This document summarizes and critiques Michael Porter's arguments about how the internet impacts traditional market rules and industry structure. It argues that while Porter's five forces model provides a useful starting point, some of his specific claims about the internet are exaggerated. For example, increased information for buyers does not necessarily increase their bargaining power, and barriers to entry remain significant for industries producing informational goods. The document suggests enriching Porter's model by also considering the "power of innovation" within an industry.
Business policy & Strategic management: SWOT,ETOP,PESTLE,PORTER's FIVE MODEL ...mpavi257
Business policies are an important tool to ensure
that the business operates at maximum efficiency.
Strategic Management is all about identification
and description of the strategies that managers
can carry so as to achieve better performance
and a competitive advantage for their organization
.
Michael Porter's 5 Forces in Online retail Store/Retailer FlipkartPreeti Acharya
Michael Porter's 5 Forces, Diagram, Diagram Explanation, About Michael Porter, Supplier Power, Buyer Power, Competitive Rivalry,Threat of Substitutes, Threat of New Entry, Porter's Five Forces For Online Retailer, Recommendations for Flipkart, Conclusions
Porter's Five Forces: How to identiy attractive marketsstrategywrap .com
Whether you're starting your own business, building an existing venture or tackling a problem that affects a multinational company, Porter's Five Forces is a brilliant model for helping you analyse market attractiveness
Business policy & Strategic management: SWOT,ETOP,PESTLE,PORTER's FIVE MODEL ...mpavi257
Business policies are an important tool to ensure
that the business operates at maximum efficiency.
Strategic Management is all about identification
and description of the strategies that managers
can carry so as to achieve better performance
and a competitive advantage for their organization
.
Michael Porter's 5 Forces in Online retail Store/Retailer FlipkartPreeti Acharya
Michael Porter's 5 Forces, Diagram, Diagram Explanation, About Michael Porter, Supplier Power, Buyer Power, Competitive Rivalry,Threat of Substitutes, Threat of New Entry, Porter's Five Forces For Online Retailer, Recommendations for Flipkart, Conclusions
Porter's Five Forces: How to identiy attractive marketsstrategywrap .com
Whether you're starting your own business, building an existing venture or tackling a problem that affects a multinational company, Porter's Five Forces is a brilliant model for helping you analyse market attractiveness
Learning about models of E-Business is made easy through this presentation. It contains the comprehensive information about models of E-Business. It helps the students to learn the concepts quickly with the help of examples. The models are presented with crisp explanation.
THE JAPANESE TRANSFORMER INDUSTRY A CASE STUDY OF ITS COMPETITIVENESSijcsit
Transformers are one type of magnetic component used in relevant structures like power Switch supplies. Transformers are the necessary parts in all products involving electricity, for the alteration of current voltage during the processes of power generation, transformation, transmission and distribution .Relevant discussions in Japan concerning transformers have centered on power industries and power systems. Transformers for household and business use are mostly categorized under electronics-related industry, one of the ten major consumer electronics industries (most of the mare middle and small-sized firms).Relevant literatures primarily focus on the study of related technology, with little attention paid to the competitive edge and future prospects of transformer-related industries. Case studies indicate that Japanese enterprises are disappointed with the governmental efforts and assistance directed to the improvement of existing technologies. As the executive director of one of the transformer associations in Japan pointed out, no advancement has been shown in this technology for nearly the last 20years.Most companies can improve themselves only in reaction to errors; the lack of specialized knowledge derived from research strongly decreases the industry's progressive power and postpones its development. Japan has lagged considerably behind Europe and the US in this aspect. The transformer companies in Japan will have great difficulty in cultural and language communication if they invest in foreign countries. In this study, experts and scholars in the fields of industry, government and academia are interviewed. Questionnaires are issued to the object companies and a comparative case study is conducted to analyze the influencing factors on the competitive edge and strategies in Japan in the hope that an effective reference for improving industrial competitiveness can be available for the government and the companies
From Online to Mobile - Impact of Consumers' Online Purchase Behaviors on Mob...Minha Hwang
This project aims to identify the behavioral measures such as purchase patterns and search patterns from the exiting online channel to predict consumers' m-commerce adoption. Findings from this study are useful to identify and target consumers who are more likely to adopt m-commerce by using exiting e-commerce transaction/search data.
Porters 5 forces - a simple explanationBrent Spilkin
Porters Five forces - a simple explanation
Porter five forces analysis is a framework to analyse level of competition within an industry and business strategy development.
It draws upon industrial organisation (IO) economics to derive five forces that determine the competitive intensity and therefore attractiveness of a market
Learning about models of E-Business is made easy through this presentation. It contains the comprehensive information about models of E-Business. It helps the students to learn the concepts quickly with the help of examples. The models are presented with crisp explanation.
THE JAPANESE TRANSFORMER INDUSTRY A CASE STUDY OF ITS COMPETITIVENESSijcsit
Transformers are one type of magnetic component used in relevant structures like power Switch supplies. Transformers are the necessary parts in all products involving electricity, for the alteration of current voltage during the processes of power generation, transformation, transmission and distribution .Relevant discussions in Japan concerning transformers have centered on power industries and power systems. Transformers for household and business use are mostly categorized under electronics-related industry, one of the ten major consumer electronics industries (most of the mare middle and small-sized firms).Relevant literatures primarily focus on the study of related technology, with little attention paid to the competitive edge and future prospects of transformer-related industries. Case studies indicate that Japanese enterprises are disappointed with the governmental efforts and assistance directed to the improvement of existing technologies. As the executive director of one of the transformer associations in Japan pointed out, no advancement has been shown in this technology for nearly the last 20years.Most companies can improve themselves only in reaction to errors; the lack of specialized knowledge derived from research strongly decreases the industry's progressive power and postpones its development. Japan has lagged considerably behind Europe and the US in this aspect. The transformer companies in Japan will have great difficulty in cultural and language communication if they invest in foreign countries. In this study, experts and scholars in the fields of industry, government and academia are interviewed. Questionnaires are issued to the object companies and a comparative case study is conducted to analyze the influencing factors on the competitive edge and strategies in Japan in the hope that an effective reference for improving industrial competitiveness can be available for the government and the companies
From Online to Mobile - Impact of Consumers' Online Purchase Behaviors on Mob...Minha Hwang
This project aims to identify the behavioral measures such as purchase patterns and search patterns from the exiting online channel to predict consumers' m-commerce adoption. Findings from this study are useful to identify and target consumers who are more likely to adopt m-commerce by using exiting e-commerce transaction/search data.
Porters 5 forces - a simple explanationBrent Spilkin
Porters Five forces - a simple explanation
Porter five forces analysis is a framework to analyse level of competition within an industry and business strategy development.
It draws upon industrial organisation (IO) economics to derive five forces that determine the competitive intensity and therefore attractiveness of a market
This is a product strategy I designed with some mates for a Uni Entrepreneurship project. It's a gritty representation of my thinking. I didn't have any hand in the finance side.
Needless to say my ideas and communications thereof, are a bit more polished these days. It's always good to look back and learn.
Save time and make the difference by using Porter’s Five Forces Templates in editable PowerPoint slides created by former Deloitte management consultants and talented designers.
This strategy tool will help you to assess the attractiveness of an industry or a market by analyzing the forces acting upon it.
Creative destrution, Economic Feasibility, and Creative Destruction: The Case...Jeffrey Funk
This paper shows how new forms of electronic products and services such as smart phones, tablet computers and ride sharing become economically feasible and thus candidates for commercialization and creative destruction as improvements in standard electronic components such as microprocessors, memory, and displays occur. Unlike the predominant viewpoint in which commercialization is reached as advances in science facilitate design changes that enable improvements in performance and cost, most new forms of electronic products and services are not invented in a scientific sense and the cost and performance of them are primarily driven by improvements in standard components. They become candidates for commercialization as the cost and performance of standard components reach the levels necessary for the final products and services to have the required levels of performance and cost. This suggests that when managers, policy makers, engineers, and entrepreneurs consider the choice and timing of commercializing new electronic products and services, they should understand the composition of new technologies, the impact of components on a technology's cost, performance and design, and the rates of improvement in the components.
it & Economic Performance a Critical Review of the Empirical DataWaqas Tariq
The present study undertakes a critical review of the research around the multi-significant issue of the correlation between the IT investments and the economic performance to both micro and macroeconomic level. The aim of this study is to shed light on the interaction of IT with the economy, at corporate, industry and national level and document it¢ s contribution to productivity and therefore to economic growth. My conclusion is that there is a positive effect of IT investments to both the above economic indicators in all aspects, but is something that needs further research so as to find a more clear and risk adjusted relation.
Consumer reactions toward clicks and bricksinvestigating bu.docxmaxinesmith73660
Consumer reactions toward clicks and bricks:
investigating buying behaviour on-line and at
stores
GLENN J. BROWNE, JOHN R. DURRETT and JAMES C. WETHERBE
Area of ISQS, Rawls College of Business Administration, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2101,
USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. The development of the world wide web created a
new sales channel for retailers, and many thousands of
companies have attempted to take advantage of this new
method for reaching customers. Analysis of the 2000 stock
market collapse suggests that business models relying on both
internet (‘clicks’) and physical (‘bricks’) presences may be the
most successful. Internet business problems include the need to
structure internal and external business processes to serve
customers appropriately, the need to provide adequate
technological and physical infrastructures, and the need to
understand customer consumption processes in ‘virtual’ and
physical environments. The purpose of this research is to
provide insight into these problems by investigating consumer
beliefs and preferences about shopping on-line and in physical
stores. We developed a research model and then performed an
empirical investigation using two studies. Results and implica-
tions of the findings for business strategy are discussed.
1. Introduction
Technological advances in the 1990s enabled entirely
new ways of conducting business in the US and
throughout the world. Of particular importance was
the World Wide Web, an enhancement of the internet
that allowed consumers and businesses to communicate
in ways that were previously unavailable and perhaps
even unthinkable. From the mid-1990s to early 2000,
the focus of businesses was primarily on the opportu-
nities provided by the new internet capabilities.
Following the ‘dot-com’ crash in early 2000, however,
businesses began to recognize the problems associated
with doing business on the internet. From this point
onward, much of investors’ and the media’s focus
shifted to companies with both internet and ‘brick and
mortar’ presences.
Numerous researchers have investigated on-line buy-
ing behaviour over the past several years (e.g.,
Jarvenpaa and Todd 1997, Lohse et al. 1997, Bellman
et al. 1999, Lohse and Spiller 1999, Swaminathan et al.
1999, Bhatnagar et al. 2000, Chau et al. 2000, Palmer et
al. 2000, Ratchford et al. 2001). However, little research
has addressed relationships between on-line purchasing
(‘clicks’) and purchases made at physical stores
(‘bricks’). The purpose of this paper is to report the
results of two exploratory studies designed to assess
consumers’ reactions to shopping at clicks and bricks.
We first review background relevant to the two
shopping channels and the challenges faced by compa-
nies operating in the on-line environment. We next
develop a research model and research questions to
guide our investigations. We then report the results of a
large survey aimed at uncovering several of the relation-
ships specifie.
Technological innovation is reshaping markets and creating new opportunities for businesses at a faster rate than at any other time in living memory. But to realise the promise of greater economic growth, incumbent businesses, challengers and the policymakers who regulate them need to find a balance that encourages fairness without either stifling entrepreneurialism or compromising the public interest.
Finding this balance has proven difficult for businesses and industry regulators alike.
In order to build greater understanding of the trade-offs at play in ensuring a level playing field, this report explores the specific challenges that regulators face when it comes to disruptors, and explores workable models for increased collaboration between the public and private sectors.
Summary of March 2015 BRIE-ETLA Special Issue in the Journal of Industry, Com...Petri Rouvinen
The Digital Disruption and Its Societal Impacts: Deepening digitalization and globalization has induced an ongoing societal transformation that may ultimately prove to be as significant as the original industrial revolution. Even as the ICT industry is being restructured, global competition is being transformed. Previously dominant firms—including telecommunications carriers, equipment providers, and powerful legacy software firms—are under assault from the move to cloud computing, in the network center, and mobile computing, on the network periphery. This transformation of the computing and communication infrastructure has been occurring simultaneously with the spread of ever more complicated and sophisticated global value chains. The articles in this special issue explore a number of the key facets of this transformation in a comparative lens. The authors find that the social, legal, and economic arrangements will impact how these changes affect nation-states. For policy-makers there will be serious dilemmas, as they will have to simultaneously nurture and support many aspects of these changes, while also mitigating or channeling some of the outcomes so as to protect privacy, income equality, and fair taxation.
