MGT 471 Strategic Management Case Preparation Summary

Mgt 471 Strategic Managementcase Preparation Summary For Case Discussi

Case Preparation Summary For Case Discussion in MGT 471 Strategic Management involves analyzing the strategic choices faced by Teva as it moved toward diversification, particularly regarding how the company acquired capabilities for new products and markets. Students are expected to examine the circumstances under which Teva might choose to build internally, borrow through alliances, or buy via mergers or acquisitions. These strategic decisions influence the company's growth trajectory and competitive positioning. Furthermore, students should apply frameworks such as the Acquisition Integration matrix to real cases, like the acquisition of Cephalon, to determine the most suitable integration approach. Additionally, the analysis should include evaluating joint ventures, such as Teva’s partnership with KOWA Pharmaceuticals in Japan, to understand why such arrangements can be advantageous over outright purchasing or capability building, especially in different geographical or market contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

In the strategic management landscape, diversification represents a significant shift for firms like Teva, requiring careful consideration of the most effective methods to acquire new capabilities necessary for entry into unfamiliar markets or product lines. When Teva decided to broaden its portfolio, it faced the critical decision of how to secure the required resources and skills—whether to build internally, collaborate through alliances, or acquire existing capabilities through mergers and acquisitions (M&A). The choice among these strategies depends on various factors such as resource availability, time constraints, risk level, market complexity, and the strategic fit of the target capabilities.

Building capabilities internally allows a firm to develop unique knowledge and skills that are tailored precisely to the company’s needs. This approach is most suitable when the firm possesses sufficient resources, time, and a strong internal culture capable of fostering innovation. For instance, if Teva aimed to develop specialized research and development (R&D) capabilities for a new pharmaceutical, internal development might be prioritized. However, internal building can be slow and resource-intensive, which might hinder rapid entry into competitive markets.

Borrowing capabilities through strategic alliances or partnerships provides a flexible, less resource-intensive option. Alliances can be particularly beneficial when entering markets with high uncertainty, regulatory barriers, or local market complexities, such as Japan. By partnering with established local firms, Teva could leverage existing distribution channels, regulatory knowledge, and market expertise without the significant time and capital investments required for internal development or M&A. The joint venture with KOWA Pharmaceuticals exemplifies this approach, as it enabled Teva to access the Japanese market efficiently without the need for outright acquisition or building capabilities from scratch.

Buying capabilities through acquisitions is typically considered when rapid market entry is essential or when the target firm possesses unique tangible or intangible assets that would be costly or time-consuming to develop internally. In the case of acquiring Cephalon, Teva’s use of an acquisition strategy was guided by the need to integrate Cephalon’s innovative product pipeline swiftly and enhance its position within the pharmaceutical industry. The decision to acquire rather than build or partner was driven by the desire for immediate capability access, control over the new assets, and the strategic importance of the acquisition to Teva’s growth plan.

Application of the Acquisition Integration matrix offers insights into the most appropriate integration approach. As described on pages 335 and 339 of standard strategic management texts, the four types of integration—absorption, symbiosis, preservation, and holding—vary depending on factors such as strategic fit, resource sharing, and cultural compatibility. For the Cephalon acquisition, a complementary or symbiotic integration approach would be ideal, facilitating knowledge sharing while maintaining sufficient independence to preserve core competencies and avoid integration pitfalls. Given Cephalon’s innovative R&D and Teva’s manufacturing and distribution strengths, a symbiosis strategy would enable mutual benefit without overly disrupting organizational structures.

Regarding joint ventures like the partnership with KOWA Pharmaceuticals in Japan, such arrangements often serve as strategic tools to mitigate risks associated with entering unfamiliar markets and to gain immediate local market access. This approach is preferable over buying or building capabilities from scratch because it allows knowledge sharing, reduces investment costs, and minimizes exposure to cultural and regulatory uncertainties. The joint venture with KOWA provided Teva an opportunity to understand local consumer behavior, navigate regulatory frameworks efficiently, and establish a market foothold with shared risk and resources. This strategic choice aligns with theoretical and empirical findings highlighting the advantages of alliances in complex, regulated, and culturally distinct markets.

In conclusion, Teva’s strategic decisions regarding capability acquisition—build, borrow, or buy—depend on the specific context of each market and product line. While internal development is suitable for core competencies and innovation, alliances and joint ventures are advantageous for rapid market entry and reducing risks in unfamiliar environments. Mergers and acquisitions provide immediate access to capabilities and market share but require careful integration planning guided by frameworks like the Acquisition Integration matrix. Understanding these strategic choices enhances the ability of firms like Teva to successfully navigate diversification and sustain competitive advantage.

References

• Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2019). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
• Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a Networked World. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2020). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning.
• Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2017). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Pearson.
• Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432.
• Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.
• Sampson, R. (2004). The Impact of International Strategic Alliances on Domestic Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 279–292.
• Schweiger, D. M., & Very, P. (2003). Creating Value in Mergers and Acquisitions: Challenges and Synergies. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1199–1219.
• Zaheer, A. (1995). Overcoming the Liability of Foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363.
• Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2020). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning.