Case Study Analysis on General Electric

Case Study Analysis on General Electric

• 1.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 1 | P a g e Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc Management (International Logistics) STRM002 Organizational Strategy On A Case Study Analysis on General Electric By Subhi Pradhan Northampton Business School, University of Northampton Supervisors: Mr. Ross Thompson Mr. Adrian Prynce Submission Date: 7th February, 2013 Word Count: 3447
• 2.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 2 | P a g e Table of Contents 1. Chapter 1: Internal Analysis ...................................................................4 1.1 Capability A: Caldrons of Managerial Brilliance (Leadership) ...................4 1.2 Capability B: Human Capital (Human Resource Development)................4 1.3 Capability C: Organizational Structure (Firm Infrastructure) ...................5 1.4 Capability D: Innovation Platform (Technology) .....................................5 1.5 Capability E: Diversified Portfolio (Marketing and Brand Portfolio)...........6 1.6 Capability F: Customer Care (Service)...................................................6 2. Chapter 2: Real options Approach: GE Case Study ...............................9 2.1 Executive Summary .............................................................................9 2.2 Real Options .....................................................................................10 3. Chapter 3: Strategic Options ................................................................13 3.1 SWOT Analysis of GE..........................................................................14 3.2 TOWS Matrix of GE.............................................................................15 3.3 Strategic Options ...............................................................................16 3.3.1 Strategic Option 1: Options for Market Development .....................16 3.3.2 Strategic Option 2: Options for Product Development ...................17 4. Chapter 4: Conclusion ......................................................................... 19 5. References ........................................................................................... 20 6. Appendices .......................................................................................... 23
• 3.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 3 | P a g e List of Tables Exhibit 1: Core Competency Map Model: Roots of Competitiveness..................8 Exhibit 2: SWOT Analysis of GE....................................................................14 Exhibit 3: TOWS Matrix of GE ......................................................................15 List of Figures Figure 1: Options Grid .................................................................................10 Figure 2: Ansoff Matrix ................................................................................16 Chapter 1: Internal Analysis
• 4.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 4 | P a g e According to Lehmberg et. al., (2009) GE’s capability is believed to be a source of sustained competitive advantage. So what capabilities are exploited in building this core competency of GE? Let us use the Value Chain Model devised by Porter (1985) to analyze and identify those capabilities. Capability A: Caldrons of Managerial Brilliance (Leadership) Prahalad and Hamel (1990) state that core competencies provide new market accessibility and value-added service to the company, which are inimitable. It can be noted that Immelt’s motivational and democratic leadership style implemented had successfully reshaped the leadership culture into an innovative culture, hence known as “Imagination at Work” within GE, which differentiates from that of other companies (Grant, 2010). His Emotional Intelligence allows him to communicate and relate to every employee in the organization by providing opportunities, high level of motivation and high standard of quality management practices that brings out the best in them (Grant, 2010). Much priority has been given to investors and third parties in building customer relationships and loyalty, which are considered to be a valuable capability. Immelt’s driven approach to Environmental Opportunity seeks for sustainability demands of key stakeholders to maintain its competitive position in the market. This pursues operational efficiency and cost competiveness through its environmental initiatives (Magee, 2009). Capability B: Human Capital (Human Resource Development) The unwavering commitment of Immelt’s leadership to high-skilled training and educating employees, known as GE Global Learning, has fostered development in business knowledge, functional skills, leadership program, workforce, and growth traits such as decisive thinking, external focus, inclusiveness and imagination at work (Magee, 2009). This operation of GE’s talent management infrastructure enables structural change that disperses ‘GE branded’ training program in various centres such as in New York, Abu Dhabi, Munich, Shanghai and Tokyo. Adopting employee training within GE could be done through the right culture, the right organizational structure and the right communication and information technology system. Surprisingly, over 1 billion dollars annually was spent on training and even during recession from 2007-2009 (Bucifal, 2009). GE program leverages community colleges to get employees trained and certified skills in advanced manufacturing within six weeks and more emphasis is made on graduating