The Digital TransformationNew information technologies,s.docxmehek4
The Digital Transformation
New information technologies,
such as broadband networks,
mobile communications and the
Internet, have well-known, but
often unrealized, potential
to transform businesses and
industries. The key to success is
knowing how and when to apply
the technologies. Companies
should look at 10 specific
drivers to help determine their
best strategy.
Angela Andal-Ancion,
Phillip A. Cartwright
and George S. Yip
uring tbe 1990s, companies bad vast amounts of funding for new
D information technologies, or NIT' Tbey invested millions of dol-lars on Web sites, sophisticated software packages, teleconferenc-
ing equipment, broadband networks, mobile communications
and other digital technologies. Such investments helped them to keep abreast
of competitors tbat were making similar expenditures. Today, many compa-
nies are strapped for resources, and they need to be extremely selective about
the technologies they fund, deploying NIT in ways tbat are tbe most relevant
to their businesses and strategic objectives, including their sales and market-
ing efforts.
What kinds of companies and products can benellt most from the use of
NIT? Books and airline tickets sell readily over the Internet wbereas automo-
biles and higb fashion clothing do not. Furtbennore, what types of business
transformations do sucb investments enable? A company might, for example,
use NIT to cut away layers of middlemen, such as distributors, that separate it
from its customers (called classic disintermediation). Or, instead of getting rid
of middlemen, it might choose to embrace them {remediation). Or it might
build strategic alliances and partnerships with new and existing players in a
tangle of complex relationships (network-based mediation). (See"Tbree Medi-
ation Strategies," p. 37.)
All three mediation strategies depend on various factors, such as a prod-
uct's customizability and information content. By fully understanding those
drivers of NIT, companies can begin to predict tbe potential transformations
of tbeir industries, especially in terms of how products are marketed and sold.
To tbat end, we have developed a systematic framework tbat identifies wbich
drivers are important for tbe different approaches of classic disintermediation,
remediation and network-based mediation. Using this tool, companies can
determine both the optimum ways to transform tbeir businesses and the NIT
investments required to accomplisb sucb changes.
The Drivers of NIT
From a study of large corporations in Nortb America and Europe, we have
identified tbe different drivers that determine the competitive advantages of
deploying NIT. (See "About the Research.") Each of the drivers is very specific
to bow NIT can be applied in a particular industry. Tbat Is, they are not gen-
Angela Andal-Ancion is a ajnsultant with ascension in London; Phillip A. Cartwright
is a principal with BearingPoint in Paris; and George S, Yip is professor ot strategic and
international mana ...
Ericsson and Atos Consulting have joined forces in a thorough exploration of your and our business for the coming
10 years. Ericsson conducted an international survey to establish a vision in which direction the TIME (Telecom, IT,
Media & Entertainment ) industry is heading. The four most likely scenarios for 2020 are thoroughly researched. Based
on this vision Atos Consulting developed insights into the business models needed for each scenario. Our goal is to
share an independent and authoritative view on the future of the TIME industry. We hope this will help you to reflect
upon your business and to keep ahead of competition.
This white paper, will give you insight in a future that is uncertain for all of us. We hope to give you direction with
a vision on scenarios and possible business models to prepare your organization. We trust that we will take your
thinking further and you will benefit from our suggestions and recommendations to prepare for the jump to 2020.
On behalf of all contributors to this white paper, we wish you a pleasant and foremost inspirational read!
Ericsson & Atos Consulting
Doc to be found here: http://www.nl.atosconsulting.com/NR/rdonlyres/03766DBA-AED5-4EE4-B0CB-FA204557B439/0/WPBusinessmodelsinTIME.pdf
Alt. GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using ...James Anderson
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 daysAdtran
At WSTS 2024, Alon Stern explored the topic of parametric holdover and explained how recent research findings can be implemented in real-world PNT networks to achieve 100 nanoseconds of accuracy for up to 100 days.
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
zkStudyClub - Reef: Fast Succinct Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Regex ProofsAlex Pruden
This paper presents Reef, a system for generating publicly verifiable succinct non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs that a committed document matches or does not match a regular expression. We describe applications such as proving the strength of passwords, the provenance of email despite redactions, the validity of oblivious DNS queries, and the existence of mutations in DNA. Reef supports the Perl Compatible Regular Expression syntax, including wildcards, alternation, ranges, capture groups, Kleene star, negations, and lookarounds. Reef introduces a new type of automata, Skipping Alternating Finite Automata (SAFA), that skips irrelevant parts of a document when producing proofs without undermining soundness, and instantiates SAFA with a lookup argument. Our experimental evaluation confirms that Reef can generate proofs for documents with 32M characters; the proofs are small and cheap to verify (under a second).
Paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/1886
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FMESafe Software
In this second installment of our Essentials of Automations webinar series, we’ll explore the landscape of triggers and actions, guiding you through the nuances of authoring and adapting workspaces for seamless automations. Gain an understanding of the full spectrum of triggers and actions available in FME, empowering you to enhance your workspaces for efficient automation.
We’ll kick things off by showcasing the most commonly used event-based triggers, introducing you to various automation workflows like manual triggers, schedules, directory watchers, and more. Plus, see how these elements play out in real scenarios.
Whether you’re tweaking your current setup or building from the ground up, this session will arm you with the tools and insights needed to transform your FME usage into a powerhouse of productivity. Join us to discover effective strategies that simplify complex processes, enhancing your productivity and transforming your data management practices with FME. Let’s turn complexity into clarity and make your workspaces work wonders!
Communications Mining Series - Zero to Hero - Session 1DianaGray10
This session provides introduction to UiPath Communication Mining, importance and platform overview. You will acquire a good understand of the phases in Communication Mining as we go over the platform with you. Topics covered:
• Communication Mining Overview
• Why is it important?
• How can it help today’s business and the benefits
• Phases in Communication Mining
• Demo on Platform overview
• Q/A
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...ThomasParaiso2
End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid regressions. In this session, we share our journey building an E2E testing pipeline for GridMate components (LWC and Aura) using Cypress, JSForce, FakerJS…
In the rapidly evolving landscape of technologies, XML continues to play a vital role in structuring, storing, and transporting data across diverse systems. The recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present new methodologies for enhancing XML development workflows, introducing efficiency, automation, and intelligent capabilities. This presentation will outline the scope and perspective of utilizing AI in XML development. The potential benefits and the possible pitfalls will be highlighted, providing a balanced view of the subject.
