Masters Programmes

Assignment Cover Sheet

Submitted by:

Date Sent: 02 / 08 / 2020

Module Title: Business in Practice

Module Code: IB9FB0

Date/Year of Module: 2020

Submission Deadline: 03 / 09 / 2020 (20:00)

Word Count: 4000

Number of Pages: 25

Question: BIP Firm-Analysis (GD-Motors)

“I declare that this work is entirely my own in accordance with the University's Regulation 11
and the WBS guidelines on plagiarism and collusion. All external references and sources are
clearly acknowledged and identified within the contents.

No substantial part(s) of the work submitted here has also been submitted by me in other
assessments for accredited courses of study, and I acknowledge that if this has been done it
may result in me being reported for self-plagiarism and an appropriate reduction in marks
may be made when marking this piece of work.”
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Introduction
GD-Motors is a global automobile-manufacturer operating in the U.S., Europe, and China,
producing conventional-cars with combustion-engines. GD-Motors’ vision is to become a
sustainable-provider for customers through innovation, and its objective to create a better
world through sustainability. The automobile-industry is undergoing a dramatic shift towards
sustainable-mobility and electrification. Governments are promoting electric-cars through
financial-incentives and discouraging conventional-cars using carbon-emissions regulations.

This firm-analysis critically scrutinizes the performance of GD-Motors using academic theories
and frameworks to explain its decisions. It further uses real-world examples to support and
contrast this analysis. The author worked as the innovation-director in GD-Motors, as a part
of the executive-team of directors. This firm-analysis evaluates GD-Motors’ three functions
across different chapters: Strategy, Innovation, and Marketing, to explain the what, how, and
why of decisions taken to increase the value-added by the company. These three functions
are analyzed due to their strong individual-connections and their holistic-influence on the
company’s performance. The firm-analysis also helped to understand the challenges of
incorporating contrasting functional needs in GD-Motors.

GD-Motors’ strategy involved differentiation and needs-based positioning, with innovation

differentiating its products to meet the needs of a wide-range of consumers. Subsequently,
marketing positioned these products in the market through marketing-mix and market-
segmentation to reach these consumers and meet their demands. GD-Motors’ strategic-
alignment and core-competencies provide it an inimitable strategic-position, creating
competitive-advantages. The company’s three competitive-advantages: sustainability,
customer-convenience, and large-scale lean-manufacturing are driven by its fourth:
innovation-capital. Marketing provides ways to promote GD-Motors’ products and how they
are different, positioning them as an attractive mobility-option for customers. All three functions
work cohesively to achieve GD-Motors’ vision of innovating to become sustainable-mobility
providers for customers, and its objective to create a better world through sustainability.

Overall, this firm-analysis argues that firms that shape corporate-strategy around their core-
competencies and competitive-advantages achieve success by harmonizing their activities
(internal-environment). It also posits that successful firms leverage their business-situations
to their advantage, taking opportunities, and calculated-risks (external-environment). As the
three functions have interdependencies and intertwining of decisions, this firm-analysis uses
many concepts and explanations that repeatedly appear in multiple-chapters (highlighted at

Page 1 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

each connection). GD-Motors’ wider-strategy encompasses these interdependencies and

decisions, leading to the first chapter: Strategy.

Strategy
This chapter uses the structure in Table.1 to critically-analyze the strategy-creation process
used to formulate GD-Motors’ corporate-strategy. GD-Motors used the ESCO-framework
theorized by Heracleous et al. (2009) as the foundation for this process. ESCO helped the
company evaluate its strategic-fit to the environment, strategy, competencies, and
organization to develop its corporate-strategy (Paroutis et al., 2016).

I. Analysis (Environment in ESCO)

For the first-stage, GD-Motors used SWOT- and PESTEL-analysis to scrutinize its internal-
and external-environment and establish a foundation to begin shaping its strategy. As Johnson
et al. (2008) underline, these analyses helped appraise the business-environment and
strategic-competencies to understand its influence on strategy-formulation. However, Valentin
(2001) and Vlados (2019) criticize the SWOT-model, arguing its ineffectiveness without
comparisons to competitors. Johnson et al. (2008) further highlight the model’s proclivity to
overgeneralize, stressing its failure to be an alternative for detailed-analysis. Thus, GD-Motors
overcame the SWOT-analysis’ weaknesses by supporting it with a comprehensive PESTEL-
analysis to evaluate the environment.

Page 2 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

GD-Motors’ SWOT-analysis identifies strengths like strong-sales and economies of scale;

weaknesses like inefficient factory-utilization and higher wage-demands; opportunities like
electrification and backward-integration; and threats like increasing financial-penalties on CO2
emissions and fluctuating raw-material costs. Similarly, the PESTEL-analysis reveals
government-promotions and financial-incentives for electric-cars; falling electric-battery costs;
growing customer-preferences for carbon-neutral mobility, car-sharing, and autonomous-
technologies; obsolescence-risks from rapid technological-changes; rising environmental-
regulations; and increasing civil-liability and data-privacy risks. Comprehensive SWOT- and
PESTEL-analysis is available in Table.4 and 5, (p.17-18).

II. Development (Strategy in ESCO)

Porter (1996; 1998) argues how deciding what to do and not to do is crucial to developing a
strategy, thus necessitating open-communication and restraint. Adaptive-strategizing
pioneered by Cyert and March (1963) builds on this, defining strategy-development as
agreements achieved through compromises on contradictory objectives. Mintzberg et al.
(1976) also highlight how strategy-development is occasional. This irregularity could be
because routinely changing the overall-strategy in organizations lead to instability and lack of
continuity. Recognizing this, GD-Motors assessed the SWOT- and PESTEL-analysis from the
Analysis-stage and designed its vision, objectives, and strategic-positioning. GD-Motors’
vision was to become sustainable-providers for customers through innovation. The company’s
aim to create a better world through sustainability underpinned its vision.

The short-term objective involved gradually replacing the existing conventional-cars with
hybrid-cars. This action responded to the threat of existing-cars straining available resources,
reducing CO2 penalties, and shifting towards the long-term objective of zero-emissions. This
strategy resulted in higher-revenues and a greater investment-budget to invest in technologies
like in-house battery-factories for future electric-cars, aligning with GD-Motors’ strategic-
orientation (explored in PESTEL-analysis). Its long-term goal was zero-emissions and being
a market-innovator via electric-cars and capture the luxury-entry segment (reasoning
explained in Marketing-chapter). Tesla’s strategy of innovation in electric-cars and bringing
radical-technologies to mainstream markets is a good illustration of GD-Motors’ strategies
(Furr and Dyer, 2020).

