Academic-Capital

Companies that innovate lead the market but often attract market chasers that seek to gain financial benefits of producing similar products. For organizations that have invented new products and services this can be an annoying aspect of doing business if high profits must now be shared with other market entry companies. To avoid easy access by competitors a company may desire to use a deterrence or shakeout strategy. A study in the Journal of Academy of Marketing Science discusses how evolutionary game theory is used to understand whether a deterrence strategy and a shakeout strategy are more successful in keeping new businesses of out the market (Homburg, et. al, 2013). The method a company uses will determine whether or not they will be effective in ensure the costs are too high for other firms to pursue. A deterrence strategy seeks to block potential competitors from entering the market. Strategies may include limit pricing, raising switching costs, new innovations

Corporate competitiveness is a process that requires continually adjustment to the market to increase efficiency and effectiveness. A paper by Bhattachariya and Gibbons (1996), discusses in further depth how this environmental alignment can be achieved. By ensuring organizations are structured in a way that improves competitiveness, they can also help secure a place in the global economy. Greater internationalization, consumer choice, fragmented markets, and short product cycles are some of the challenges organizations face.   Companies increasingly are forced to change with   environmental demands and are attempting to do this through transformation of their structure. A proper transformation should align the organization and everything within it to corporate strategies that match the market environment. Two primary constraints influence businesses, which include the external environment and a level of performance that is sufficient to deal with that environment. To fin

As the market becomes chaotic the need to change the strategic formation models becomes apparent to match this need. Strategic behavior is associated with capital resources and the competencies of the corporation. A paper by EL Namiki in the Ivey Business Journal (2013) helps in furthering the Systemic Strategy Analysis Model (SSAM) of strategic thinking which understands the flows of thought formation within companies in order to analyze a company’s competitive position. Strategic behavior is seen as a process of developing and enacting choices. Systematic strategic behavior focuses more on the developing and enacting of choices that are in alignment with the structural and environmental constraints of an organization. Strategic business choices, by their nature, are more confined than those enacted by individuals. Proper analysis is needed to define corporate strategy. Where resources and company attributes meet each other there is a strategy that could be developed to fu