We will explore the capabilities of AI in understanding XML markup languages and autonomously creating structured XML content. Additionally, we will examine the capacity of AI to enrich plain text with appropriate XML markup. Practical examples and methodological guidelines will be provided to elucidate how AI can be effectively prompted to interpret and generate accurate XML markup.
Further emphasis will be placed on the role of AI in developing XSLT, or schemas such as XSD and Schematron. We will address the techniques and strategies adopted to create prompts for generating code, explaining code, or refactoring the code, and the results achieved.
The discussion will extend to how AI can be used to transform XML content. In particular, the focus will be on the use of AI XPath extension functions in XSLT, Schematron, Schematron Quick Fixes, or for XML content refactoring.
The presentation aims to deliver a comprehensive overview of AI usage in XML development, providing attendees with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Whether you’re at the early stages of adopting AI or considering integrating it in advanced XML development, this presentation will cover all levels of expertise.
By highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of integrating AI with XML development tools and languages, the presentation seeks to inspire thoughtful conversation around the future of XML development. We’ll not only delve into the technical aspects of AI-powered XML development but also discuss practical implications and possible future directions.
GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using Deplo...James Anderson
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
In his public lecture, Christian Timmerer provides insights into the fascinating history of video streaming, starting from its humble beginnings before YouTube to the groundbreaking technologies that now dominate platforms like Netflix and ORF ON. Timmerer also presents provocative contributions of his own that have significantly influenced the industry. He concludes by looking at future challenges and invites the audience to join in a discussion.
A tale of scale & speed: How the US Navy is enabling software delivery from l...sonjaschweigert1
Rapid and secure feature delivery is a goal across every application team and every branch of the DoD. The Navy’s DevSecOps platform, Party Barge, has achieved:
- Reduction in onboarding time from 5 weeks to 1 day
- Improved developer experience and productivity through actionable findings and reduction of false positives
- Maintenance of superior security standards and inherent policy enforcement with Authorization to Operate (ATO)
Development teams can ship efficiently and ensure applications are cyber ready for Navy Authorizing Officials (AOs). In this webinar, Sigma Defense and Anchore will give attendees a look behind the scenes and demo secure pipeline automation and security artifacts that speed up application ATO and time to production.
We will cover:
- How to remove silos in DevSecOps
- How to build efficient development pipeline roles and component templates
- How to deliver security artifacts that matter for ATO’s (SBOMs, vulnerability reports, and policy evidence)
- How to streamline operations with automated policy checks on container images
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfPaige Cruz
Monitoring and observability aren’t traditionally found in software curriculums and many of us cobble this knowledge together from whatever vendor or ecosystem we were first introduced to and whatever is a part of your current company’s observability stack.
While the dev and ops silo continues to crumble….many organizations still relegate monitoring & observability as the purview of ops, infra and SRE teams. This is a mistake - achieving a highly observable system requires collaboration up and down the stack.
I, a former op, would like to extend an invitation to all application developers to join the observability party will share these foundational concepts to build on:
20240605 QFM017 Machine Intelligence Reading List May 2024
Porter five forces model
1. Fathoming Porter’s five forces model in the
internet era
G.D. Karagiannopoulos, N. Georgopoulos and K. Nikolopoulos
G.D. Karagiannopoulos is at
TREK Consulting SA, Athens,
Greece, N. Georgopoulos is at
the Department of Business
Administration, University of
Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece and K.
Nikolopoulos is at the Lancaster
Centre for Forecasting,
Department of Management
Science, Lancaster University
Management School, Lancaster,
UK.
Abstract
Purpose – To investigate the impact of the internet in ‘‘traditional’’ market rules.
Design/methodology/approach – An opinion piece based on Michael Porter’s arguments for the new
economy.
Finding – Michael Porter’s arguments for the new economy provide a useful starting point in the analysis
of the environment. His arguments are based on exaggerated phenomena. Factors that determine a
sector’s profitability could be enriched with the innovation that prevails in the particular sector.
Originality/value – An attempt to criticize Porter’s thoughts regarding internet and industry structure
and to enrich the Porter’s five forces model with the ‘‘power of innovation’’.
Keywords Internet, Market forces, Economics, Innovation
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
Distinguishing between internet and non-internet, or between the so-called new economy
and the old economy is today as useless as it would have been a century ago to compare
companies with telephones to those without. By using the infrastructure of the emerging
electric and telephone networks, the manufacturers changed the US economy exactly as
today’s Silicon Valley entrepreneurs gain power by using computers and communication
infrastructure to change the international economy (Levis et al., 2002).
The internet is an extremely important new technology and it is comes as no surprise that it
has received so much attention from all market elements. If someone wants to understand
what the internet means to him and his company, he would learn a lot by reading what the
phone meant to people 100 years ago (Evans and Wurster, 2000). Although technology is
changing this does not change the way people evaluate the economic value created by
companies or the traditional rules of competition. The creation of true economic value is the
final arbiter of business success (Porter, 2001).
This article deals with the impact of the internet on ‘‘traditional’’ market rules and the way a
company must formulate its business strategy. Answers and pitfalls of some of Porter’s
arguments regarding the internet and strategy are presented. Finally, after re-evaluating
Porter’s five forces model, the use of the ‘‘power of innovation’’ is suggested as an additional
profit factor within industry.
Market-industry rules
It is very difficult to determine what is going to happen in the future and to evaluate what the
real financial situation of a company is. Every company evaluation consists of uncertainties,
assumptions, and estimations. The stock market is the reflection of the economy and
approximately depicts the absolute value of companies. That is why it is understandable to
look at the marketplace outcome for preliminary guidance, when something new is
PAGE 66
j j
info
VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005, pp. 66-76, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6697
DOI 10.1108/14636690510628328
2. happening – new business phenomena, and technological evolutions. The market place
shows the acceptance or not of the new trend.
But, in the early stages of the rollout of any important new technology, market signals can be
unreliable due to the cultivation of great expectations. During these periods it is easy to lose
perspective, as it is possible to be dominated by extravagant investing and overzealous
entrepreneurs. New technologies trigger rampant experimentations, by both companies
and customers, and the experimentation is often economically unsustainable (Porter, 2001).
As a result, market behaviour is distorted, giving an upward trend to market prices. However,
as in almost every system, no growth can continue indefinitely – no tree grows to the sky –
especially if it is not rooted within solid ground.
