fast-moving marketplaces (Collis and Montgomery, 1995). Mintzberg (1994a, 1994b, 1994c) warns of
the dangers of rigidly planned and inflexible strategies which
leave no room for creativity and changing circumstances. Instead he reasons that strategy should sometimes be allowed
to "emerge" and that firms be adaptable enough to take advantage of opportunities as and when they arise. In this respect
the competency-driven approach can give rise to a wide variety
of strategic combinations and orientations. Haeckel and Nolan
(1993, p. 123) also point out the importance of adaptability
and versatility in the fast-moving "sense and respond" environment of the 1990s, claiming that "adding the institutional
ability to adapt in a dynamic environment has become a
survival imperative for many companies." Strategies which
can be modified quickly thus assume greater importance.
In such a dynamic environment the role of highly planned
strategies comes under scrutiny, as does Porter's somewhat
static approach to the appraisal of industry structure, an approach which somehow seemed to negate the fact that those
other players would be involved in similar analysis, reaction,
and counter-reaction. For Stacey (1996), strategy, the response, and how it is implemented is an active process, a
game where the actions of the other players have a significant

M.E. Booth and G. Philip

impact on the range of outcomes; as Clemons (1991, p. 25)

points out, however, this is a game which "is not Solitaire."
This approach has been criticized, however, for the lack
of information on how competencies themselves can be identified (Tampoe, 1994). Collis (1994, p. 147) suggests that the
very "tacit" or inbuilt nature of the resources are their main
downfall, containing "the seeds of its own self-destruction."
What happens when a valuable, but tacit, competence or
capability is made explicit: will others seek to replicate it, and
will it cease to have any value? Collis (1994) also criticizes
the lack of methods by which individual competencies can
be measured and quantified.
Given that these two approaches (technology-driven and
competency-driven) seem to be so diametrically opposed, we
were interested to find out which would prove to be more
prevalent in practice. Would managers subscribe to one view,
or would it prove to be a combination of the two? We also
wanted to establish which approach managers felt would be
suitable to take them into the next century and the rationale
behind their position. Also, because the technology-driven
approach is based on a range of case study evidence, we
wanted to test its applicability to actual business practice
across the board.

Methodology
To establish which of the above views companies felt to be
most appropriate for the current competitive climate, it was
decided to interview a number of senior-level managers from
a range of leading edge companies; an equal number from
the manufacturing and service sector. Sixteen companies were
chosen from the "Top 100" companies in Northern Ireland as
published by the Belfast Telegraph (Simpson, 1995). A decision
was made to exclude those companies in the list that had not
made a profit in their last financial year. Company size ranged
from 300 to over 4000 employees, with many having plans
to expand further within the next few years. All the companies
had been established for more than 20 years, with two having
been established for almost a century. Despite restricting this
study in location, all but one of the companies involved operate on a global basis, and 11 are the European leaders in their
respective fields. The types of company involved are shown
in Table 1.
It was felt that a semistructured interview schedule should
be used as this method offers a high degree of flexibility-issues can be explored in detail if and when they arise (Babble,
1992). The chief executive (or equivalent) of each company
was approached with a request for interview. The chief executive was the preferred choice because of his or her level of
involvement in strategic issues (Dess and Davis, 1984). This
person did not prove to be always available; in those cases
another management figure was substituted. These included
a marketing manager, production director, human resource

Technology and Competency Approaches

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

Table 1. Breakdown of Company Type

Company type

Food and drink manufacturing

Clothing manufacturing
General manufacturing
Engineering
Construction
Retailing
Transport
Financial services
Telecommunications
Utilities
Private health care (nursing homes)

33

Results
Number in Study

3
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1

manager, and a strategic planning manager. Each interview

was recorded for future reference.
The same interview schedule was used within each interview, although the nature of the semistructured method meant
that issues could be probed as they arose. Although the emphasis was on prepared questions, each interview was tailored by
drawing on cues given by individual interviewees. The opening question held true for each company, "What is the secret
of your success." This broad and wide-ranging question set
the scene for the rest of the interview. Each interviewee was
then given a brief description of Porter's "Model of Industry
Structure" and generic strategic types and asked to relate their
own experiences.
While the work of Michael Porter was used to test the
claims of the technology-driven approach, Kay's "Structure of
Strategy" was used to test the importance placed on competencies and capabilities. Here, managers were questioned on the
role that each of the four distinctive capabilities played within
their organization. Kay also suggests that an organization's
strengths may only be appropriate for certain markets; an
attempt was made to examine this issue by asking each interviewee if they thought their company would be as successful if
it moved into other unrelated areas of business. The question,
"What do you see as your sources of competitive advantage,"
was included in order to try and establish which, if either, of
the two approaches was most prevalent. This proved useful
in that it avoided the interviewer having to directly mention
competencies or information technology, which might have,
inadvertently, affected the responses obtained. At the end of
each interview if IT still had not been discussed, a direct
question on its importance was asked.
Approaches taken to the formulation of strategy were also
raised within each interview, in an attempt to ascertain the
flexibility or otherwise of the strategies being employed, and
whether or not they were emergent or highly planned and
inflexible. Here, the interviewee was asked to relate what
actually happened in the strategic planning process, and asked
about their own level of involvement--although in one case
the managerial position of the respondent made such questions infeasible.