GD-Motors’ competitive-strategy was differentiation with a price-premium for a perceived

added-value adequate to allow price-premium, (4) in the strategy-clock (Figure.1 below)
(further explored in Marketing-chapter). Porter (1996) explains competitive-strategy as
deciding a series-of-actions to gain a unique-value and differentiate an organization in the

Page 3 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

market. Like Tesla, GD-Motors’ market-positioning was in the luxury-entry segment. As

commercializing electric-cars needed costly long-term investments, targeting this segment
provided higher margins to recoup such R&D-costs in the future. Likewise, global consumer-
preferences show an increased willingness to pay higher-prices for electric-cars with
connected-technologies: U.S. (69%), China (95%), and Germany (54%) (Deloitte, 2020).
Hence, the changing consumer-preferences towards sustainability led GD-Motors to decide
on the luxury-entry segment as its target-market, supplemented by a price-accessible offering
(product-case study in Innovation-chapter). However, Porter argues strategic-positions are
unsustainable sans trade-offs. Hence GD-Motors’ expensive investments with future-payoffs
to drive its differentiation-strategy required having the same product-line for all three markets
as a trade-off (further examined in Marketing-chapter).

Regarding decision-making, GD-Motors used the umbrella strategy posited by Mintzberg

(1987), where its differentiation-strategy operated as a conceptual-guideline (produce hybrid-
cars and electric-cars with innovative-technologies). The individual directors cohesively
decided the more granular-details of GD-Motors’ strategy like the product-specifics. Mintzberg
also highlights how the umbrella strategy fosters emergent-strategies owing to the creative-
freedom it provides within the pre-specified guidelines. This was seen in IBM’s case, where it
used this strategy to create an abstract-guideline for its computer product-offerings, which
promoted innovation within its core-strategy and leading to success (Quinn, 2013). The next
chapters further analyze the function-specific implications of using the umbrella strategy.

Page 4 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Turning now to strategic-positioning, GD-Motors used a needs-based positioning that targeted

a particular consumer-segment, as detailed by Lawton (1999) and Porter (1996). With this
positioning, GD-Motors aimed its products at the luxury-entry segment ($40k-$80k) to meet
the needs of a wide-range of consumers with different requirements. Porter and Lawton (1999)
postulate how consumers in this segment are moderately price-sensitive and need variable
features (autonomous, connectivity, and range). Thus, GD-Motors launched a luxury-entry
version of each car-type (starting with hybrid-cars and later shifting to electric-cars). However,
Porter argues the need to align the “best set-of-activities” to create an inimitable strategic-
positioning. In GD-Motors’ case, its strategy of sustainable-mobility through innovation with
price-differentiation, investments in electrification, innovation-capital (explained in Innovation-
chapter), and large-scale lean-operations created complementary-activities (activity-systems
map: Figure.2, p.6) and an inimitable strategic-positioning.

Regarding the dramatic-shift in GD-Motors’ strategies after launching electric-cars, Miller and
Friesen’s (1984) quantum theory of strategic-change explains this trend. They postulate how
organizations follow a two-pronged behavior contingent on context: a specified-strategy based
on stability (continuous improvement), and rapid responses to environmental-shifts (strategic
revolution) (Mintzberg, 1987). Applying this to GD-Motors, the company followed a steady
hybridization-strategy that balanced its product-fleet between conventional-cars and CO2
penalties. As the environment radically shifted to sustainability (through changing consumer-
preferences and regulations), GD-Motors transformed its established plans (hybrid-cars with
price-premium differentiation) to attain a new steady-state (electric-cars with price-premium
differentiation). This process created a new strategic-orientation for GD-Motors with unique
plans, designs, and culture, as predicted by Broekstra (1991) and Mintzberg (1987).

The quantum theory is evident in the case of Volkswagen (1950-1970), where it neglected
radical market-shifts, clinging to a rigid strategy and a bureaucratic-structure. Between 1968-
1971, the strategic revolution posited by the theory transformed Volkswagen, resulting in a
new strategic-orientation led by a new leader (Mintzberg, 1987; Rieger, 2010), galvanizing
innovation and making it the market-leader. The quantum theory also explains how GD-
Motors’ innovative strategies were initially restrained as they were unsuitable for its early
hybridization-strategy. After the strategic revolution of launching electric-cars, these strategies
became suitable and alleviated the need to craft new strategies or reproduce its competitors’
tactics (Miller and Friesen, 1984; Mintzberg, 1987).

Page 5 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

III. Execution (Competencies, Organization in ESCO)

For the third-stage, GD-Motors used an activity-systems map (Figure.2 above) to evaluate its
strategic-fit and connect its complementary-activities, as recommended by Johnson et al.
(2008) and Porter (1996). Porter advocates using the activity-systems map to understand
areas that need strengthening and eliminate superfluous activities to improve efficiency. With
this map, GD-Motors corroborated its competitive-strategy of differentiation centered around
the strengths of its activities and competitive-advantages (innovation-capital, sustainability,
consumer-convenience, and large-scale lean-manufacturing). The activity-systems map also
helped recognize the connections linking GD-Motors’ competitive-advantages to its core-
competencies, especially the inimitability due to the company’s synergistic-activities and
trade-offs needed for competitors to achieve its competitive-strategy (Johnson et al., 2008).

In conclusion, the Strategy-chapter critically-scrutinized the analysis, development, and

execution of GD-Motors’ strategy-creation process. The corporate-strategy was founded on
GD-Motors’ vision of being a sustainable-provider for its customers through innovation
(electric-cars with revolutionary-technologies), leading to the Innovation-chapter.

Page 6 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Innovation
What follows is an account of GD-Motors’ innovation-function involving: launching products
with the right features to maximize return-on-investment, investing in new mobility-
technologies, and capitalizing innovation-opportunities to enhance product-offerings. As
discussed in the Strategy-chapter, innovation drives GD-Motors’ corporate-strategy. Likewise,
its three competitive-advantages: sustainability, customer-convenience, and large-scale lean-
manufacturing are driven by its fourth: innovation-capital (explored below). Similarly, GD-
Motors’ innovation-capital increases the perceived-value of its products and justifies the price-
premium, aligning to the competitive-strategy of differentiation.