This has been especially visible during the internet’s initial growth spurts over the past few
years. The traditional rules of competition were temporarily suspended as people tried to
adjust to the altered realities that the internet seemed to present. Dot-coms multiplied rapidly
because they were able, contrary to business laws, to raise capital without having to
demonstrate viability and prove the valuable use of capital. For a time, executives and
analysts alike concocted absurd ways of evaluating new internet businesses, building false
lexicons by treating sticky eyeballs in the same way as paying customers. The code became
accepted and even popular (Schonfeld, 2001).
The fact that old rules regain their currency and the creation of true economic value remains
the main factor of business success does not mean that we can shrug off some of the new
values that have arisen in the last few years (Kalakota and Robinson, 1999). It is not possible
to ignore the ability of the internet to unlock a company’s walls, to discover and exploit
opportunities outside its existing businesses or beyond its current technical or operational
capabilities (David, 1998).
Internet and information
In order to use the term ‘‘information’’, it first needs to be defined. According to Shapiro and
Varian (1998), information is anything that can be digitised. Information is important because
customers value it differently. For example, some information has entertainment value and
other has business value. Customers are willing to pay for accessing this information but in
different ways according to their needs and their perceptions.
Information can be divided into codified information and non-codified information. Codified
information is, for example, specifications that are captured in industry standards and
design rules. Intellectual property rights can protect them and the companies that hold the
trade secrets and the patents determine their value. Non-codified information is broader in
comparison to the previous information category and cannot easily travel through the
internet (Hagel and Brown, 2001).
Before the advent of the internet, every industry consisted of a physical part and an
informational set. In this period the industry constraints were the high costs of
communicating, gathering and processing information, and accomplishing transactions.
In other words, the informational set was difficult to handle and access. Expensive
customized informational systems were needed for this purpose. That was precisely why
many pre-existing industries had difficulties in expanding and gaining more value (Maitra,
1996). Porter argues that five underlying forces of competition determine the industry
attractiveness, but how can the five forces model explain, for example, the expansion of the
distance learning industry?
The use of the internet has not changed the basic economic laws, but has changed the way
the world does business, the way that information is digitalized, packaged and transferred
(Evans and Wurster, 1997). Established companies that produced and merchandised
physical products managed to digitise the information that is valuable to the consumer and
use the internet to transfer it. This digitisation not only produced more value for the
consumer, but also value and decreased costs for the company. These types of companies
should stop deploying the internet on a stand-alone basis but use it instead to enhance the
distinctiveness of their strategies.
j j
VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005 info PAGE 67
3. On the other hand, companies that produce and merchandized products that could be
digitalized (CDs, movies, books, newspapers, etc.) are in a different position. They have
difficulties in creating and gaining the economic value that information has. The economics
of information are quite different from the economics of physical products that customers are
accustomed to (Whipple, 1999). The cost of producing informational products is structured
in a different way. Information is costly to produce, but cheap to reproduce. It contains high
fixed cost but low marginal cost.
Informational products are also empirical products, which means that the customer has to
use them in order to understand their value and finally buy them (Shapiro and Varian, 1998).
This can be compared to buying music (CD, mp3, etc.), as one does not buy a song/CD
without having ‘‘experienced’’ it in advance. The fact that dot-coms have drawbacks in
creating economic value does not mean that they have to widen their value chain to
encompass other activities besides those conducted over the internet, or to develop other
assets, including physical ones. As a result, dot-coms should focus on creating benefits that
customers will pay for, rather than pursuing advertising and click-through revenues from
third parties.
Porter’s contribution to the literature of business strategy
At this point it is necessary to make a reference to Professor Porter’s contribution to the
literature of business strategy. Before Michael Porter’s work, other researchers had sought to
uncover relationships between industry structure and performance through empirical work
focused on a limited number of structural variables. A new sub-field of economics known as
industrial organization (IO) had been introduced. But IO’s immediate impact on business
was limited by IO economists’ focus on public, rather than private policy and by emphasis on
using a short list of structural variables to explain industry profitability in a way that slighted
business strategy (Ghemawat et al., 2001).
In 1974 Michael Porter, who had worked on IO to study industry structure and business
strategy, prepared a ‘‘Note on the structural analysis of industries’’ and that was his first
attempt to turn IO on its head by focusing on the business policy of profit maximization,
rather than the public policy objective of profit maximization, and the public policy objective
of minimizing ‘‘excess’’ profit (Porter, 1979). In 1980, he published his first book, Competitive
Strategy, which owed much of its success to the ‘‘five forces’’ framework, that this paper
focuses on (Porter, 1980). This framework (see Figure 1) sought to relate the average
profitability of the participants in an industry to competitive forces.
Figure 1 Porter’s five forces model
j j
PAGE 68 info VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005
4. Porter’s framework for industry analysis broadened the supply-demand analysis of
individual markets in several aspects. First, it slackened the assumptions of both large
numbers and homogeneity – that is, of a large number of representative competitors.
Second, along the horizontal dimension, it shifted attention from two-stage horizontal chains,
each consisting of a supplier and buyer, to three-stage chains made up of suppliers, rivals
and buyers. Third, along the vertical dimension, it accounted for potential entrants and
substitutes as well as direct rivals. These generalizations, however, forced Porter to reach
beyond scientific evidence into the realm of common sense.
A survey carried out by Porter’s opponents in the late 1980s revealed that only a few of the
influences Porter flagged commanded strong empirical support. Despite the fact that the
‘‘five forces’’ framework focuses on business concerns rather than public policy, it also
emphasizes extended competition for value rather than just competition among existing
rivals, and the simpleness of its application inspired numerous companies as well as
business schools to adopt its use (Wheelen and Hunger, 1998).
Given the impact of Porter’s ‘‘five forces’’ framework on business strategy landscape, we will
hereafter present the framework in short.
Force 1: the degree of rivalry
The intensity of rivalry, which is the most obvious of the five forces in an industry, helps
determine the extent to which the value created by an industry will be dissipated through
head-to-head competition. The most valuable contribution of Porter’s ‘‘five forces’’
framework in this issue may be its suggestion that rivalry, while important, is only one of
several forces that determine industry attractiveness.