• 5.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 5 | P a g e engineers. Immelt’s hiring of new blood has made an attempt to change the old process of promoting within GE, which has encouraged more pressure to produce Imagination Breakthroughs (Daft et. al., 2010). This expansion of motivation and growth within GE through innovation is cheaper and more effective than buying from outside, which has developed the competency to improve their business model. Capability C: Organizational Structure (Firm Infrastructure) Prahalad and Hamel (1990) suggest that corporations should structure in accordance with its core competencies rather than a portfolio of business units. The rigorous decentralization of the organizational structure within GE from a highly centralized bureaucracy to breaking up into a cluster of units as independent entities has facilitated cross-business integration. This applied strategy saw GE’s market value ameliorate from 12 billion dollars to 37 billion dollars over 25 years, underpinning as yet another core competency (Knoll, 2008; Bucifal, 2009). Progressively, Immelt further adjusted structure from the result-oriented to a more open and less hard edged architecture, which reorganized and delayer management divisions from twelve to six smaller broad-based sectors (Bucifal, 2009). This strategy to facilitate in “getting closer to the businesses” structure process (Knoll, 2008) compliments GE’s core competency in reporting directly to Immelt for efficiency, easy communication, levels unit heads and the CEO, increasing control span and reducing the number of reporting offer opportunities for delegation, empowerment and motivation, encourage motivation and reduce the bureaucracy . Capability D: Innovation Platform (Technology) Since GE culture has changed from being a six sigma, bean counter and a bottom-line driven organization to being an innovative organization (Hitt et. al., 2009). Immelt’s capability to boldly reshape the 125 year old organization and its future has used innovative competence to tie together its disparate offerings (Gonzalez, 2010). In response to the growing demands, the technological innovations, for instance process mapping (reengineering), workouts (employee-manager retreats) and Ecomagination and Imagination Breakthroughs initiatives were launched (Bucifal, 2009). Arguably, it was for an open challenge commitment to innovatively find solutions to solve today’s environmental issues for market expansion opportunities, product commercialization and benefit customers and the society at large. GE
• 6.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 6 | P a g e enormously invested (Approximately $100 million) in technology that sets apart from its competitors, with substantially lower costs, increase access, improve quality and delivers customer value that considerably solves big global challenges (Bucifal, 2009). Capability E: Diversified Portfolio (Marketing and Brand Portfolio) Under the leadership of Welch and Immelt, it has been highly demonstrated that the competency have effectively created and leveraged its diversified portfolio to utilize strategic synergies that leads to the growth of the company in emerging economies (Bucifal, 2009). It has been said that no company has gone global more aggressively than GE due to its business units system, where division managers acted like small business owners, notably to be familiar with their customer’s need and wants (Kenny, 2012). Prahalad and Hamel (1990) refer competencies as the “glue” that links all the diversified businesses. This diversification of GE allows shared core competencies that comprises of shared knowledge, patents, resources and skilled labour that are common in different GE businesses. GE establishes healthy relationships in both India and China and the potential access to diversify its markets in those countries have, consequently improved its brand reputation, exploit labour resources, increase efficiency and profitability, while customer satisfaction and coherency ensue within the organization (Grant, 2010). Therefore, GE has the competency to provide its businesses a solid financial and strategic resource base and reveal future growth opportunities Capability F: Customer Care (Service) Grant (2010) affirms the manifestation in the revitalisation of marketing function in GE, which notably has been created through GE’s Commercial Council and Customer-Oriented Programs deployment. The customer focus initiatives started from Welch’s era in 1980s, Work-Out, which then focused on Productivity, made boundary-less structure for Process Improvement, further adopted Change Acceleration Process (CAP) and thereby created the learning environment that led to the road to customer impact, Six Sigma, which has become the DNA of GE. An important outcome of the development of its core businesses that is deeply related to environment and energy-related projects had been in response to the customer demands. For instance, the new strategies were dubbed as “Ecomagination” and GE’s “Imagination at Work” (Toole, 2007). The continual investment in technology has enabled GE to develop more products and enter new markets, which was executed through sequences of divestments and acquisitions in various sectors. This strategic focus creates
• 7.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 7 | P a g e differentiation advantage by producing innovative goods and services and enhances customer focus. An adept understanding of the capabilities in GE revealed the core competencies that combine the whole diversified organization cohesively. Hence, Prahalad and Hamel’s (1990) Core Competence Map Model has been exploited to demonstrate the roots of competitiveness and the linkage of the core products, business areas and core components to provide its core competence of GE (Exhibit 1).