Redefining Porter's "Model of

Industry Structure"
Porter's "Model of Industry Structure" proved a useful toot
for companies to identify the competitive threats which they
were currently facing. The nature of this particular framework
also enabled representatives to chart the history of the linkages
between the different elements, and detail relationships with
others in the supply chain.
Porter suggests that companies will compete by attempting
to reduce the influence of each of the five forces of industry
structure. This did prove true for some companies; however,
the maj ority claimed that this situation was changing as supply
chain relationships come under the microscope. Only three
companies actively agreed with Porter, following his suggestions by trying to minimize the impact of each force upon their
business. One, a leading engineering company, minimizes the
threat from new entrants by continuous product development
and redevelopment, making the cost of entry prohibitively
high for any potential entrant into the industry. Another was
firmly controlled by a single customer, and tried to have equal
influence over the actions of its own suppliers. Despite their
attitude to new entrants, the former company prefers to adopt
a more conciliatory attitude to suppliers.
The other companies shared similar views on potential
entrants and producers of substitute products. However, a
move away from this view was apparent in the attitudes taken
to the remaining forces, namely customers, suppliers, and
competitors. This reflects the belief expressed in the literature
that company structures are being redefined as one way of
finding fresh competitive stances.
Several representatives pointed out that "the whole supply
chain is changing" as managers realize that suppliers can play
an active and vitally important role in consolidating, and
assisting firms with their competitive strategies. Relationships
with suppliers are the current focus of attention for half the
study companies who recognize that partnerships with those
suppliers can lead to significant improvements in cost and
quality. One representative remarked on the dangers of not
viewing the supplier as a "long-term co-producer of equipment," claiming that, "It has to be a partnership with your
supplier: otherwise you end up destroying each other." Two
companies actively involve suppliers in the business. In these
instances the margins of the organiration become increasingly
blurred as employees frequently cross over between organizat i o n s - o n e sign of a movement toward the "boundaryless"
company (Kay, 1993; Syrett and Kingston, 1995). The benefits
include an insight into how suppliers produce "raw material";
knowledge which was used by individual employees to suggest
where savings could be made in both companies. This marks
a departure from the more antagonistic stance advocated by
Porter (1980), and a recognition that a close relationship can
provide more sustainable and long-term benefits.

34

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

Relationships with customers are also undergoing redefinition, with all the interviewees claiming that today's customer
is a lot more demanding, and recognizing that strategies,
structures, and processes have to become a lot more flexible
in order to cope with their exacting demands. Speed of response, and overall flexibility and customization prove important in this new era of relations with customers. Whereas
Porter (1980) would have advocated "locking in" or beating
down the influence of the customer, their influence and input
is now actively sought out, through a range of feedback mechanisms. Increasingly, customers are being offered a tailored
response ("It depends on which customer"). As companies
strive to come to terms with a changing business environment,
fast and flexible responses become the main focus of attention,
with those responses being rearranged to suit the needs of
individual customers.
The changing relationship with the customer is associated
with a parallel change in organizational structure. One view
was that:
"Organizational structures are changing to allow organizations to respond a lot more quickly than in the old bureaucracies."
Three other companies also emphasized the importance of
more flexible organizational structures, with one claiming that
such changes were necessary in order to avoid becoming "like
supertankers which can't turn around quickly." Instead, this
representative attributed their organiration's success to this
ability to respond quickly and the adoption of a "constantlychanging fluid position." Within this company structural
changes were also apparent in the appointment of businessfocused teams and in the promulgation of cross-functional
management activities. These changes, coupled with the transfer of responsibility for making customer-related decisions to
those most directly involved in implementing them, facilitate
the delivery of a fluid and adaptable response as all important
customer demands change. All three of these companies were
involved in the manufacture of fast-moving consumer
goods--a vigorous environment where new products and entrants come into the marketplace with increasing regularity.
Allied to changes in organizational structure are changes
in the way processes and activities are performed. Again a
focus on increasing responsiveness was the main reason why
three companies have made some changes in their business
processes. It is widely recognized that Business Process Reengineering (BPR) offers companies a chance to renew and refresh themselves for new competitive challenges and the ability
to offer more customization (Hammer and Champy, 1993).
Direct references to BPR were not made, although they were
implied: one company has already been reengineered, although with a different name attached to the change.
Only two companies had changed their attitudes to direct
competitors, with one suggesting that "alliances are a secure

M.E. Booth and G. Philip

way to move forward." Others were only prepared to collaborate on issues where competitive interests did not overlap.

