Chapter 12 Strategy Development Processes Illustration 125

418 Chapter 12 Strategy Development Processesillustration 125the Dev

Analyze how resource allocation processes influence strategy development, using the example of Intel from 1968 to 1985, where resource allocation rules based on profit margins favored certain product areas over others, ultimately shaping Intel’s strategic direction. Discuss the role of top management in resource allocation, including how their decisions can promote or restrict strategic freedom within organizations. Incorporate insights from the case to illustrate the implications of resource-based strategic development and management influence.

Paper For Above instruction

Resource allocation processes are fundamental to shaping and directing corporate strategy. The allocation of resources—whether financial, human, or material—often reinforces existing strategic priorities and can even steer a company toward new strategic directions, sometimes independent of top management’s initial intentions. The case of Intel from 1968 to 1985 exemplifies how organizational resource allocation systems, driven by predefined rules, can significantly influence strategic development, often bypassing formal strategic planning.

Intel’s resource allocation system was rooted in a financial rule established by the company’s first finance director. This rule stipulated that manufacturing capacity was assigned proportionally to the profit margins achieved in different product sectors. Such a focus on resource distribution based solely on profitability tended to favor high-margin products such as DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) and later, microprocessors, over other product lines like EPROMs (Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory). This system created a form of systemic bias, emphasizing technical solutions that contributed to immediate profitability rather than long-term strategic innovation or market development.

The influence of such a resource allocation system becomes evident when considering the organizational behavior and strategic focus during that period. Despite management’s initial focus on memory products, the profit-driven resource allocation rules implicitly prioritized profitable ventures such as microprocessors. As the profitability of DRAM declined and microprocessor margins increased, resources shifted accordingly, reinforcing and accelerating the strategic pivot toward microprocessor development. This shift was largely driven by resource availability rather than explicit strategic decision-making, illustrating the power of resource allocation systems as a strategic force.

Importantly, top management’s role in resource allocation is critical. They set the rules and frameworks that dictate how resources are distributed but may not always recognize the strategic implications of these systems. In Intel’s case, management’s adherence to profit-margin-based resource allocation constrained the company’s strategic flexibility. Despite the declining market share and profitability of memory products, management was reluctant to reallocate manufacturing capacity away from memory to other potentially promising areas due to the entrenched resource allocation rule. This rigidity limited operational and strategic options, ultimately leading to the withdrawal from the memory business and a re-orientation towards the more profitable microprocessor segment.

The case demonstrates that top management acts both as the architect of resource allocation policies and as the guardians of strategic change. Effective strategic leadership requires awareness of how formal resource distribution systems can constrain or enable strategic adaptation. Managers need to monitor and modify these systems when they become misaligned with shifting market realities or strategic opportunities.

Furthermore, resource allocation influences organizational behavior, morale, and innovation. When resources are aligned solely with profit metrics, it could stifle innovation in less profitable sectors, even if such innovations have long-term strategic value. The reluctance of Intel to allocate more capacity to the memory products reflects this tension; innovative efforts in these areas were neglected in favor of immediate financial gains from microprocessors. Consequently, understanding and managing resource allocation processes are essential for fostering a balanced strategic pursuit that considers both short-term profitability and long-term growth.

In addition to internal resource allocation rules, organizations must be vigilant about external influences, such as market fluctuations and technological advancements. For instance, the decline in DRAM profitability and the rise of the microprocessor market were external factors that, when combined with the internal resource allocation system, dictated the strategic reorientation at Intel. Thus, strategic development shaped by resource allocation is often a dynamic interplay between internal systems and external market pressures.

In conclusion, resource allocation processes, particularly when guided by rigid rules tied to profitability, have a profound impact on corporate strategy development. They can reinforce existing strategic directions, limit flexibility, and even precipitate strategic shifts. Top management plays a crucial role in designing, monitoring, and adjusting these systems to ensure they support the organization’s strategic goals and evolving market conditions. The Intel case vividly illustrates how resource-based systems, driven by organizational policies rather than strategic deliberation, can ultimately propel a company toward new growth opportunities or, conversely, hinder its strategic agility if not managed carefully.

References

  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2017). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning.
  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
  • Grant, R. M. (2019). Contemporary Strategy Analysis (10th ed.). Wiley.
  • Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2015). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
  • Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a Persistent World. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Pearson Education.
  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press.
  • Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: The Domination of Modern Business Enterprises. MIT Press.
  • Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in Strategy Formation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 147-172.

Related Assignments