• 8.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 8 | P a g e Business 1 Business 2 Business 3 Business 4 Business 5 Business 6 Business 7 Business 8 Business 9 Café, Monogram Refrigerators Washers Dryers Dishwashers Microwaves Ranges Wall Ovens Cooktops Water Heaters Small Appliances Appliance Filters & Accessories Aviation Business & General Aviation Commercial Engines (GECAS) Marine & Military Engines Aviation Systems Commercial Lending & Leasing Energy Financial Services GE Capital Aviation Services Real Estate Financing Consumer Financing Retail Financing Energy Mgmt Oil and Gas Power and Water GE Healthcare Products Services Specialties Education News Life Sciences Low Dose General Purpose Lighting Track & Recessed Vanity & Pendants Decorative Linear Fluorescent AutomotiveLights Specialty LED Lights Halogen Linear Fluorescent Compact Fluorescent Lighting Ballasts & Drivers High Intensity Discharge Lamps Lighting Controls Mining Power Distribution Mining Water Treatment Mining Productivity Solutions Mining Power Conversion Mining Proficy Maxxmine Mining Equipment Mining Infrastructure Aviation Software Energy Management Software Healthcare Software Intelligent Platforms Software Oil & Gas Software Power & Water Software Transportation Software All Services Locomotives Railway Signalling & Communication Railway Traffic Control & Dispatch Software Energy Storage Diesel Marine Power Diesel Stationary Power Drilling Motors Appliances Aviation Capital Energy Healthcare Lighting Mining Software Transportation Customer Service (Core Service 1) Hybrid/Environmental Friendly Technologies (Core Service 2) Infrastructure (Core Service 3) Research and Development (Core Service 4) Demography and Emerging Markets (Core Service 5) Leadership (Competence 1) Innovation (Competence 2) Diversification (Competence 3) Product Development (Competence 4) Exhibit 1: Core Competency Map Model: Roots of Competitiveness
• 9.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 9 | P a g e Chapter 2: Real Options Approach: GE Case Study 2.1 Executive Summary
• 10.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 10 | P a g e 2.2. Real Options Zarkos et. al., (2007) suggest that the strategic planning formulation within ROA framework encourages managers to consider the effects of uncertainty on the performance of the firm and provide them with methods to cope with the possible uncertainty. It notes that options create a theoretically attractive method that presents flexibility inherited in many investment proposals, however Ford et. al., (2002) proposes practical difficulties that result in most careful users to make erroneous conclusions. RO make sense when the company operates under external environmental uncertainty and has the ability to respond with its flexibility (Walters and Giles, 2000). According to the Complexity Theory (CT) it could make it difficult to find errors in the analysis, hence result in making overly ambitious assumptions by optimistic project planners (Babajide, 2007).. In Luehrman’s (1998) portfolio framework, he suggests that the use of an “option space” grid to actively manage the portfolios of RO and trading off a measure for immediate profitability is considered effective (Figure 1). The argument presented by Zhao (2008) focuses on the unrelated diversification to have more positive impact than related diversification as adding a segment to the business may increase the growth options to a new era. Being one of the strengths of GE, unrelated diversification is considered to be series of connected RO, where the investment opportunities depends on those acquired in prior investment decisions (Andres et. al., 2012), which may serve to enrich firm’s growth options portfolio. GE’s expandability of operations in an unrelated segment has given rise to a call option based on its existing resources due to the transferability of operational capabilities to different industries. Under conditions and high uncertain industrial level of market competitiveness in 2009, the value of option increased in GE with an increase in expansion costs, hence locating in Region 3 in Option Space. This encouraged GE to exercise the option to make early investment in new businesses with higher volatility (Zhao, 2008). The author assumes that GE have been diversifying in unrelated segments because their investment opportunities are available, probably as a result of prior investments, which promoted exploration and learning in those particular areas. However, there are some strengths that are used for exploiting more than one opportunity, whereas the other strengths are used only in specific opportunities (Zarkos et. al., 2007). In this case the manager can either maintain the option to continue investing in the opportunity specific strengths or not. Supposedly, GE’s top management is reviewing a proposal for