Generic Strategies and Unique Mixtures

"We would continue to try and increase our customer base
by looking at a number of areas."
This view proved to be the consensus among the study companies, as they reject generic and unidimensional strategies in
favor of multidimensional strategies which combine elements
of cost leadership, differentiation, and "the flexibility to meet
the needs of customers."
Only two companies subscribed to the use of generic strategies: both were involved in manufacturing and had decided
to concentrate on differentiation. Although they were following pure differentiation strategies, they claimed that this did
not have to preclude cost leadership. It is interesting to note
that both of these companies have exceptionally stable relationships with their customers, and that the markets within
which they operate are less susceptible to change than others
in the study. Indeed, a similar point was raised by one interviewee following a mixed strategy. The representative claimed
that generic strategies would only be suitable in a more stable
industry, but the threat from potential entrants meant that
customers had to be attracted via a range of cost and differentiation measures.
The other companies were keen to stress aspects of quality
(differentiation) in their competitive responses. Cost reduction
was also an important issue, as respondents reasoned that
there would be a limit to the price which customers would
be willing to pay for that quality. One representative claimed
that competition today was essentially about "keeping the
delicate equation of cost efficiency and quality in balance,"
while another rejected the idea of generic strategies on the
grounds that: "If you concentrate on one thing the rest would
fall around you". Better relationships with customers and suppliers also formed part of mixed strategies, addressing both
the issues of cost and quality of service.
So, companies tended to follow multifaceted strategies,
rejecting the generic strategies put forward by Porter (1980).
Hence, while the research of Dess and Davis (1984) and
Hambrick (1983) did validate the existence of generic strategies in practice, such rigid formulas do not seem to be appropriate for the demands of the 1990s. The nature of the environment calls for strategic choices which are more difficult for
rivals to pinpoint, and subsequently replicate. Imitation of
a "non-generic" strategy becomes more difficult, and when
tailored responses and constantly changing strategic mixtures
are added into the equation it becomes harder for companies
to catch up with stronger competitors. Constant change and
"moving the goalposts" were advocated by six interviewees,
showing just how dynamic companies have to be at a time
when advantages are becoming sustainable for shorter periods
of time:

Technology and Competency Approaches

"Ultimately, the only thing that separates a company from

the masses is its ingenuity and the determination to change
faster than anybody else."
This view was shared by others who agreed that, yes, strategies
of cost and differentiation were important to them, but many
other factors come into play in the competitive arena. Certain
companies closely mirrored Kay's views on distinctive capabilities and their translation into competitive advantage--more
evidence for the competency-driven approach was found in
a focus on core skills.

Harnessing Distinctive Capabilities

The growing importance placed on relationships with other
companies in the supply chain highlights the importance
placed on architecture. Four company representatives remarked upon the equal importance of internal architecture
as a means of enabling faster responses. Here, various methods
were used to improve communication with employees at operational levels, including the promotion of team-based management, cross-functional activities, opportunities for employees
to put questions directly to senior management, and management by walking about.
Building on architectural strengths was seen as a realistic
way of creating long lasting advantages, as savings can stretch
right back through the supply chain. Innovation, however,
was not felt to offer such sustainable or long-term advantages:
"Generally you only have short-term advantage and if a
new innovation comes in somebody else is right behind
you with it."
Six companies referred to the importance of innovation in their
strategies. Again those strategies were mixed, as companies
stressed the importance of both cost and differentiation. Not
surprisingly, innovation was never quoted as a single factor
in company strategy. New innovations are regarded as being
too susceptible to replication by rivals. Indeed, none of the
four distinctive capabilities were used in isolation, with architecture playing a strong role for both those who rely on innovation and reputation.
Reputation was viewed as an important factor for those
companies producing consumer goods, where image is constantly reinforced by strong advertising and marketing campaigns as well as other brand-building exercises. Good customer relations was also seen as important for fostering this
particular capability. Again those involved in food and drink
manufacturing were at the forefront in this respect, offering
the customer 24-hour delivery and caflout, and helplines.
Representatives also pointed out that they too would only
deal with those suppliers felt to have equally good reputations.
Only one person dismissed the importance of this attribute.
The last capability--strategic assets--was manifested in
several ways by the companies in both a positive and a negative
sense. Restrictive government legislation (UK-wide) has