With the long-term objective of 100% electric-car fleet, GD-Motors aimed to build value. The
company recognized the future of mobility is electric-cars (SWOT-analysis). Innovation is
driven by the capacity to identify connections and opportunities to leverage them (Tidd and
Bessant, 2013). Therefore, GD-Motors started early with large-investments in electrification,
alongwith autonomous- and connectivity-technologies to complement them. This fundamental
industry-shift offered high-growth potential and the prospect of capturing the new market, with
the trade-off of a delayed-breakeven (Barnes, 2020). The delayed-breakeven is evident when
examining the value-added KPI (Figure.3 above) indicating a dramatic decline of 66.14%
between Q5 ($1344.5m) and Q13 ($455.2m). The aforementioned large-investments in
innovative-technologies explain this trend, resulting in tighter-liquidity and higher capital-costs.

Page 7 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Starting with Q14 ($612.4m), the value-added KPI shows a phenomenal growth of 480% to
Q28 ($2640.5m), driven by the high-growth potential of innovation.

Regarding idea-generation, GD-Motors used Open Innovation pioneered by Chesbrough

(2003) in his influential work. With open innovation, the company evaluated ideas from
internal- (all directors) and external-environment (real-world cases) to promote innovation.
Fragmentation of knowledge demands organizations to embrace external-ideas to foster
innovation. This reasoning led us to acquire a company in the innovation-challenge, instead
of the other options. In this challenge, GD-Motors determined car-sharing as a potential
revenue-source to integrate with electric-cars, aligning to its competitive-advantages of
sustainability and customer-convenience. Taking a decentralized-approach to innovation, GD-
Motors identified the benefits of new knowledge, patents, and exposure from the acquisition.
Such acquisitions also nurture innovation and increase idea-generation, owing to new
technologies and talent (Zhou and Li, 2012). They further help develop intellectual-property,
strengthening GD-Motors’ competitive-advantages to create entry-barriers (Germeraad,
2010). This is exemplified in Tata Motors’ acquisition of Jaguar-Land Rover in 2007. With the
acquisition, Tata gained exposure to new luxury-cars and premium-SUV segments, access to
European-markets, and knowledge to improve its domestic-business, leading to increased
innovation (Pathak, 2016).

GD-Motors further paired Open Innovation with Innovation-funnels and stage-gate processes
(Figure.4 below) to filter ideas, assess alternative innovation-pathways, and develop unique
products (Wang, 2017). Using this process, GD-Motors firstly broadened the funnel’s opening
(seeking ideas from all directors and real-world cases), that helped enhance product-ideas.
Secondly, the company tightened the funnel’s neck by assessing the viability of its product-
ideas on strategic-fit and return-on-investment (matching against its competitive-advantages
and activities using activity-systems mapping: Figure.2, p.6). Thirdly, it confirmed through
data-analysis, that these products match expectations post-launch. This is illustrated by GD-
Motors’ high-end luxury electric-car, a product-idea generated through innovation-funnels and
stage-gate processes, which became the most successful product in the market. In contrast,
many critics argue this process is bureaucratic, promotes groupthink, and assumes ideas are
universally-applicable (see Bertoluci et al., 2013; Nichols, 2007). A clear example of these
weaknesses is the failure of GD-Motors’ micro electric-car (detailed case-study later in this
chapter), developed through innovation-funnels. Critically-examining the reasons reveal the
executive-team’s groupthink during the idea-generation and stage-gate processes, thus failing
to recognize the drawbacks of the product-idea. The performance of both these products is
critically-evaluated below.

Page 8 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

A real-world example GD-Motors adopted is Tesla, with its strategy of mainstreaming

innovative-technologies and commercializing them to deliver value. Furr and Dyer (2020)
separate Tesla’s strategy into two: Innovation-Capital (revolutionary-innovations that attract
supporters) and Core-Products (cars that enable commercialization of such innovations).
Tesla’s success to become the best-performing automotive-company for the decade clearly
illustrates this point (Bloomberg, 2019). GD-Motors adopted this strategy in the first-stage (Q4-
Q8) by launching hybrid-cars with superior-technologies (innovation-capital) while keeping
existing conventional-cars (core-products). In the second-stage (starting Q9), GD-Motors
introduced a high-end luxury electric-car ($80k-$100k) with advanced autonomous-driving,
connectivity-technologies, and long battery-range (innovation-capital), while commercializing
consumer-preferences for electric-cars by launching luxury-entry options ($40k-$80k) (core-
products). Gaining supporters with the innovation-capital, the luxury electric-car was the
highest revenue-generating product ($11.77 billion) with the highest market-share (29.2%)
across all competitors’ products, despite having the highest-price ($85.2k). This example
shows how aligning products to the internal-organization (core-competencies and
complementary-activities) and external-environment (changing consumer-preferences)
results in success (Miles and Snow, 1984; 1997). GD-Motors’ decision to showcase its
futuristic-prototype at the Global AutoWorks-Show (marketing-challenge) further illustrates the
company’s push to grow its innovation-capital. Showcasing the company’s innovations
created excitement among its customers (especially millennials, a key demographic),
increasing probabilities of future purchases and gaining $60.93m in revenue over 9-months.

Page 9 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

At the same time, GD-Motors also provided a cheaper micro electric-car option ($20k-$27k)
to increase its brand-accessibility to a wider-range of consumers. This strategy emulates real-
world examples of luxury-entry brands offering a cheaper entry-level option as a gateway to
their higher-priced models. A classic example is the Audi A1 starting at an accessible price of
$27k, appealing to young affluent customers (Audi, 2020). As appealing to millennials is a key-
strength of GD-Motors’ strategic-positioning, its micro electric-car aimed at sustainable urban-
mobility and customer-convenience, aligning to its competitive-advantages (activity-systems
map: Figure.2, p.6). Another example closer to GD-Motors’ product-strategy is Tesla’s Model-
3, its entry-level electric-car at $35k with autonomous- and connectivity-technologies. Since
Model-3’s 2017-launch, its price-accessibility made it the highest-sold electric-car in history
and exponentially increase Tesla’s earnings and share-price (WSJ, 2020).

However, GD-Motors’ micro electric-car failed to make an impact, capturing only a 1.7%
market-share. Critically-analyzing the product’s performance, the main reason for failure was
its poor autonomous- and connectivity-features alongwith short battery-range. The model’s
performance was in contrast to previously-mentioned products like Tesla Model-3 that offered
advanced technologies and long battery-range. The model’s failure is further explained by
Schneider and Hall (2011) with product-limbo, where a product’s differences and benefits are
inadequate to sway the buyers (analyzed in Marketing-chapter: marketing-mix). Product-limbo
is exemplified with their case of Coca-Cola C2 (halved calories and sugars) failing to
differentiate itself, in contrast to the distinctive Coca-Cola Zero (no calories and sugars) that
achieved great success. Another reason was also the product’s misalignment with GD-Motors’
strategic-positioning in the luxury-entry segment and its competitive-strategy of price-premium
differentiation. Launching the micro electric-car with poor autonomous- and connectivity-
features misaligned with the competitive-advantages of innovation-capital and consumer-
convenience (explored in Strategy-chapter), thus leading to negative-synergies with existing
activities that established GD-Motors’ inimitable strategic-positioning (Beer et al., 2005;
Heracleous and Werres, 2016). For the future, this firm-analysis suggests using independent
brands to launch cars outside the original brand’s target-market and strategic-positioning.
Toyota’s success with its luxury-brand Lexus illustrates this approach’s benefits (Kohli, 1997).