Force 2: the threat of entry
Both potential and existing competitors influence average industry profitability. The key
concept in analysing the threat of new entrants are the entry barriers. They can take diverse
forms and are used to prevent an influx of firms into an industry whenever profits, adjusted
for the cost of capital, rise above zero. In contrast, entry barriers exist whenever it is difficult
or not economically feasible for an outsider to replicate the incumbents’ position. The most
common forms of entry barriers, except intrinsic physical or legal obstacles, are usually the
scale and the investment required to enter an industry as an efficient competitor.
Force 3: the threat of substitutes
The threat that substitute products pose to an industry’s profitability depends on the relative
price-to-performance ratios of the different types of products or services to which customers
can turn to satisfy the same basic need. The threat of substitution is also affected by
switching costs – that is, the costs in areas such as retraining, retooling and redesigning that
are incurred when a customer switches to a different type of product or service. The
substitution process follows an S-shape curve. It starts slowly as a few trendsetters risk
experimenting with the substitute, picks up steam if other customers follow suit, and finally
levels off when nearly all the economical substitution possibilities have been exhausted.
Force 4: buyer power
Buyer power is one of the two horizontal forces that influence the appropriation of the value
created by an industry. The most important determinants of buyer power are the size and the
concentration of customers. Other factors are the extent to which the buyers are informed
and the concentration or differentiation of the competitors. It is often useful to distinguish
potential buyer power from the buyer’s willingness or incentive to use that power, willingness
that derives mainly from the ‘‘risk of failure’’ associated with a product’s use.
Force 5: supplier power
Supplier power is the mirror image of buyer power. As a result, the analysis of supplier power
typically focuses first on the relative size and concentration of suppliers relative to industry
participants and second on the degree of differentiation in the inputs supplied. The ability to
j j
VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005 info PAGE 69
5. charge customers different prices in line with differences in the value created for each of
those buyers usually indicates that the market is characterized by high supplier power and
at the same time by low buyer power (Porter, 1989, 1996).
Fathoming Porter’s thoughts regarding internet and industry structure
Michael Porter’s arguments about the new economy, as they are presented in ‘‘Strategy and
the internet’’, published in Harvard Business Review (Porter, 2001), provide a useful starting
point in the analysis of the environment in a rapidly changing world. Nevertheless, the angle
of his aspects can be criticized, as they are based on exaggerated phenomena that took
place prior to this event, when great expectations of the growth of the new economy had
been cultivated.
According to Porter ‘‘the internet technology provides buyers with easier access to
information about products and suppliers, thus bolstering buyer bargaining power’’. The fact
that the buyer has access to information regarding products and suppliers does not mean
that he will receive the product on time and in proper condition. Information about products
does not prevent customers from buying useless things and products that do not meet their
needs. The capability of the shops to provide consulting services can ensure additional
safety for their customers and thus impairs shops bargaining power.
Porter argues, ‘‘the internet reduces the barriers to entry’’. At first sight, this argument can be
true. But upon more careful examination we will see that the major cost centres which
determine the level of the barriers to entry are the same as for physical products. According
to Shapiro, informational products such as software are costly to produce for the first time,
but cheap to reproduce, and consist of a high fixed cost and a low marginal cost. This means
that the barriers to entry are higher for companies which produce informational products.
Porter says, ‘‘by enabling new approaches to meeting needs and performing functions, it
creates new substitutes’’. The substitute proliferation was the outcome of the distorted
market signals. If a company were able to raise capital without having to demonstrate the
customer’s intention to pay for the product it produces, this would cause the production of a
great magnitude of substitutes. On the other hand, when a need is fulfilled with a number of
products there is no real marginal cost to produce substitutes. In this case the existence of
substitutes makes no difference in the market structure.
Porter recognises that ‘‘internet technologies tend to reduce variable costs and tilt costs
structures toward fixed costs, creating significantly greater pressure for companies to
engage in destructive price competition’’. When a company produces physical products
variable costs are significant in proportion to fixed costs. The internet can reduce all the
unnecessary costs that burden the product cost and which the consumer is not willing to pay
for. On the other hand, for the informational products the reproduction cost converges to
zero. It is not the internet that decreases the reproduction cost of informational products to
zero, but the nature of the products. The internet allows this to happen. The use of intellectual
property rights, licensing, lock-in and switching costs can prolong the period in which the
price is reduced from the production price to the final reproduction cost. Figure 2 shows the
differences between physical (regular) products and informational (digital) products.
Porter declares that ‘‘the great paradox of the internet is that its very benefits – making
information widely available; reducing the difficulty of purchasing, marketing, and
distribution; allowing buyers and sellers to find and transact business with one another
more easily – also make it more difficult for companies to capture those benefits’’. Porter’s
view seems logical and justifiable, however, an established sales force or other professionals
inside a company are still very much needed. Not all difficult questions can be answered
through the internet. The information flow through the internet tends not only to answer
questions, but to raise them as well. Human contact seems important in problematic
situations; the internet is not very capable of providing customers with professional opinions
(Hallowell, 2001). Moreover, by using the internet, manufacturers can sell directly to
customers and provide customer support online. In this sense, traditional intermediaries are
eliminated. This new phenomenon is called ‘‘dis-intermediation’’. However, by using new
j j
PAGE 70 info VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005
6. Figure 2 Physical vs informational products
technology, intermediaries regain value; they are transformed into electronic intermediaries
and participate in a new phenomenon called ‘‘reintermediation’’ (see Figure 3). These new
intermediaries add value to products, increasing the difficulty of purchasing, marketing, and
distribution, and making it easier for companies to capture some additional benefits (Turban
et al., 2000).
The argument stated shows that ‘‘companies can still capture a lot of benefits and at the
same time reduce the buyers bargaining power’’ (Kosiur, 1997).
Porter argues that ‘‘industry structure is not fixed but rather is shaped to a considerable
degree by the choices made by competitors’’. An argument like this can be true when the
market signals are positive and companies without sufficient strategy can raise capital
without having to demonstrate viability. But when the markets are unfavourable, competitors
who do not have strategic plans cannot shape the industry structure because they cannot
survive (Schulman and Smith, 1997). It is more difficult in these periods to cannibalise the
industry competition.
The argument that the proliferation of dot-coms is a sign of the economic value of the internet
is premature. On the other hand, it is not fair to use arguments based on the early market
signals to prove that the internet has negative implications for industry profitability.