• 11.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 11 | P a g e greener environment in the UK market to develop and introduce its green technology system and eco-friendly infrastructure. The proposal calls for changing from jet engines to power generation and financial services to plastics. Moreover, the business benefits of the project remain uncertain, hence exercising the option to invest in the new system in stages. GE could conduct a pilot program of its launch in a particular geographic market, and if the result is profitable or unprofitable due to market uncertainty, the company has the right to add value to continue, abandon or delay the investment in future. Zhang (2006) informs that the characteristics of Research and Development (R&D) projects in firms contain sequences of contingent RO decisions that may have an impact in future. These RO allows GE to develop capabilities to make innovative technologies if they need to or when want to, in response to tightened environmental policies, mandatory sales of alternative innovative products and services and demand for breakthrough innovations. Surprisingly, in the presence of high uncertainty complex system, it encouraged GE to exercise option to expand (Locating in Region 1 in Option Space) by investing more in R&D spending, especially when it is “deep-in-the-money” and if the yield from the exercise is large (Stein and Stone, 2012). One potential merit that Kogut and Kulatilaka (2001) mention is that RO analytic approach may change the type of investment proposals that are reviewed. This means that the option perspective inverts the thinking about uncertainty absorption in the organizational literature. For example, more option like proposals is considered, where managers look for options for the right investment at a lower exercise price. Let’s assume that under market decline, GE’s competitor anticipates its entry to unveil a new technology designed especially to boost output from its wind turbines that hooks wind farms up to the grid easily, which creates competitor risks uncertainty for GE. Wyant (2009) suggests if the managers are uncertain about the long term outcomes of the project, they can valuably plan in advance about the option to expand earlier at some point. Therefore, GE could create the exercise to expand their options earlier, which is to create new flexibilities to act quickly by making a strategic investment commitment, primarily to avoid losing investment opportunities to its competitors. Such investment options may unlock new embedded options in the project in future, where GE can expand more, abandon or switch to alternative use. However, this is consistent with the idea of CT, where the initial momentum of Bak’s (1996) work was generated from the concept of self organized criticality that follows
• 12.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 12 | P a g e predictable patterns. In this case, these patterns are exhibited by Competitors and Technology Risks. When firms have the opportunity to make an irreversible investment under future uncertainty, Weeds (2000) proposes an option value to delay. In the light of the real options approach, it improves the traditional NPV (Net Profit Value) based investment appraisal methods by enabling the firm to choose the options to delay that gives importance of flexibility to be measured. Thus, it maintains and improves the upside potential and limits the downside loss (Bucifal, 2009). Let’s assume that due to global crisis and fuel prices fluctuations complex system, GE Energy Sector have undergone supply shortages and decline in profitability. Hence, GE Energy sector could exercise the option to abandon as the market conditions decline leading to unprofitability (Region 5 in Option Space). Since it is a capital intensive investment, the CEO can give up the project and realize the salvage value, which is exercisable at any time within next five years. GE Energy can then completely abandon the project or continue developing (Region 6 in Option Space), but according to the author GE Energy should continue with the development.