In summary, the Innovation-chapter critically-analyzed how GD-Motors shaped its products

and innovation around the company’s competitive-advantages and complementary-activities,
which helped leverage its strengths and achieve success. The company used Open
Innovation to generate product-ideas and innovation-funnels to appraise its viability. GD-
Motors also grew its innovation-capital through aggressive and targeted marketing-strategies,
which strengthened the perceived-value of its core-products, leading to the Marketing-chapter.

Page 10 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Marketing
This chapter explores the marketing-function, involving marketing-strategies, product-
positioning, and other elements. Drucker (2011) argues how businesses only have two
fundamental functions: innovation (covered previously) and marketing. Drucker highlights
these functions as the sole-drivers for results, with marketing being the distinctive-aspect of
businesses. GD-Motors’ competitive-strategy was differentiation with a price-premium, and its
innovation created the perceived added-value adequate to sustain the products’ price-
premium. Hence, marketing provided the means to advertise GD-Motors’ products and how
they are different, positioning them as a sustainable mobility-option for customers.

Following De Swaan Arons et al.’s (2014) recommendation, GD-Motors asked key-questions

to define its marketing-objectives and pathways to attain them:
1. What values and goals guide GD-Motors’ brand-strategy?
Values: Sustainability; innovation; customer-convenience
Goals: Being a market-innovator; sustainable-provider for customers; capturing the
luxury-entry segment
2. What capabilities drive marketing excellence?
Unique and inimitable strategic-positioning; competitive-strategy of differentiation;
growing innovation-capital; economies of scale; established-presence in three markets
3. What structures and ways of working will support them?
Umbrella strategy for marketing; key-decisions by marketing-directors; established
methodology for decision-making; data-driven decisions; agile- and collaborative-team

Answering these questions helped GD-Motors simplify its marketing-strategy, choose a

consistent methodology, and data needed for effective-decisions (Joshi and Giménez, 2014).
GD-Motors further shaped its marketing-strategy on the “winning characteristics” proposed by
De Swaan Arons et al. (2014):
Big-data and insights. GD-Motors leveraged its marketing-data to understand what the
consumer wants and why, helping the company meet their needs using the 4P-framework
(explored later in this chapter). For instance, data-analysis indicated the company’s electric-
SUV was popular in Europe due to its superior autonomous- and connectivity-technologies.
GD-Motors analyzed the model’s product-lifecycle to identify the electric-SUV in its growth-
stage, 19-months newer than its competitor-products. Using product-lifecycle implications-
framework in Table.6 (p.19) (Levitt, 1965; Rudd, 2020), the company set its marketing-
objective to “build”, strategic-focus as “market-penetration”, promotion as “creating-
awareness” by increasing the electric-SUV’s marketing-expenditure (+18%), “lowered” the

Page 11 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

price (-5.1%), and “widened” the distribution by increased factory-capacity in Europe (through
Operations). As a result, the electric-SUV’s European market-share grew from 17.2% to
29.7% (Q23-Q28), generating $2.19 billion in revenue from the European-market. A real-world
example demonstrating the significance of consumer-insights is Toyota’s focus on harvesting
driving-patterns data through its investment in Grab (Reuters, 2018).
Purposeful-positioning. GD-Motors market-positioned itself through three key brand-
objectives suggested by De Swaan Arons et al. (2014). These are: functional-benefits
(customers buying its cars for mobility); emotional-benefits (its cars are status-symbols:
luxury-entry positioning; its customers perceived as innovation-adopters); and societal-
benefits (customers promoting sustainability using its electric-cars). Thus, GD-Motors’ vision
to become sustainable-mobility providers for customers using innovation improved its
marketing-strategy via a consistent message and identity (Brook, 2020; Holbrook et al., 2016).
Total-experience. Businesses are augmenting their product-values through personalized
customer-experiences created using the previously-mentioned big-data and insights (De
Swaan Arons et al., 2014). However, GD-Motors only partly adopted this through pricing-
adjustments across different markets, owing to a limited product-line being a trade-off in its
strategic-position (detailed in Strategy-chapter).

Turning now to marketing-mix, GD-motors opted for a two-fold specialization-approach

postulated by Boulding and Lee (1992): absolute (concentration of expenses) and relative to
competition (uniqueness). Using this approach, GD-motors targeted differentiation through its
marketing-mix to maximize its marketing-resources. The company’s reasoning was driven by
empirical-evidence that customers in the same market react comparably to different
marketing-mixes by businesses (see Bahadir et al., 2015; Sheau-Ting et al., 2013). Hence,
differentiation helped GD-motors create an inimitable strategic-positioning and offer unique
products and meet the needs of a particular segment: luxury-entry (analyzed in the next
paragraph). Offering unique products also avoided the risk of product-limbo for its cars
(explored in Innovation-chapter). GD-motors designed, launched (via innovation) and priced
(via marketing) its every product using Boulding and Lee’s specialization-approach.

Continuing with marketing-mix and studying the case of GD-Motors’ convertible electric-car,
its features were designed aiming uniqueness relative to competition. GD-Motors’ product
offered a long battery-range compared to the short battery-range by the competitor-products.
Also, it offered Level-IV autonomous- and connectivity-technologies, in contrast to Level-I
technologies by the competitor-products. Using absolute marketing-mix, GD-Motors
concentrated its marketing-expenses during this car’s introduction- and growth-stages of the
product-lifecycle to create awareness and brand-loyalty. On marketing, emerging-brands like

Page 12 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Hyundai spent 8.4% of its model-specific revenue, while established-brands like Ford spent
4.6% of its model-specific revenue in the U.S. (2018-19) (Ad Age, 2020). Hence, GD-Motors’
initial marketing-spend was 5-7% of the model-specific revenue, supported by an aggressive
TV- (+10.5%) and print-campaign (+7.5%) to build product-awareness. As the car moved to
its maturity- and decline-stages, the company reduced its marketing-spend (seen in Figure.5
below), as recommended by the product-lifecycle implications-framework: Table.6, p.19).