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

35

proved to be a competitive barrier for three companies. However, government-sponsored assistance has proved helpful for
many companies in Northern Ireland, including seven of those
involved in this study.
Kay (1993) claims that the most valuable advantages occur
when capabilities are applied to the most appropriate markets.
The study companies seemed to be in agreement, although
opinion was split between the manufacturing and service sector. Only one service company felt that it could transfer its
skills to another market area, while only one manufacturing
company dismissed the idea of moving into new business
areas.
Six representatives claimed that their skills would not be
appropriate for other types of business--two of these companies had already suffered business failures as a result of moving
into unrelated areas. Three said they would move into new
areas, but only those which were closely related to their current
activity. One of these stressed the need to emphasize core
management skills which the interviewee felt could only be
transferable to a similar service industry:
"I think it is very important to stay close to what your core
business is--the things that you understand."
Of those who believed they could move into other lines of
business, two stressed their belief in the strength of their
quality of service, with one interviewee claiming, "Good service is important in any industry." In this respect we see a
blurring of the traditional distinctions between manufacturing
and service industries, with service being provided to customers becoming a paramount source of strength, irrespective of
industry sector. Other skills felt to be transferable included
the vision and commitment of management.

Sources of Competitive Advantage

So, it would seem that companies are competing more in
line with Kay's suggestions and adopting their own strategic
mixtures to reflect the demands of their own particular situation. However, many other sources of competitive advantage
were put forward, strengthening the view that competitiveness
arises from strengths in a range of areas. When asked directly
about their sources of competitive advantage, the most popular
response (five companies) was a focus on customer satisfaction. The importance of the company's people was mentioned
by three companies--again support for the competencydriven approach in that the assets and skills are often "tacitly"
held by the employees within an individual company, and
when those people leave it is difficult to replace that asset
base (Nonaka, 1991).
Several other factors were put forward--many being mentioned by one or two companies--again highlighting the fact
that advantage may arise from those attributes which are
unique to a firm (see Table 2). Here, the increasing attention
being paid to customers, and the quality of service which is
provided to them, is very much in evidence, as is a sincere

36

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

M.E. Booth and G. Philip

Table 2. Sources of Competitive Advantage

Advantage
Focus on customer satisfaction (TQM)
Employee skills
Management skills
Promotion
Brand
Customer relations
Inward investment
Location
Size
Flexibility
Caution
Global outlook
Information technology
Incumbency

Number in Study
5
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

acknowledgment of the role of employees. However, how

much the importance of employees is actually acknowledged
within the company is difficult to verify without gaining closer
access to those employees themselves.
Table 2 also provides more supporting evidence for the
increase in the use of multiple strategies and flexibility of
approach adopted by companies. It is, perhaps, misleading
that flexibility was only mentioned by one respondent as a
direct source of competitive advantage, given that flexibility
of response was advocated by many throughout the interviews,
especially in relation to strategy formulation. Significantly,
only one respondent felt that their company had benefited
from a single source of advantage--its management skills.
Information technology was mentioned by only one company as a source of direct competitive advantage; however it
was not seen by this company as an isolated factor in success,
reflecting the wider recognition articulated by the other companies that technology (of all kinds) must be integrated into
the organization and used firmly in conjunction with other
skills and resources--that is, in line with competency-driven
approaches to competitiveness.

Role of Information Technology

As mentioned above, only one company directly attributed
its competitiveness to its information technology platforms.
However, it was felt that this advantage was only worthwhile
when systems were still new--sustainability was the main
concern here. Systems would only be able to confer advantage
until they were, inevitably, reproduced by others in a similar
line of business. More important however, IT was not seen
as the single factor in securing this competitive advantage.
Two other companies mentioned the strategic impact of
their IT at later points in the interview, claiming that it was
a useful way of differentiating products and offering unique
features to customers. One manager looked forward to the
day when IT would enable direct electronic links to the customer, with separate strategies being adopted for each of those

individual home-based customers. In such a "virtual" company (Davidow and Malone, 1992), IT enables changes to
occur in the whole process of buying and producing products--a link with BPR. Again, however, the interviewee was
keen to stress that IT would not be the only element in this
change, but would facilitate the logical extension of a TQMbased focus on customer satisfaction and supplier relationships.
Although the other companies did not view IT as a strategic
weapon, all stressed, with only one exception, that it was an
essential part of business life, simplifying many areas:
"We couldn't handle our customers on paper like we
used to."
Not only does IT enable companies to speed up processes, it
has become a vital tool with many subscribing to the view
expressed by one representative, "We couldn't do without it."
Despite this general approval of the technology, its potentially
negative impact was highlighted by four respondents, who
attributed decreasing sustainability to the availability of
cheaper, faster, and more flexible systems:
"IT is so transient that you can only expect to gain limited
advantage from it."
The importance placed on IT belies the fact that it was not
mentioned at all during the interviews by 13 companies l When
the issue was raised at the end of each interview, representatives did tend to praise the technology, and related how IT
had often played the role of competitive weapon in the past.
Five stressed the technology's importance to their continuing
success, "Our success going forward will be maintained
through IT." The general consensus, however, was that the
technology is proving to be more of a strategic necessity, as
opposed to a competitive weapon. This reflects the change in
attitude reflected within the literature as sustainability of ITbased advantages comes under the microscope.