• 13.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 13 | P a g e Chapter 3: Strategic Options This section outlines and discusses two strategic options available to GE over the next five years (2009+). Let us first look at the Generation of SO. 3.1. SWOT Analysis To get a better understanding of the SO and its identification, the author has provided a SWOT analysis (Exhibit 2) Strengths
• 14.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 14 | P a g e Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Exhibit 2: SWOT Analysis of General Electric
• 15.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 15 | P a g e 3.2. TOWS Matrix Johnson et. al., (2011) proposed TOWS Matrix to generate SO by using the SWOT matrix. Exhibit 3: TOWS Matrix of GE
• 16.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 16 | P a g e 3.3. Strategic Options The Ansoff matrix devised by Igor Ansoff (1957) has been used to identify GE’s strategic development directions and the structuring of strategic options decision (Johnson’s et. al., 2011; OUP, 2010) (Figure 2). 3.3.1 Options for Market Development: “Acquiring presence in India’s growing natural resources” The most obvious type of option that is related to products and services is to offer in which new markets. According to the Ansoff’s model, the growing Indian Natural Resources is the New Market, with the products and services that include Frame 6FA Gas Turbines and Associated Generators are the Existing Products. The strategy that Ansoff suggests for such penetration is Market Development. GE served as the energy sector that developed and deployed technology to efficiently make use of natural resources (GENews, 2011). Although it has not been implied in other growing economies of Asia, investment planning for the development of energy infrastructure has been conducted. As the largest gas turbine technology supplier for Sravanthi Energy in India, GE established its presence in the Indian market successfully (BusinessWire, 2011). Applying this option in Porter’s Generic Strategy Model, GE is entering into a new market with an existing product and thus can open additional geographical markets through regional, national or international expansion and can create a niche market through the segmentation of customers. Taking Rumelt’s (1991) key criteria against the strategic options of GE, it can be noted that the presence of gas and the need for greater power generator capacity for major load centres is growing. This enhances the opportunity for GE to invest its highly efficient 6FA gas turbines in Indian mid-sized power producers due to its output size. This way it creates competitive advantage to deliver innovative and advanced performance in combined power plants and in industrial and cogeneration applications. As a first time mover into a new market, GE gains an advantage over its rivals for its innovative gas turbines, however if the competition releases products that compensate for the shortcomings of GE’s first release, it in effect could hamper the global brand that it has GE in India. The SWOT analysis (Exhibit 2) reveals that one of the main strengths of GE is the experience in Mergers and Acquisitions such as with Comcast Corporation in 2011, Avio Aviation in 2012 and so on. Hence, GE could lead into a Merger with Sravanthi Energy Corporation in India as it enables sharing the local knowledge; greater market share and greater investment in
• 17.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 17 | P a g e R&D. This could lead to a better quality of products and services for consumers but increases the risk of cultural conflict, which meets Rumelt’s test of Feasibility. Since the generator users in India have been forecasted to increase in future, Sravanthi Energy’s development of power projects that totals up to more than 3,000 megawatts of thermal, gas and wind energy sources would lead to the reduction of risk and increasing potential of higher returns (BusinessWire, 2011). Hence, there is a higher chance of acceptability from the shareholders as it favours towards the long-term investments (GE Annual Report, 2009). 3.3.2 Product Development: “Expanding its Positive Outlook of Healthcare market in the USA” This option comprises of developing new products for the exiting market, which can meet a close proximity of customers needs and outperform the products of its competitors. According to the Ansoff’s Model, FlashPad, a new wireless detector that operates with ultra wideband connectivity is the New Product in an existing market. Thus, the strategy that Ansoff suggests is Product Development. The release of this product was in 2012 and has shown higher and stable income since the entire healthcare environment in today’s era has been aiming to streamline the x-ray department workflow whilst maintaining patient satisfaction (Harvey, 2011). If marketed effectively, it may be a substitute for the regular x-ray equipment and has the potential to extract customers and increase profitability. Applying this option in Porter’s Generic Strategy Model, it can be noticed that GE was the first to release a new high-quality digital wireless detector in the US market, which thus could be by benefitted by its differentiated offerings. According to Rumelt’s (1991) criteria, the competitor analysis shows that its rivals such as Siemens Healthcare, Hitachi Medical System, Philips Healthcare and Toshiba Medical Systems offer similar products, however by choosing such strategy to build a digital radiography could be competitive for GE. The US healthcare sector, according to the survey, has increased its total healthcare expenditure from $738 billion in 2005 to $1,097.9 billion in 2011 and is likely to increase by 2016 (Euromonitor, 2012). Hence, this could create a different and positive outlook of X-Ray market in the geographical regions of the USA where GE has a presence. This tests the criteria of Consonance. As FlashPad is the first mover in the existing market, it creates a competitive advantage to do more with the equipment, which allows imaging patients faster than Computed Radiography and shows reliable data with Ultra-Wideband connectivity. GE’s value activities (Chapter 1)
• 18.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 18 | P a g e show that GE’s robust R&D capabilities have enabled the company in developing more efficient, innovative and differentiating products (GE, 2013). Thus, as per the Ansoff’s model, it suggests that GE Healthcare should invest more for the product development. According to Grant (2010), the increase in sales of GE’s innovative healthcare products may increase customer’s choice in healthcare goods. The acceptability of this strategy is that the initial investment for this kind of option could be high, but profitable in a long run, which could reduce the associated financial risks overall.
• 19.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 19 | P a g e Chapter 4: Conclusion In conclusion, this report has provided a comprehensive analysis of General Electric’s (GE) core competencies detailing on the effectiveness in supporting the GE’s success up to 2009. Models such as a Core Competency Map (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990) and Value Chain Analysis (Porter, 1985) have been fused to generate GE’s core resources and capabilities to reveal the core competencies. In conclusion, the applied models and concepts have been applied to the corporate issues, whilst making judgements and conclusions (Chapter 1). This preliminary report to the CEO Jeff Immelt summarizes that the applicability of ROA seems limited as many decisions are affected by more complex criteria. Many different potential aspects of investment and options were looked at. After all, the company has the right to invest, but not the obligation that can capture benefits from the exploitation of this opportunity. However, Trigeorgis (1993) points out that not all opportunities can be options and not all options show significant economic value (Chapter 2). Moreover, GE’s two SO were outlined based on the Ansoff’s Matrix, SWOT Analysis and TOWS Matrix frameworks (Market Development and Product Development), which are available to GE over the next five years (2009+) and the results of the GE strategies evaluates the following questions “Does appropriateness reflect in the business objectives? Are the business policies and strategic plans appropriate? Do the business objectives confirm or refute critical assumptions of the strategy? (Chapter 3)
• 20.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 20 | P a g e 5. References Andres, P. D., Fuente, G. D. an Velasco, P. (2012) Tackling The Corporate Diversification – Value Puzzle Using The Real Options Approach. 16th Annual International Conference on Real Options. June 2012, University of Valladolid, London. Ansoff, I. (1957) Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review. 35 (5), 113-124. Babajide, A. (2007) Real Options Analysis as a Decision Tool in Oil Field Developments. Master of Science in Engineering And Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bak, P. (1996) How Nature Works. New York: Copernicus. Bucifal, S. (2009) Corporate Strategy Analysis: General Electric Co. (1981–Present) Australian National University: Crawford School of Economics and Government Working Paper Series. BusinessWire (2011) Tapping into India’s Growing Natural Gas Supply, New Power Project to Feature GE Advanced Gas Turbine Technology. Business Wire. Available at www.businesswire.com [Accessed on 26th January, 2013]. Chasnoff, D. (1991) Deadly deception: General electric, nuclear weapons and our environment. Newday. Daft, R.L., Kendrick, M. and Vershinina, N. (2010) Organization theory and design. Andover (UK): South-Western/Cengage Learning International Edition. Euromonitor (2012) Consumer Health in the US. Euromonitor International. Ford, D. N., Lander, D. M., and Voyer, J. J. (2002) A real options approach to valuing strategic flexibility in uncertain construction projects. Construction Management and Economics. 20(4), 343 – 351. GE (2013) General Electric. Available at www.ge.com. [Accessed on 1st February, 2013]. GE Annual Report (2009) Annual Report. Available at www.ge.com. [Accessed on 27th January, 2013].