GD-Motors supported its differentiation-based marketing-mix with the 4P-framework, created

by McCarthy (1964) in his seminal work. McCarthy posits four crucial factors in marketing:
Product, Price, Promotion, and Place, asserting the need to synchronize them to achieve
competitiveness and success. Continuing the case-study of the convertible electric-car, GD-
Motors’ used the 4Ps to design the marketing-mix for the luxury-entry segment to pursue its
marketing-objectives (Table.2 below). As a result of its differentiation-based marketing-mix
with 4Ps, the convertible electric-car became a great success, selling 172.5k units, generating
$3.1 billion in revenue, and capturing 14.9% market-share. This product’s success illustrates
the significance of creating a robust marketing-mix aligning with businesses’ core-
competencies and competitive-advantages.

Page 13 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Moving now to market-segmentation, GD-Motors understood the importance of utilizing a few

products to meet the needs of every possible consumer (Hooley et al., 2016). So, the company
designed its products to satisfy one market-segment to improve the efficiency of its marketing-
mix (Rudd, 2020). Targeting one segment also helped focus its marketing-resources, resulting
in market-leadership, in contrast to spreading its offerings across many segments (Claycamp
and Massy, 1968; Smith, 1956). Hence, GD-Motors aligned its trade-off to focus on the luxury-
entry segment ($40k-$80k) as its target-market, offering the same product-line for all three
markets (Figure.6 below). Thus, the company’s marketing-strategy was driven by its
innovation-capital (analyzed in Innovation-chapter) to differentiate its products in this segment
through a perceived added-value allowing price-premium. The reasoning for targeting the
luxury-entry segment was market-research from Deloitte (2020) and Capgemini (2019),
showing 72.6% of consumers’ willingness to pay higher-prices for electric-cars with
autonomous- and connectivity-technologies (U.S., China, and Europe). Similarly, given GD-
Motors’ costly-investments in electrification-technologies aiming for future-payoffs, pricing in
this segment aligned with its long-term strategy (explained in Strategy-chapter).

Page 14 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Thus far, the Marketing-chapter critically-analyzed how GD-Motors shaped its marketing-
strategy around its competitive-advantages, creating a differentiation-based marketing-mix
supported by 4Ps. GD-Motors also posed questions to define its marketing-objectives and
used “winning characteristics” to maximize its marketing-resources. GD-Motors also analyzed
its market-segmentation process and reasoning, aligning it with the company’s corporate-
strategy. This chapter completes a full-circle, leading to the Conclusion.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this firm-analysis critically-analyzed GD-Motors’ performance and its decision-
making using academic theories and frameworks. It structured this analysis across three
chapters, evaluating key functions: Strategy, Innovation, and Marketing. Real-world examples
of these functions helped ground the firm-analysis, and find the balance between theory and
practice. Studying these functions completes a full-circle: GD-Motors’ innovation underpinning
its strategy, and the company’s marketing actualizing its strategy. After extensive scrutiny, this
firm-analysis concludes that firms designing corporate-strategies around their core-
competencies and competitive-advantages achieve success by harmonizing their activities
(internal-environment). It also argues that successful firms turn business-situations to their
benefit by taking opportunities and calculated-risks (external-environment). Critically-
analyzing GD-Motors’ successes and failures in this firm-analysis led to these conclusions.
These three functions worked together to realize GD-Motors’ vision of becoming sustainable-
mobility providers for customers through innovation, and its objective to create a better world
through sustainability.

Page 15 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Appendix

Table.3: Academic literature used by the paper

Source: created by the author
Author(s) and Year Focus
Alesina (1989) Politics and business cycles in industries
Bahadir et al. (2015) Empirical study on marketing-mix and brand-sales in global markets
Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) Car-sharing and access-based consumption
Barnes (2020) Innovation and entrepreneurship for Business in Practice
Beer et al. (2005) Strategic management and developing strategic fit alignment
Bertoluci et al. (2013) Innovation funnels and processes
Boulding and Lee (1992) Achieving differentiation through the marketing-mix
Broekstra (1991) Quantum view of organizations
Brook (2020) Marketing at Jaguar-Land Rover
Burges (2016) Obsolescence-risks in innovation
Chesbrough (2003) Open Innovation for creating and profiting from technology
Claycamp and Massy (1968) Theory of market-segmentation
Cyert and March (1963) Behavioral theory of the firm and strategizing
De Swaan Arons et al. (2014) Marketing challenges in the digital age
Drucker (2011) New perspectives on marketing and management
Furr and Dyer (2020) Lessons from Tesla’s approach to innovation
Germeraad (2010) Integrating intellectual-property strategy with innovation strategy
Heracleous et al. (2009) Case-study on Singapore Airlines’ strategic drivers of success
Heracleous and Werres (2016) Strategic misalignments and corporate failures
Holbrook et al. (2016) Identity and message management in marketing
Hooley et al. (2016) Marketing-strategy and competitive-positioning
Jarzabkowski and Wilson (2006) Practical applications of actionable strategy knowledge
Johnson et al. (2008) Concepts and real-world cases of corporate strategy
Joshi and Giménez (2014) Decision-making methodologies for Marketing
Kohli (1997) Insights on branding consumer goods
Lawton (1999) Needs-based positioning strategy
Levitt (1965) Exploiting the product lifecycle
McCarthy (1964) Managerial approach to marketing
Miles and Snow (1984) Strategic-fit and failures
Miller and Friesen (1984) Quantum theory of strategic-change
Mintzberg et al. (1976) Structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes
Mintzberg (1987) Crafting strategy in organizations
Nichols (2007) Criticisms of innovation funnels and recommendations
Paroutis et al. (2016) Concepts and real-world cases of strategy practice
Pathak (2016) Tata Motors’ cross-border acquisition of Jaguar-Land Rover
Porter (1996) Creating and sustaining competitive advantage
Porter (1998) Competitive strategy and analyzing industries and competitors
Porter and Lawton (1999) Concepts of strategy
Quinn (2013) Case-study of IBM’s strategy and processes
Rieger (2010) Case-study of the Volkswagen Beetle
Rudd (2020) Marketing concepts for Business in Practice
Ryan (2020) Ethical, legal, social and economic impacts of autonomous vehicles
Schneider and Hall (2011) Causes and reasons leading to product launch failures

Page 16 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Schwanen et al. (2012). Behavioural changes in consumers on low-carbon mobility