Strategy Formulation
The actual procedures of formulating strategy would seem to
owe more to the technology-driven approach in this study.
However, great concern was expressed that strategies be flexible enough to cope with changing condition, reflecting a link
with the work of both Kay (1993) and Mintzberg (1994a,
1994b, 1994c).
Seven companies explicitly stressed the importance of this
attribute--two manufacturing companies have rejected the
idea of strategic planning documentation as a direct result:
"If you write strategy the danger is that it will soon be
outdated and you may be focusing your attention on the
wrong areas in the business."
This concern, to some extent, corroborates Mintzberg's
(1994c) "Fallacy of Predetermination/Planning" which questions the possibility of making adequate plans for a constantly

Technology and Competency Approaches

changing environment. Admittedly the two companies that

had rejected strategic planning were operating in an extremely
fast-moving and unstable environment, where technological
innovations have substantially reduced product life cycles,
and the sustainability of competitive advantage. The second
company had rejected strategic plans because they were never
used, as it was felt that they failed to take account of the
realities of business life at operational level:
"It was very difficult to get a link between the business
planning department and the delivery arm."
In this company people were also too caught up in the actual day-to-day operation of the business to take account of
written documentation. The chief executive reasoned that the
perfect solution to this particular problem would be to have
those at the front line formulating strategy. However, they
were not considered to have the necessary experience to effectively do so.
Planning itself was seen as beneficial when making decisions on future investments. It was also seen as a means
whereby the unpredictability of the external environment
could be reduced and controlled:
"You've got to have a sense of direction. It's no use saying
I hope this path takes me somewhere nice."
Indeed, emergent strategies were also dismissed by three
representatives for this reason, as preparation was seen as a
way of being able to take advantage of opportunities as they
arose. Strategies were constantly appraised by one company,
who described strategy making as "a living process." The
others were keen to stress that, although they did rely on
strategy documents, they did find room for opportunistic
decision making if and when those opportunities presented
themselves.
Documentation was updated by all the companies on an
annual basis, although most were couched inside three- or
five-year plans which took a longer-term view of the company's future. Those involved suggested that luck or chance
was not a factor in their success, but that benefits ensued as
a direct consequence of the preparedness which they promoted--in the words of one senior executive, "You make your
own luck." A wide range of stakeholders in the organization
were included in the formulation of the strategy, addressing
the fallacy of detachment put forward by Mintzberg (1994c).
The chief executive (or equivalent) tended to assume overall
responsibility, forming a team to represent as many interests
as possible: "the benefit is that (those involved) know what's
happening to the business." In one case the customers were
also actively involved in the planning process.
The emphasis on flexibility within what would appear to
be a rigid planning framework highlights the fast-moving
world within which the study companies are operating, as
well as the need to be in a position to take advantage of the
changes which the}, are facing, reflecting the views expressed

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

37

by one chief executive: "you've got to be changing all the time

to try and keep ahead."

Conclusions
This need for constant change is expressed in the companies'
recognition of the need to move away from old ways of doing
business and approaching competition. Elements of the two
approaches to competition identified earlier were manifested
by all the study companies, although the emphasis was more
on mix and match combinations of cost, differentiation, and
other incentives, rather than on any one generic posture. Such
a multidimensional stance represents a change in the way in
which companies are responding to a changing marketplace,
changing customers, and ever more competitive and complex
industries. Some aspects of Porter's (1980) views on the strategy process were evident, although all interviewees constantly
stressed the need to move away from older more static approaches, in favor of fresh and creative stances. So, while those
who operate in relatively slow-moving or stable environments
may be able to view customers and suppliers as threats, inconvenient obstacles whose influence must be reduced, and strategic plans as immovable feasts, the dynamics of the environment and hectic pace of change have meant that others have
to embrace the more flexible facets of competency-driven
approaches.
Such stances would seem to offer more flexible and unique
ways of competing in an environment where suppliers, customers (and, to some extent, competitors) are beginning to
play increasingly important roles within the organization. It
is this emphasis on external relationships which may prove
to offer IT its most important role in business: the technology
will be used in terms of the competency-driven approach,
and not within the more rigid and one-dimensional confines
of technology-based routes to competitiveness. Indeed, IT
will be used to deliver the increasingly flexible and tailored
response which today's customer demands.
An emphasis on flexibility was also apparent within the
actual processes of strategy formulation although the emphasis
of the majority was still firmly on planning and control; showing that remnants of Porter's work on strategy and strategy
making are still relevant.
The acceptance of the competency-driven approach is, to
a certain degree, the result of the way in which the environment has changed since Porter's (1980) views were first put
forward: global competition, faster product life cycles, increased uncertainty, recession, greater customer awareness,
and, increasingly, the introduction of often computerized deliveU channels such as the Internet. These have all played a
part in the changing nature of competition from a highlyplanned and one-dimensional stance, to the need for a more
multifaceted, easy to change, and increasingly tailored response. This movement is best summed up by Haeckel and
Nolan (1993, p. 131), who view it as:

38

J Bush Res
1998:41:29-40

[N]othing less than a change in the nature of strategy

itself, from a plan to produce specific offerings for specific
markets, to a structure for sensing and responding to
change faster than competition.
This new structure is built around flexibility, adaptability, and
anticipation of customer needs.
From this study we can draw several conclusions. First,
competitive advantage is more likely to result from a unique
combination of factors, with competition occurring on a number of dimensions. This represents a change in the received
wisdom of Porter (1980), and from the experiences described
by Dess and Davis (1984) and Hambrick (1983). Companies
are rejecting formulaic and generic strategies, realizing that
they have to compete on a different basis to attract a more
informed and sophisticated customer who wants an acceptable
balance between low cost and high quality.
Second, increasingly flexible and reconfigurable strategies
are required as advantages gained become harder to sustain.
Technology and other influences make it easier for follower
companies to replicate innovations and decimate advantages.
Constant innovation, product redevelopment, service improvement, and enhancement become the norm in such an
intense environment.
Third, the move away from inflexibility in strategy and
strategy making is accompanied by the recognition that structural and process changes may be necessary in order to remain
competitive into the next century. The need to move quickly
necessitates a change in structure with decisions being made
by those who will implement them, closer to the customer
interface. Increasing cross-functional cooperation may also
result in moves to find more effective ways of performing
processes.
Fourth, great changes are occurring in relationships with
customers and suppliers. There is a greater recognition that
these players in the supply chain can have a beneficial impact
as their influence and connection with the company increases.
It is no longer valid to view the customer or supplier as a
threat--rather, they should be seen as long-term partners who
are as intent on ensuring continuing success for the company
as those within the organizational boundary. Increasing exploitation of vertical relationships will act as a driver in the
increased importance placed on IT. Again this represents a
move away from conventional attitudes where IT was viewed
as a means of control as opposed to partnership.
The strategies which companies employ are changing as
they attempt to come to terms with changes in the way products and services are produced and eventually delivered to
the final customer. The companies involved in this study
have become more competitive by selecting from the two
approaches, and are formulating strategies which offer the
greatest degree of flexibility, versatility, and suitability for the
marketplace in which they find themselves.

M.E. Booth and G. Philip

References
Applegate, Lynda, M., Cash, James I. Jr., and Quinn Mills, D.: Information Technology and Tomorrow's Manager. Harvard Business
Review 66 (November-December 1988): 128-136.
Babble, Earl: The Practice of Social Research (6th ed.), Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA. 1992.
Bakker, Hans, Jones, Wynford, and Nichols, Michele: Using Core
Competences to Develop New Business. Long Range Planning 27
(December 1994): 13-27.
Barton, P. S., and Peters, D. H.: The ASB Bank: An IT Case Study in
Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems 1 (June 1993): 165-1/0.
Bergeron, Francis, Bluteau, Chantal, and Raymond, Louis: Identification of Strategic Information Systems Opportunities: Applying
and Comparing two Methodologies. MI5 Quarterly 15 (March
1991): 89-101.
Booth, Marilyn E., Philip, G.: Technology Driven and Competency
Driven Approaches to Competitiveness: Are they Reconcilable?
Journal of Information Technology 9 (June 1996): 143-159.
Boynton, Andrew C., and Victor, Bart: Beyond Flexibility: Building
and Managing the Dynamically Stable Organization. California
Management Review 33 (Fall 1991): 53-66.
Burnes, Bernard, and Whittle, Paul: Supplier Development: Getting
Started. Logistics Focus 3 (February 1995): 10-14.
Cash, J. I., and Konsynski, B. R.: IS Redraws Competitive Boundaries.
Harvard Business Review 63 (March-April 1985): 134-142.
Clemons, E. K.: Corporate Strategies for Information Technology.
Computer 24 (November 1991): 23-32.
Coleman, Julian L., and Bhattacharya, Arindam K.: The Supplier's
Response to Changes in Industry Structure. LogisticsFocus 3 (February 1995): 6-8.
Collis, David J.: Research Note: How Valuable are Organizational
Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 15 (Winter, 1994):
143-152.
Collis, David J., and Montgomery, Cynthia A.: Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review 73 (julyAugust 1995): 118-129.
DED: Directory of Services, Department of Economic Development,
HMSO, Belfast. 1994.
DTI: Competitiveness:ForgingAhead. A Summary, Department of Trade
and Industry, DTI, London. 1995.
Davidow, William, H., and Malone, Michael S.: The Virtual Corporation, Harper Collins Publishers, New York. 1992.
Dess, Gregory G., and Davis, Peter S.: Porter's (1980) Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance. Academy of ManagementJournal 27 (September 1984): 467-488.
Doz, Yves: Competence and Strategy, in Information Resources and
Corporate Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney, eds.,
Pinter Publishers, London. 1989, pp. 47-55.
Earl, Michael J.: Management Strategies for Information Technology,
Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead. 1989.
Earl, Michael J.: Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning. MIS Quarterly 17 (March 1993): 1-20.
Galliers, R. D., Merali, Yasmin, and Spearing, Laura: Coping with
Information Technology? How British Executives Perceive the