Figure 3 Disintermediation and reintermediation by EC
j j
VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005 info PAGE 71
7. Porter’s myths are not proved to be wrong!
One argument that Porter invokes is that ‘‘. . . the openness of internet makes it difficult for a
single company to capture the benefits of the network effect. To have network effects, it is
needed to have a critical mass of customers. Network effect is a self-limiting mechanism and
after meeting the needs of a great magnitude of customers it becomes less effective in
meeting the needs of the remaining customers in the market. Finally the experience curve
advantage proved disastrous in many industries.’’
The phenomenon of the network effect was observed in the previous decade, when all
companies wanted to access the internet. The role of networks and network economics have
make sense when virtual networks are present such as the network of Apple Macintosh
computers, the network of owners of compact disk machines, the network of users of MS
Office, etc. The majority of companies wrongly thought that ‘‘networking’’ with other
companies would give them the opportunity to expand the value of the informational
products they produced. In some cases, companies hoped to gain value only through
networking, without having any product value.
Porter says that ‘‘as partnering proliferates within the internet, companies tend to become
more alike, which heats up rivalry. Companies, instead of focusing on their own strategic
goals, are forced to balance the many potentially conflicting objectives of their partners while
educating them about their business. Rivalry often becomes more unstable, and since
producers of complements can be potential competitors, the threat of entry increases.’’
It is true that the vertical integration of companies is less favourable nowadays, especially for
companies that produce and sell informational products. The ease to search, coordinate,
contract and transact enables companies to have a greater number of potential suppliers.
Suppliers know that there are other specialized suppliers around the world keen to replace
them. Companies do not have high switching costs so they can exert pressure and finally
reduce the bargaining power of the suppliers. In this partnering business model the crucial
point for each company is to find out what their respective core competencies are and let the
partners do the rest.
It is not necessary for companies to deploy all kinds of competencies that concatenate the
final product. It is essential for a company to orchestrate an extensive ‘‘business web’’
(Tapscott, 2001). However, it would be difficult for a company to stay alive and gain profit
from resources that do not belong to it, without having core competencies. The lack of core
competencies was one of the mistakes made by companies that entered the internet. They
saw their companies as a portfolio of end products and not as a portfolio of competencies.
During the internet boom, top management lacked the vision to identify and build
competencies and did not have the qualifications to administrate and assemble resources
spread across multiple businesses. The new business-web needs network orchestrators to
begin by undertaking a detached self-appraisal in which they identify those activities they do
well enough in order to become the pre-eminent players in the market. Orchestrators,
however, do not share their core competencies. It is unnecessary for them to do so, since the
viability of a network of companies does not depend on attracting a huge number of partners
but on facilitating the exchange of information between them.
Moreover, it seems that during the internet boom years, the barriers to entry were lower
because the entry into some markets was primarily related to capital requirements, access
to channels and sales forces. In reality this argument is not true. In the information economy it
is harder to keep proprietary information, and the market boom has enticed many new
entrants into many industries. It is difficult for a company to survive if it does not obtain strong
partnering relations and it is almost impossible for a single company to build a vertical
integrated company. Newcomers have to gain access to the knowledge and expertise, to
realize efficiencies flowing from partners’ sharing of assets and to obtain privileged access
to product and information (Hammer, 2001). In this sense the barriers to entry can be much
higher than previously.
Another point that cannot be ignored is that no company is hermetically sealed. Outside
perspectives and competencies flow into and out of organizations through many routes
j j
PAGE 72 info VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005
8. (partnerships with universities, alliances and acquisitions, external venture investments,
recruiting and hiring, customers and suppliers and the relationships and curiosity of
individual employees) (Wolpert, 2002). But imagine an ideal world, where there is no fear of
competitors. If company A develops a great idea that it cannot commercialise, it can more
efficiently shift it to company B, which has the right skills to gain from the opportunity that
arises.
At IBM, the internet division realized that the company had developed many promising
software programs in research, which had yet to be commercialised. They could not find a
compelling use for those programs. As an experiment, the division used the internet
(AlphaWorks) to collect valuable ideas from outside companies in order to bring these
programs to the market. A lot of unused ideas went to the market with this special kind of
partnering. The broader question is: why don’t competitors simply help themselves to these
ideas? For one thing, patents and licenses are easy to enforce. No one is naive enough to
copy a technological development and then try to bring something similar to the market by
violating licenses, patents and intellectual property rights.
Innovation and industry expansion
According to Porter’s opinion, the collective strength of the five forces model determines the
potential profit of an industry (Porter, 1998). One of the critical comments made of the five
forces framework is its static nature, whereas the competitive environment is changing
turbulently (see Figure 4). Are the five forces able to foresee industry expansion? Is it the
corporate strategist’s goal to find a position in the industry where his or her company can
best defend itself against these forces or can influence them in its favour, or is the goal to
become part of the ongoing commerce with the intention to produce innovative ideas that
will expand the size of the industry? Is it true that the environment poses a threat to the
organisation, leading to the consideration of suppliers and buyers as threats that need to be
tackled, or does it offer the ground for a constitutive industry player co-operation?
Figure 4 Industry expansion by innovation
j j
VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005 info PAGE 73
9. Apart from competing with rivals, most organisations also co-operate with other
organisations (Porter, 1985). Such collaboration is contrary to Porter’s five forces analysis.
However, co-operation between organizations and others in their industry environment is
also important to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, to produce lower costs, to
deliver more sustainable relationships with those outside the organization, to produce
innovative business opportunities (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996). According to Wolpert
(2002), innovation needs to become a more open process and must become part of the
ongoing commerce that takes place among companies. If a company stays locked inside its
own four walls, how will it be able to discover and exploit opportunities outside its existing
business or beyond its current technical or operational capabilities?
There are many examples (see also the section ‘‘Porter’s myths are not proved to be
wrong!’’) showing how innovation can evoke the expansion of an industry. Imitation of
structural business innovations that dominant players are implementing can boost the
magnitude of the industry (Wolpert, 2002). For example, in the general-merchandise
retailing industry, productivity growth was more than tripled after 1995 because competitors
started adopting Wal-Mart’s innovations more rapidly, including the large-scale (‘‘big-box’’)
format, ‘‘everyday low prices,’’ economies of scale in warehouse logistics and purchasing,
and electronic data interchange (EDI) with suppliers (Allen and Fjermestad, 2001).