Sheau-Ting et al. (2013) Empirical study on the optimum marketing-mix
Smith (1956) Product differentiation and market segmentation strategies
Tidd and Bessant (2013) Managing innovation and integrating change
Valentin (2001) SWOT-analysis from a resource-based view
Vlados (2019) Evolution of the SWOT-analysis
Wang (2017) Structuring innovation funnels for projects under uncertainty
Wawarta (2020) Strategy concepts for Business in Practice
Zhou and Li (2012) Effects of knowledge on radical innovation

Table.4: SWOT-analysis of GD-Motors

Source: created by the author based own analysis and on conceptual ideas from GD-Motors’ market-research
Strengths
• Existing cars indicate good sales with low inventory-holding
periods (<60 days)
• Current manufacturing facilities are generating economies
of scale resulting in increasing revenues
• The company has a well-established direct distribution
system and access to consumers
• Existing investments in E-Drive modules are projected to
generate a medium-term gain in revenues
• Industry-leading quality and safety control systems exist in
current product-offerings
• Exceptional employee morale and higher than average
wages resulting in greater productivity across the company
Opportunities
• Electrification is the future of mobility, presenting GD-
Motors opportunities to disrupt the industry
• Changing consumer-preferences towards electric-cars,
connectivity, and autonomous technologies
• Prospect of gaining first-mover’s advantage in electric-cars
and capturing the market
• Increase backward integration through in-house electric
battery factory and other investments
• The return-on-investment for marketing is high and can be
leveraged to increase sales and brand visibility
• Production capacity can be increased by upgrading existing
manufacturing facilities
Weaknesses
• Key areas of the company need attention and restructuring
owing to inefficiency
• Few existing cars have high inventory-holding periods (> 60
days), leading to opportunity costs
• Factory utilization is inefficient and needs attention
• Increased unionization in the factory and higher wage
demands are impacting production and motivation levels
among employees
Threats
• Existing cars are stretching the available resources
• Rapidly rising competition in the electric-car market
• On-going regulations on CO2 emissions with financial
penalties impacting profits
• Falling trust in the industry and brand due to the CO2
emissions scandal
• Fluctuating raw material costs impacting manufacturing
variable costs and profit margins
• Costly borrowings owing to existing credit-rating and limited
access to new debt

Table.5: PESTEL-analysis for GD-Motors

Source: created by the author based own analysis and industry research
Political Economic
• GD-Motors’ core markets (U.S., Europe, and China) are • Global fuel costs are increasing at a steady rate due to its
politically-stable, leading to complimentary business non-renewable nature and rising demand (IEA, 2019b),
environments and long-term growth (Alesina, 1989). leading to a reconsideration of conventional-cars by the
• The government is encouraging electric-cars for consumer. However, this also provides GD-Motors an
manufacturers through financial incentives offered for opportunity to target the emerging market through hybrid-
each car sold with emissions below the CO2 limit (Green and electric-cars.

Page 17 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice
Car project offering $30 in incentives for per gram CO2
below allowance).
• The government is promoting electric-car infrastructure
through targeted schemes like the E-Mobility 2022
project, investing $20 billion in charging stations across
the country.
• New tariffs are being imposed, predicted to increase the
cost of raw materials, requiring re-evaluation of GD-
Motors’ sourcing and manufacturing processes.
• The trade war between the U.S. and China is hampering
manufacturing and exporting owing to increasing tariffs.
Social
• The growing prevalence of carbon-neutral style of living
and sustainable energy choices provide GD-Motors an
opportunity to market its electric-cars to new consumer-
demographics (Schwanen et al., 2012).
• Consumer preferences for electric-cars and autonomous
technologies have increased exponentially (Deloitte,
2020).
• Car-sharing ideas are growing in popularity across every
consumer-demographic. Environmental concerns and
personal-budget savings are driving their demand (Bardhi
and Eckhardt, 2012). GD-Motors has identified this area
as a future revenue-generator aligning with its products.
• The growing disposable incomes in GD-Motor's core -
markets (U.S., Europe, and China) presents opportunities
to introduce more customers to the luxury-entry segment
(also through price-accessibility).
• An increasing number of consumers are seeking price-
accessibility in purchasing their next car (Bucklin et al.,
2008). So, by offering the option to lease (36-months at
3.49% pa), GD-Motors provides easy convenience for
customers to upgrade to the luxury-entry car segment and
increase sales.
Environmental
• The carbon emissions regulations are getting stringent,
specifying the CO2 allowance per car sold with a financial
penalty for exceeding them. There is also speculation of a
complete prohibition of conventional-cars in the future.
• GD-Motors can capitalize on rising environmental
regulations by aligning its product-fleet with the market
shift to sustainable mobility using electric-cars.
• Increasing regulations on sustainable waste disposal and
energy consumption require a re-evaluation of the
sourcing and manufacturing processes (EIA, 2020; EPA,
2020).
• The sales of diesel-engine cars are anticipated to decline
by 20% owing to the CO2 emissions scandal.
Page 18 of 25
• Lithium-ion electric-battery costs decreased by 50%
between 2016-2019 due to technological progress and
energy-efficiency (Bloomberg New Energy Finance,
2019). As the battery comprises 25% of the total
manufacturing costs for electric-cars (Renault, 2020), this
trend results in lower component costs and higher profit-
margins.
Technological
• The industry shift towards electrification marks a
fundamental technological change in mobility. This
change provides GD-Motors the chance to leverage its
innovative capabilities and extend its basic productivity
frontier (Porter, 1996).
• Rapid changes in technologies present obsolescence
risks in GD-Motors’ products (Burges, 2016).
• Consumer preferences for autonomous and connectivity
technologies are increasing, and customers indicate
willingness to pay a premium for them (Deloitte, 2020).
• GD-Motors has opportunities to reduce manufacturing
costs through modular designs and automation in
production processes.
Legal
• As automotive connectivity technologies advance, data
security and privacy become a key element. Legislation
on the data-sharing framework in automobiles is
undeveloped and can create many concerns (like the
General Data Protection Regulation compliances).
• As autonomous driving and technologies advance, GD-
Motors' criminal and civil liability risks increase owing to
car accidents and fatalities (Daimler, 2020).
• Malfunctioning software and technologies expose GD-
Motors to product liabilities arising from the global
Consumer Protection Acts (Ryan, 2020).
• The changes in insurance legislation triggered by
autonomous driving and technologies need increased
scrutiny.
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Table.6: The product lifecycle decision-making implications

Source: created by the author, based on p.17, Rudd (2020) and ideas from Levitt (1965)

INTRODUCTION GROWTH MATURITY DECLINE

Strategic Marketing- Harvest / manage for

Build Build Hold
Objective cash / divest

Protect share /
Strategic-Focus Expand market Penetration Productivity
innovation

Product awareness /
Brand-Objective Brand preference Brand loyalty Brand exploitation
trail

Products Basic Differentiated Differentiated Rationalized

Maintaining
Creating awareness / Creating awareness /
Promotion awareness / repeat Elimination
trial trial / repeat purchase
purchase

Price High Lower Lowest Rising

Distribution Patchy Wider Intensive Selective

References

Ad Age. (2020). Ad Age Leading National Advertisers 2020. [online] Crain Communications Inc., pp.1-36.
Available at: <https://adage.com/article/datacenter/ad-age-leading-national-advertisers-2020-index/2266001>
[Accessed 17 August 2020].

Alesina, A. (1989). Politics and business cycles in industrial democracies. Economic Policy. 4(8). pp.55-98.

Audi. (2020). Audi A1. [online] Available at: <https://www.audi.com/en/experience-audi/models-and-

technology/production-models/a1.html> [Accessed 13 August 2020].

Bahadir, S., Bharadwaj, S. and Srivastava, R. (2015). Marketing mix and brand sales in global markets:
Examining the contingent role of country-market characteristics. Journal of International Business Studies. 46(5).
596-619.

Bardhi, F. and Eckhardt, G. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing. Journal of Consumer
Research. 39(4). pp.881-898.

Page 19 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Barnes, S. (2020). Business in Practice: Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Online lecture: Warwick Business
School.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 17(1). pp.99-
120.

Barney, J., Wright, M., Ketchen, D.J., Jr. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after 1991.
Journal of Management. 27(6). pp.625-641.

Beer, M., Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M., Tekie, E.B. (2005). Strategic management as organizational learning:
developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process. Long Range Planning. 38(5). pp.445-465.

Bertoluci G., Yannou B., Attias D., Vallet E. (2013). A Categorization of Innovation Funnels of Companies as a
Way to Better Make Conscious Agility and Permeability of Innovation Processes. In: Chakrabarti A., Prakash R.
(eds) ICoRD’13. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer. pp. 721-734.

Bloomberg. (2019). Tesla is the decade’s best-performing auto company. [online] Available at:
<https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-23/tesla-is-decade-s-best-performing-automaker>
[Accessed 9 August 2020].

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2019). Battery pack prices fall as market ramps up with market average at
$156/kwh in 2019. [online] Available at: <https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-market-ramps-
up-with-market-average-at-156-kwh-in-2019/> [Accessed 17 August 2020].

Boulding, W. and Lee, E. (1992). Differentiation via the Marketing Mix. Marketing Letters. 3(4). pp.343-356.

Broekstra G. (1991). Organizational Closure and the Quantum View of Organizations. In: Jackson, M.C., Mansell,
G.J., Flood, R.L., Blackham, R.B. and Probert, S.E. (eds.). Systems Thinking in Europe. Boston, MA: Springer.
pp.145-150.

Brook, O. (2020). Business in Practice: Marketing at Jaguar-Land Rover. Online lecture: Warwick Business
School.

Brooks, C. (2016), Organizing Volkswagen: A Critical Assessment. Working USA. 19. pp.395-417.

Bucklin, R., Siddarth, S. and Silva-Risso, J. (2008). Distribution Intensity and New Car Choice. Journal of
Marketing Research. 45(4). pp.473-486.

Burges, J. (2016). Obsolescence / Innovation. In: Burges, J. and Elias, A. (eds.), Time: A Vocabulary of the
Present. New York: NYU Press. pp.82-96.

Capgemini (2019). The Autonomous Car: A Consumer Perspective. [online] Capgemini Inc. pp.1-36. Available at:
<https://www.capgemini.com/gb-en/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/30min-%E2%80%93-Report.pdf>
[Accessed 17 August 2020].

Page 20 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Child, J. (1997). Strategic Choice in the Analysis of Action, Structure, Organizations and Environment:
Retrospect and Prospect. Organization Studies. 18(1). 43-76.

Claycamp, H. and Massy, W. (1968). A Theory of Market Segmentation. Journal of Marketing Research. 5(4).
pp.388-394.

CleanTechnica. (2020). Tesla Passes 1 Million EV Milestone & Model 3 Becomes All Time Best Seller. [online]
Available at: <https://cleantechnica.com/2020/03/10/tesla-passes-1-million-ev-milestone-and-model-3-becomes-
all-time-best-seller/> [Accessed 13 August 2020].

Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1953). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Daimler. (2020). Automated and Autonomous Driving: Legal Framework. [online] Available at:
<https://www.daimler.com/innovation/case/autonomous/legal-framework.html> [Accessed 17 August 2020].

Deloitte (2020). 2020 Global Automotive Consumer Study. Analysis. [online] Deloitte US. Available at:
<https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/automotive-trends-millennials-consumer-
study.html> [Accessed 11 August 2020].

De Swaan Arons, M., Van den Driest, F. and Weed, K. (2014). The Ultimate Marketing Machine. Harvard
Business Review. 92(7/8). pp. 54-63.

Drucker, P. (2011). Managing for Results. London: Taylor & Francis.

EIA. (2020). Summary of legislation and regulations included in the annual energy outlook 2020. Independent
Statistics & Analysis. [online] Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
pp.1-44. Available at: <https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/summary.pdf> [Accessed 17 August
2020].

EPA. (2020). Regulatory Information by Topic: Waste. [online] Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/regulatory-
information-topic/regulatory-information-topic-waste> [Accessed 17 August 2020].

Fredrickson, J.W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management
Review. 11(2). pp.280-297.

Furr, N. and Dyer, J. (2020). Lessons from Tesla’s approach to innovation. [online] Harvard Business Review.
Available at: <https://hbr.org/2020/02/lessons-from-teslas-approach-to-innovation> [Accessed 10 August 2020].

Germeraad, P. (2010). Integration of intellectual property strategy with innovation strategy. Research Technology
Management. 53(3). pp.10-18.

Page 21 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Grant, R.M. (1991). The Resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation.
California Management Review. 33(3). pp.114-135.

Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal. 13(2). pp.135-144.

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1986). Where do organizational forms come from?. Sociological Forum. 1(1).
pp.50-72.

Hart, S. (1992). An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making Processes. The Academy of Management
Review. 17(2). pp.327-351.

Harvard Business Review (2018). Finding the Perfect Pace for Product Launches. Harvard Business Review.
96(4), pp. 20-22.

Heracleous, L., Wirtz, J., and Pangarkar, N. (2009). Flying High in a Competitive Industry. Singapore: McGraw-
Hill Education.