• 21.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 21 | P a g e General Electric (2009) Our company. Available at www.ge.com. [Accessed on 24th January, 2013]. GENews (2011) Tapping into India’s Growing Natural Gas Supply, New Power Project to Feature GE Advanced Gas Turbine Technology. GE News Center. Available at www.genewscenter.com. [Accessed on 26th January, 2013]. Gonzalez, F. (2010) Innovation: The Perspective of 21st Century. Spain: BBVA 2010. Grant, R. M. (2010) Contemporary Strategy Analysis. 8th ed. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Harvey, D. (2011) Direct Digital Radiography. Radiology Today Magazine. Available at www.radiologytoday.net. [Accessed on 28th January, 2013]. Hitt, M. A, Ireland, R. D and Hoskisson, R. E. (2009) Strategic Management: Concepts & Cases. Cengage Learning. Hurbert, P. (2007) General electric company profile. United States: Market Research. Johnson, G., Whittington, R. and Scholes, K. (2011) Exploring Strategy. 9th edition, , Harlow: FT Prentice Hall. Kenny, G. (2012) Diversification: best practices of the leading companies. Journal of Business Strategy. 33 (1), 12-20. Knoll, S. (2008) Cross-Business Synergies: A Typology of Cross-Business Synergies and a Mid-Range Theory of Continuous Growth Synergy Realization 1st Edition. Germany: University of St. Gallen, Graduate School of Business Administration. Kogut, B. and Kulatilaka, N. (2001) Capabilities as Real Options. Organization Science. 12 (6), 744-758. Lehmberg, D., Glenn Rowe, W., Roderick E. White, and Phillips, John R. (2009) The GE Paradox: Competitive Advantage Through Fungible Non-Firm-Specific Investment, Journal of Management. 35: 1129-1153. Luehrman, T. A. (1998) Strategy as a portfolio of real options. Harvard Business Review, 5, 89-99.
• 22.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 22 | P a g e Magee, D. (2009) Jeff Immelt and the New GE Way: Innovation, Transformation and Winning in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill. Makower, J. (2005) Ecomagination: Inside GE’s power play. World Changing. OUP (2010) Strategic Choice. Oxford University Press. Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press. Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review. 65 (3), 78-91. Stein, L. C. D. and Stone, E. C. (2012) The Effect of Uncertainty on Investment, Hiring, and R&D: Causal Evidence from Equity Options. Department of Economics, Stanford University. Toole, P. (2007) GE Unveils Breakthrough Ecomagination Products, Technologies and Services: World’s First Hybrid Locomotive Pioneering GE Ecomagination Homebuilder Program Breakthrough Greenhouse Gas Offsets Southern California Wind Project Bulk Energy Conservation Partnership for Power Utilities. Universal City, California: GE Press Release. Walters, C. and Giles, T. (2000) Using real options in strategic decision making. Available at www.mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu. [Accessed on 24th January, 2013]. Weeds, H. (2000) Strategic Delay In A Real Options Model of R&D Competition. Warwick Economic Research Papers, Department Of Economics, The University of Warwick. Wyant, D. K. (2009) Real option analysis--improving project selection in healthcare settings. Department of Public Health, Western Kentucky University, USA Zhang, H. (2006) Application of Real Options Valuation To R&D Investments In Pharmaceutical Companies. MA in Finance and Investment, Nottingham University. Zarkos, S.; Morgan, R. E. and Kouropalatis, Y. (2007) Real options and real strategies. Strategic Change. 16, 315–325. Zhao, A (2008) Diversification Effects: A Real Options Approach. PhD Dissertation, Kent State University Graduate School of Management.
• 23.
  Organizational Strategy |STRM002 23 | P a g e 6. Appendices Figure 1: Option Space Grid (Luehrman, 1998) Figure 2: Ansoff Matrix