Models For Competitive Dynamics Due Week 2 And Worth 100

Models For Competitive Dynamicsdue Week 2 And Worth 100

Competition has, since the 1990s, led to wider gaps between industry leaders and laggards. There are more “winner-take-all” environments and greater churns among industry sector rivals. We have witnessed sharp increases in quality and quantity of IT (Information Technology) investments. We’ve seen striking competitive dynamics, particularly in sectors that spend the most on IT. Some of the competitive dynamics models include the Destroy Your Business (DYB) strategy, the Grow Your Business (GYB) strategy, the Information Systems (IS) and strategic advantage, and the social business strategy.

Write a four to five (4-5) page paper in which you: Compare and contrast the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability. Examine the “cannibalization” strategy and determine if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Provide two business examples. Determine whether changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Provide three reasons to support your position.

Examine how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Consider collaborative capabilities and what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy. Use at least three quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as quality resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: This course requires use of new Strayer Writing Standard.

Paper For Above instruction

The contemporary business environment is predominantly shaped by rapid technological advancement and fierce competitive dynamics, particularly since the 1990s. Among various strategies adopted by firms to navigate this landscape, the “Destroy Your Business” (DYB) and “Grow Your Business” (GYB) strategies stand out as contrasting approaches focusing on innovation and market positioning. Analyzing these strategies involves understanding their implications on sustainability, competitiveness, profitability, and long-term viability. Furthermore, the strategic use of social information technology (IT) in alignment with organizational goals plays a vital role in fostering collaborative capabilities and driving market leadership.

Comparison of DYB and GYB Strategies

The DYB strategy encapsulates an aggressive approach where firms intentionally disrupt their existing business models or markets to preempt competitors and create new value propositions. This strategy emphasizes innovation, risk-taking, and sometimes cannibalization of existing products or markets to secure a strategic advantage. Conversely, the GYB strategy focuses on continuous growth and expansion, often through incremental improvements, market penetration, and diversification. While DYB may threaten current revenue streams temporarily, it aims for long-term disruption-resistant positioning.

In terms of sustainability, DYB can be risky due to its disruptive nature, potentially alienating current customers or facing resistance internally. However, if successfully executed, it can establish a formidable competitive edge that is resilient over the long term. GYB tends to be more stable, ensuring steady growth, but may struggle to innovate fast enough against agile competitors employing DYB tactics.

Regarding competitiveness, DYB provides firms with the capacity to leap ahead of rivals by redefining industry standards or creating entirely new markets. GYB, on the other hand, maintains competitiveness through sustained market share and brand loyalty. Profitability in DYB hinges on successful early disruption and market acceptance, while GYB relies on incremental revenue and cost efficiencies.

Cannibalization Strategy versus DYB

The cannibalization strategy involves a company introducing new products that consume sales from existing offerings, effectively preempting competitors and managing market shifts internally. Compared to DYB, cannibalization can be a safer route for growth, reducing risk by maintaining control over market transitions. For example, Apple’s launch of the iPhone cannibalized its iPod sales but positioned Apple as a dominant smartphone manufacturer, exemplifying strategic internal competition.

Although cannibalization promotes adaptability and growth, it may undermine profit margins temporarily or cause internal conflict. In contrast, DYB’s broader disruptive approach could be more volatile but potentially more transformative. The suitability of each depends on the industry context and organizational risk appetite.

Considering long-term market leadership, a hybrid approach might be optimal, where cannibalization strategies are employed within a larger disruptive framework, enabling continuous innovation while safeguarding core business areas.

Business Examples

One example of DYB is Amazon’s move into cloud computing with AWS, disrupting traditional IT infrastructure markets and positioning itself as a key industry player. Amazon’s disruptive innovation exemplifies how DYB can redefine an entire sector. Another example is Netflix’s shift from DVD rentals to streaming services, which disrupted traditional cable and satellite TV models, demonstrating DYB’s capacity for long-term dominance.

Conversely, Coca-Cola’s GYB approach involves regular product innovation, marketing campaigns, and market expansion strategies to sustain growth and market presence over decades. Coca-Cola’s focus on incremental product diversification exemplifies GYB’s emphasis on continual growth without radical disruption.

Impact of Business Strategies on IS Reassessment

Changes in business strategy necessitate a reassessment of Information Systems (IS) for three primary reasons:

1. Alignment with Strategic Goals: As organizations shift focus—whether towards disruption or growth—the IS must adapt to support new processes, data requirements, and competitive tactics.
2. Enhancement of Innovation Capabilities: Disruptive strategies like DYB depend heavily on advanced analytics, agile platforms, and innovation-driven IS architecture.
3. Operational Efficiency and Risk Management: GYB-focused strategies require reliable systems for managing incremental growth, supply chains, and customer engagement, demanding continuous IS updates and security measures.

Leveraging Social IT in Organizational and IS Strategy

Social IT, encompassing social media platforms, collaborative tools, and enterprise social networks, can significantly enhance organizational and IS strategies when aligned correctly. These tools facilitate real-time communication, knowledge sharing, and community building, all vital for a social business strategy.

Firms should use social IT to foster collaborative capabilities across various organizational levels. For example, executive teams can leverage social platforms for strategic dialogue, while customer service can utilize social media to interact directly with consumers, strengthening brand loyalty and engagement.

Who should use social IT includes employees for internal collaboration, customers for feedback and engagement, and partners for joint innovation initiatives. How they use it involves creating content, participating in discussions, and utilizing analytics to inform decision-making. What should be used includes enterprise social networks, instant messaging, and community forums.

Overall, social IT supports a culture of openness and transparency, which is integral to a competitive social business strategy and aligns with broader organizational goals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the contrasting strategies of DYB and GYB offer diverse pathways for long-term organizational success, each with distinct risks and benefits. The strategic use of social IT further enhances organizational agility and competitiveness, especially when aligned with overarching IS strategies. Firms that integrate disruptive innovations with effective use of social technology are better positioned to lead in rapidly evolving marketplaces.

References

• Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Free Press.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard Business Review Press.
• McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Investing in the IT That Makes a Competitive Difference. Harvard Business Review.
• Ross, J. W., Beath, C. M., & Sebastian, I. M. (2017). How to Develop a Great Digital Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review.
• Sharma, G. (2019). Social Media Strategies for Business. Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing.
• Turban, E., Pollard, C., & Wood, G. (2018). Electronic Commerce: A managerial perspective. Pearson Education.
• Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading Digital: Turning Technology into Business Transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., & Lyytinen, K. (2012). The New organizational Logic of Information Technology: Understanding Digital Innovation. Organization Science.
• Zeng, M., & Gerrits, L. (2014). Social Media Strategies in Business. Journal of Business Strategy, 35(2), 24-33.