Heracleous, L. and Werres, K. (2016). On the Road to Disaster: Strategic Misalignments and Corporate Failure.
Long Range Planning. 49(4), pp.491-506.

Holbrook, M., Lehmann, D. and Schmitt, B. (2016). Marketing. In: The Faculty of Columbia Business School and
Thomas, B. (Ed.). Columbia Business School: A Century of Ideas. New York: Columbia University Press. pp.81-
106.

Hooley, G., Piercy, N., Nicoulaud, B. and Rudd, J. (2016). Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning. 6th
ed. Harlow, England: Pearson.

IEA (2019a). Global EV Outlook 2019: Scaling-Up the Transition to Electric Mobility. Paris: International Energy
Agency (IEA).

IEA. (2019b). Global Fuel Price Changes, 2005-2018. [online] Available at: <https://www.iea.org/data-and-
statistics/charts/global-fuel-price-changes-2005-2018> [Accessed 16 August 2020].

Jarzabkowski, P. and Wilson, D. (2006). Actionable Strategy Knowledge: A Practice Perspective. European
Management Journal. 24. pp.348-367.

Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Cases. 8th ed.
Harlow, England: Financial Times-Prentice Hall.

Joshi, A. and Giménez, E. (2014). Decision-Driven Marketing. Harvard Business Review. 92(7/8). pp. 64-71.

Kohli, C. (1997). Branding consumer goods: insights from theory and practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
14(3). pp.206-219.

Page 22 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Lawton, T. (1999). The limits of price leadership: needs-based positioning strategy and the long-term
competitiveness of Europe’s low fare airlines. Long Range Planning. 32(6). pp.573-586.

Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. [online] Harvard Business Review (November 1965 Issue).
Available at: <https://hbr.org/1965/11/exploit-the-product-life-cycle> [Accessed 16 August 2020].

McCarthy, Jerome E. (1964). Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D. and Coleman, H.J., Jr. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and
process. Academy of Management Review. 3(3). pp.456-462.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1984). Fit, failure and the hall of fame. California Management Review. 26(3). pp.10-
28.

Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Mathews, J.A., Miles, G., and Coleman, H.J., Jr. (1997). Organizing in the knowledge
age: anticipating the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive. 11(4). pp.7-20.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P. (1978). Archetypes of Strategy Formulation. Management Science. 24(9). pp.921-933.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984). Organizations: A Quantum View. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Théorêt, A. (1976). The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 21(2). pp.246-275.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). Patterns in Strategy Formation. International Studies of Management & Organization. 9(3).
pp.67-86.

Mintzberg H. and Waters J.A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal.
6(3). pp.257-272.

Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review. 65. pp.66-75.

Nichols, D. (2007). Why innovation funnels don't work and why rockets do. Market Leader. Autumn issue. pp.26-
31.

Paroutis, S., Angwin, D. and Heracleous, L. (2016). Practicing Strategy: Text and Cases. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.1-19.

Pathak, A.A. (2016). Tata Motors’ successful cross-border acquisition of Jaguar Land Rover: key take-aways.
Strategic Direction. 32(9). pp.15-18.

Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management
Journal. 14(3). pp.179-191.

Page 23 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Porter, M.E. (1985). The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press,
New York.

Porter, M.E. (1996). What Is Strategy?. Harvard Business Review. 74(6), pp. 61-78.

Porter, M.E. (1998). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Revised Ed.
New York: Free Press.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review. 68(3).
pp.79-91.

Quinn, J.B. (2013). IBM (A) case. In: Lampel, J.B., Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B. and Ghoshal, S. The Strategy
Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases. 5th ed. London: Pearson.

Renault. (2020). The price of an electric car battery. [online] Available at:
<https://easyelectriclife.groupe.renault.com/en/day-to-day/what-is-the-price-of-an-electric-car-battery/> [Accessed
16 August 2020].

Reuters. (2018). Toyota Captures Data Goldmine In $1 Billion Grab Bet. [online] Available at:
<https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-toyota-grab/toyota-captures-data-goldmine-in-1-billion-grab-bet-
idUKKBN1JG0VS> [Accessed 17 August 2020].

Rieger, B. (2010). From People’s Car to New Beetle: The Transatlantic Journeys of the Volkswagen Beetle. The
Journal of American History. 97(1). pp.91-115.

Rudd, J.M. (2020). Business in Practice: Marketing. Online lecture: Warwick Business School.

Ryan, M. (2020). The Future of Transportation: Ethical, Legal, Social and Economic Impacts of Self-driving
Vehicles in the Year 2025. Science and Engineering Ethics. 26. pp.1185-1208.

Schneider, J. and Hall, J. (2011). Why Most Product Launches Fail. Harvard Business Review, [online] (April).
Available at: <https://hbr.org/2011/04/why-most-product-launches-fail> [Accessed 13 August 2020].

Schwanen, T., Banister, D. and Anable, J. (2012). Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case
of low-carbon mobility. Journal of Transport Geography. 24. pp.522-532.

Sheau-Ting, L., Mohammed, A.H. and Weng-Wai, C. (2013). What is the optimum social marketing mix to market
energy conservation behaviour: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Management. 131. pp.196-205.

Smith, W.R. (1956). Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies.
Journal of Marketing. 21(1). pp.3-8.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal. 18. pp.509-533.

Page 24 of 25
IB9FB0 Business in Practice

Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2013). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational
Change. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Tolliday, S. (1995). From “Beetle Monoculture” to the “German Model”: The Transformation of Volkswagen, 1967-
1991. Business and Economic History. 24(2). pp.111-132.

Valentin, E. (2001). SWOT Analysis from a Resource-Based View. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.
9(2). pp.54-69.

Vlados, C. (2019). On a correlative and evolutionary SWOT analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management.
12(3). pp.347-363.

Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M., Tekie, E.B. (2006). Managing purposeful organizational misfit: exploring the nature of
industry and organizational misfit to enable strategic change. Journal of Change Management. 6(3). pp.257-276.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 5(2). pp.171-180.

Wang, J. (2017). Structuring innovation funnels for R&D projects under uncertainty. R&D Management. 47. 127-
140.

Wawarta, C. (2020). Business in Practice: Strategy. Online lecture: Warwick Business School.

WSJ. (2020). Tesla posts fourth-quarter profit on record deliveries. [online] Available at:
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-posts-fourth-quarter-profit-on-record-deliveries-11580334615> [Accessed 13
August 2020].

Zhou, K. and Li, C. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge
acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal. 33(9). pp.1090-1102.

Page 25 of 25