Technology and Competency Approaches

Key Management Information Systems Issues in the mid-1990s.

Journal of Information Technology 9 (September 1994): 223-238.

Gomes-Casseras, Benjamin: Group versus Group: How Alliance Networks Compete. Harvard Business Review 72, (July-August 1994):
62-74.
Grainger-Smith, Neff, and Oppenheim, Charles: The Role of Information Systems Technology (IS/IT) in Investment Banks. Journal of
Information Science 20 (5 1994): 323-333.
Griffiths, Pat: Using Information Systems and Technology to Gain
Competitive Advantage, in Information Resources and Corporate
Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney, eds., Pinter Publishers, London. 1989, pp. 78-88.
Haeckel, S. H., and Nolan, R. L.: Managing by Wire. Harvard Business
Review 71 (September-October 1993): 122-132.
Hambrick, Donald, C.: High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital Goods
Industries: A Contingency Approach. Academy of Management
Journal 26 (December 1983): 687-707.
Hamel, Gary, and Pralahad, C. K.: Strategic Intent. Harvard Business
Review 67 (May-June 1989): 63-76.
Hammer, Michael, and Champy, James: Reengineeringthe Corporation:
A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Nicholas Brealey Publishing,
London. 1993.
Hendry,John: The Problem with Porter's Generic Strategies. European
Management Journal 8 (December 1990): 443-450.
Hopper, Max: Rattling SABRE--New Ways to Compete on Information. Harvard Business Review 68 (May-June 1990): 118-125.
Itami, Hiroyuki: Mobilising Invisible Assets, in Information Resources
and Corporate Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney, eds.,
Pinter Publishers, London. 1989, pp. 36-46.
Ives, Blake, and Learmonth, Gerard, P.: The Information System as
a Competitive Weapon. Communications of the ACM 27 (December
1984): 1193-1201.
Jackson, Colin: Building a Competitive Advantage through Information Technology. Long Range Planning 22 (August 1991): 29-39.
Jelassi, Tawfik: Gaining Business from Information Technology: The
Case of Otis Elevator, France. European Management Journal 11
(March 1993): 62-72.
Kanter, Rosabeth M.: Collaborative Advantage: the Art of Alliances.
Harvard Business Review 72 (july-August 1994): 96-108.
Kay, John Anderson: Foundations of Corporate Success: How Business
Strategies Add Value, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1993.
Kettinger, William J., Grover, Varun, Guha, Subashish, and Segars,
Albert H.: Strategic Information Systems Revisited: A Study in
Sustainability and Performance. MIS Quarterly 18 (March 1994):
31-55.
King, William R., and Grover, Varun: The Strategic Use of Information Resources: An Exploratory Study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 38 (November 1991): 295-305.
Lamborghini, Bruno: The Impact of Information and Information
Technology on the Structure of the Firm, in It!formation Resources
and Corporate Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney, eds.,
Pinter Publishers, London. 1989, pp. 56-66.
Land, Frank: The Emergent Organization: Does Information Technology Matter? in Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 Working Conference

on InJormation Technologyand New Emergentforms of Organizations,

R. Baskerville, S. Smithson, O. Ngwenyama, and J. I. Degross.
Ann Arbor, MI. 11-13 August, 1994.
Lefebvre, Elizabeth, Lefebvre, Louis. A., and Pefontaine, Lise: Relating

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

39

Technology Management Capabilities to the Use of Information

Technology, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Confer-

ence on Systems Science; Volume III: Information Systems: Decision

support and Knowledge-based Systems, J. Nunamaker and R. H.
Sprague, eds. 1994, pp. 460-468.
Mahmood, M. A.: Associating Organizational Strategic Performance
with Information Technology Investment: An Exploratory Research. European Journal of Information Systems 2 (June 1993):
185-200.
McFarlan, Warren F.: Information Technology Changes the Way you
Compete. Harvard Business Review 62 (May-June 1984): 98-103.
McGrath, Rita, McMillan, lan C., and Venkataraman, S.: Defining and
Developing Competence: A Strategic Process Paradigm. Strategic
Management Journal 16 (May 1995): 251-275.
Miller, Danny: The Generic Strategy Trap. The Journal of Business
Strategy 13 (January/February 1992): 37-41.
Miller, Danny, and Friesen, Peter, H.: Porter's (1980) Generic Strategies and Performance: An Empirical Examination with American
Data. Part 1: Testing Porter. Organization Studies 7 (1 1986a):
37--55.
Miller, Danny, and Friesen, Peter, H.: Porter's (1980) Generic Strategies and Performance: An Empirical Examination with American
Data. Part II: Performance Implications. Organization Studies 7 (3
1986b): 255-261.
Mintzberg, Henry: Generic Strategies, in The Strategy Process:Concepts
and Contexts, Henry Mintzberg and James Brian Quinn, eds.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1992, pp. 70-82.
Mintzberg, Henu: The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard
Business Review 72 (January-February 1994a): 107-114.
Mintzberg, Henry: Rethinking Strategic Planning Part II: New Roles
for Planners. Long Range Planning 27 (June 1994b): 22-30.
Mintzberg, Henry: Rethinking Strategic Planning Part 1: Pitfalls and
Fallacies. Long Range Planning 27 (june 1994c): 12-21.
NIGC: Interim Summary of Progress, Northern Ireland Growth Challenge. 10 May 1995.
Niederman, Fred, Brancheau, James C., and Wetherbe, James C.:
Intormation Systems Management Issues for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly 14 (December 1991): 475-500.
Nonaka, Ikujiro: The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review 69 (November-December 1991): 96-104.
Orpen, Christopher: Strategic Planning, Scanning Activities and the
Financial Performance of Small Firms. Journal of Strategic Change
3 (June 1994): 45-55.
Philip, George, Gopalakrishnan, Mohan, and Mawalkar, Sanjay:
Technology Management and Information Technology Strategy:
Preliminary Results of an Empirical Study of Canadian Organizations. InternationalJournal of Ir@rmation Management 15 (August
1994): 303-315.
Porter, Michael E.: Competitive Strategy: Techniquesfor Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York. 1980.
Porter, Michael E.: Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance, Free Press, New York. 1985.
Porter, Michael E.: The CompetitiveAdvantage q[ Nations, Macmillan,
London. 1990.
Porter, Michael E., and Millar, Victor E.: How Information Gives You
Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Review 63 (July-August
1985): 149-160.
Pralahad, C. K., and Hamel, Gary: The Core Competence of the

40

J Busn Res
1998:41:29-40

Corporation. Harvard Business Review 68 (May-June 1990):

79-91.
Quinn, James B., Doorley, Thomas L., and Paquette, Penny C.: Beyond Products: Services-based Strategy. Harvard Business Review
68 (March-April 1990): 58-67.
Sabherwal, R., Tsoumpas, P.: The Development of Strategic Information Systems: Some Case Studies and Research Proposals. European Journal of Information Systems 2 (October 1993): 240-259.
Segars, A. H., and Grover, V.: Strategic Group Analysis: A Methodological Approach for Exploring the Industry Level Impact of
Information Technology. OMEGA, InternationalJournal of Management Science 22 (January 1994): 13-34.
Simpson, John: The Top 100, Business Telegraph (Belfast Telegraph).
10 January 1995.

M.E. Booth and G. Philip

Stacey, Ralph D.: Strategtc Management & Organizational Dynamics,

(2nd ed.), Pitman Publishing, London. 1996.
Strassman, Paul A.: Information Technology and Organizational Effectiveness, Hawaii International Conference of Systems Sciences,
Maui, Hawaii. 6 January 1994.
Syrett, Michel, and Kingston, Klari: GE's Hungarian Light Switch.
Management Today (April 1995): 52-58.
Tampoe, Mohen: Exploiting the Core Competences of Your Organization. Long Range Planning 27 (August 1994): 66-77.
Touche Ross Management Consultants Information Management: A
Survey of Current Practices and Trends--1994, Touche Ross, London. 1995.
Willcocks, Leslie: IT Evaluation: Managing the Catch 22. European
Management Journal 10 (June 1992): 220-229.