Cooperation of key industry players or intermediation of management consultancy
companies can facilitate innovation, and consequently industry expansion, by giving
clients the infrastructure to share ideas and to discuss technological advances. Recently a
major US oil company found commercial applications for a new molecule it had developed
by brainstorming with 12 other companies in various industries; 11 business opportunities
for the molecule, with potential revenues of $150 million were identified. One of these
companies went on to pursue a joint project with the oil company and introduced a new
consumer product based on the molecule. This kind of partnership expanded the industry
magnitude and increased industry’s cash flow (Allen and Fjermestad, 2001). Can Porter’s
five forces predict this additional economic value of the industry?
Conclusions
New factors that seem to dominate the ‘‘new economy’’ are not entirely ‘‘new’’. They are
parts of the old, well-established economy. Porter’s five forces model – the collective
strength of the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, the threat of potential new entrants
and substitutes and also the extent of competitive rivalry – is still valuable. Despite the fact
that supply and demand curves cannot provide valuable help for the interpretation of factors
regarding the new economy, concepts such as differential pricing, network effects and
group of products were applied to the old market rules (Karagiannopoulos and
Georgopoulos, 2004).
Companies that use the internet have to reconsider the way they do business. Depending on
the occasion, companies must use some of the traditional rules in a new way. Before
formulating their strategy, identifying the position of the company in the market area is the
primary goal. Afterwards, a plan to fight against the competition that threatens their strategic
position has to be determined. Questions concerning the customer’s target group, the
products/services that must be produced, the selling price and the way to manage all the
above issues, are important and all these should be answered regularly. The internet is a
decision making tool for old companies regarding strategy. It gives valuable help in
implementing the decided strategy effectively. Unfortunately, it cannot do everything. And it
is not the ‘‘magic wand’’ that allows companies to accomplish radical changes in all their
processes.
Despite being an extremely important new technology, the internet neither changes nor
leaves everything untouched. It is not possible for distorted market signals to be the judging
factors of industry changes. On the other hand, the market recession cannot set aside all
changes caused by the internet with no discrimination. Old rules/values that produce
economic value are not obsolete and need to be given proper attention and thus do not allow
companies to rely on this observation. They need to facilitate several changes and to adopt
j j
PAGE 74 info VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005
10. new ideas about the industry structure and the position their companies’ hold. It is
impossible to predict the exact situation, but what is certain is that, in an increasingly
complex world, the greatest growth opportunities will come more often by the interaction of
multiple companies than from single visionaries acting on their own. The internet is capable
of boosting the power of partnership and their benefits.
Moreover, defending the position that a corporation occupies is only necessary when the
industry magnitude is static and an unconsidered market share loss may lead the
corporation to collapse. In industries with great changing and expansion forces, where
innovative ideas, technologies and products increase industry magnitude, companies must
adopt a more dynamic strategy in order to defend themselves against industry structures
and increase their market share. In this case cooperation is a necessity.
The factors that determine a sector’s profitability, apart from Porter’s five forces model, could
be enriched with the intensity of innovation that prevails in this particular sector. Wrong
evaluation of innovation is likely not only to destroy a company or make it non-competitive,
but also to render and make obsolete an entire sector. It is worth mentioning that the internet
has without doubt provoked major changes in traditional corporate processes whilst
creating new business models. Still, traditional corporate procedures should not be ignored,
as we are still in a transition phase. Stabilization will take place in the future, and until then
Porter’s five forces model can be combined with each sector’s innovation intensity.
References
Allen, E. and Fjermestad, J. (2001), ‘‘E-commerce marketing strategies: an integrated framework and
case analysis’’, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 14-23.
Chesbrough, H.W. and Teece, D.J. (1996), ‘‘When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation’’,
Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 65-73.
David, F. (1998), Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Evans, P. and Wurster, T. (1997), ‘‘Strategy and the new economics of information’’, Harvard Business
Review, September/October, pp. 71-82.
Evans, P. and Wurster, T. (2000), Blown to Bits: How the new Economics of Information Transforms
Strategy, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ghemawat, P., Collis, D.J., Pisano, G.P. and Rivkin, J.W. (2001), Strategy and the Business Landscape:
Core Concepts, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hagel, J. III and Brown, J.S. (2001), ‘‘Your next IT strategy’’, Harvard Business Review, October,
pp. 105-13.
Hallowell, R. (2001), ‘‘Scalability: the paradox of human resources in e-commerce’’, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12, pp. 34-43.
Hammer, M. (2001), ‘‘The superefficient company’’, Harvard Business Review, September, pp. 82-91.
Kalakota, R. and Robinson, M. (1999), E-business: Roadmap for Success, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Karagiannopoulos, G. and Georgopoulos, N. (2004), ‘‘Can rethinking Porter’s strategies in internet era
cause industry expansion’’, Spoudai, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 107-20 (in Greek).
Kosiur, D. (1997), Understanding Electronic Commerce, Microsoft Press, Seattle, WA.
Levis, W., Palmade, V., Regout, B. and Webb, A. (2002), ‘‘What’s right with the US economy’’, The
Mckinsey Quarterly.
Maitra, A.K. (1996), Building a Corporate Internet Strategy, van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1979), ‘‘How competitive forces shape strategy’’, Harvard Business Review, March/April.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press,
New York, NY.
j j
VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005 info PAGE 75
11. Porter, M.E. (1989), ‘‘Strategy in deal-based industries’’, remarks to the 1989 HBS Real Estate
Symposium, December, Cambridge, MA.
Porter, M.E. (1996), ‘‘What is strategy?’’, Harvard Business Review, November/December.
Porter, M.E. (1998), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (2001), ‘‘Strategy and the internet’’, Harvard Business Review, March.
Schonfeld, E. (2001), ‘‘The trouble with net strategy’’,
www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,513582,00.html
Business
2.0,
available
at:
Schulman, M. and Smith, R. (1997), The Internet Strategic Plan, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H.R. (1998), Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy,
Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tapscott, D. (2001), ‘‘Rethinking strategy in a networked world (or why Michael Porter is wrong about the
internet)’’, Strategy & Competition, No. 3rd quarter.
Turban, E., Lee, J., King, D. and Chung, H.M. (2000), Electronic Commerce: A Managerial Perspective,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wheelen, T. and Hunger, J. (1998), Strategic Management and Business Policy, 6th ed.,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Whipple, L.C. (1999), ‘‘The web’s return on investment’’, E-Business Advisor, available at: http://
filemakersolutionsadvisor.com/doc/03658
Wolpert, J. (2002), ‘‘Breaking out of the innovation box’’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 77-83.
j j
PAGE 76 info VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005