経営戦略論

経営戦略論は、企業の経営戦略を研究する学問分野であり、戦略的な意思決定のプロセスを理解し、適切な経営戦略を策定・遂行・評価することを目的としています。以下に、記事中で触れられた重要なポイントについて簡単にまとめます。

1. 経営戦略論の定義とプロセス:

   • 経営戦略論は企業が経営戦略を策定・遂行・評価するプロセスを研究する学問である。
   • 戦略経営は、市場や産業を評価し、競合他社を査定し、目標と戦略を設定し、環境の変化に適応するために戦略を定期的に再評価する継続的なプロセスである。

2. 教育・学習:

   • 経営戦略論は大学や大学院の経営学部・商学部、MBA課程、企業の研修などで教育されている。
   • 授業内容は理論的なフレームワークだけでなく、ケースを使用して現実に適用するための授業も行われている。

3. 学問的地位:

   • 経営学者ジェイ・B・バーニーによれば、経営戦略論は経営学の中で最も未熟な領域の一つだったが、マイケル・ポーターなどの研究により学問的地位が向上している。

4. 経営戦略論の歴史:

   • 経営戦略論は軍事学の戦略概念を取り入れ、1950-60年代に本格的に論じられるようになった。
   • チャンドラー、セルズニック、アンゾフ、ドラッカーなどがその黎明期の研究者であり、長期的な視座や組織環境の適合性に重点を置いた。

5. 成長戦略とポートフォリオ理論:

   • 1970年代の経営戦略論は成長やポートフォリオ理論に焦点を当てており、市場占有率と収益性の関係が議論された。
   • PIMS研究やポートフォリオ分析に基づく多角化企業の経営戦略が注目された。

6. マーケティング革命:

   • 1970年代は市場志向性の高まりがあり、製品志向から販売志向へ、そして市場志向への転換が起こった。
   • 顧客志向の重要性が強調され、顧客の望むものを知り、それに基づいて製品を開発するアプローチが提唱された。

経営戦略論は企業が環境変化に適応し、持続可能な競争優位を築くための重要な枠組みを提供しています。これにはSWOT分析などのツールも活用され、経営者やビジネスリーダーが意思決定に役立てています。

"Strategic Management," known as "経営戦略論" in Japanese, is a field within business studies that focuses on researching the management strategies of companies. Additionally,

SWOT Analysis, commonly used in English-speaking regions.

Overview Edit Subject of Study Edit Strategic management is an academic discipline that examines the process through which companies formulate, execute, and evaluate their management strategies.

Strategic management involves companies assessing and controlling relevant markets and industries, evaluating competitors, setting goals and strategies to address all existing or potential competitors, and continuously reevaluating strategies on a yearly or quarterly basis in response to changing environments, new technologies, emerging competitors, and new economic, social, financial, and political conditions (Lamb, 1984:ix) [1].

Thus, the entire process of formulating, executing, and evaluating management strategies is referred to as "strategic management" in English. While the accurate translation would be "戦略経営" or "戦略的経営," the term "経営戦略論" has become established as the Japanese translation, commonly used in the context of classes and academic disciplines. Although the distinction is not heavily emphasized [Footnote 1], there are cases where "strategic management" refers to the entire process, while "management strategy" may refer to strategies set during the process [2].

Education and Learning Edit In Japan, education on strategic management is conducted in universities, graduate schools' business and management departments, MBA programs, and corporate training. Courses vary across institutions, covering theoretical and academic frameworks and actively applying theoretical frameworks to real-world scenarios using case studies.

Academic Status Edit Management scholar Jay B. Barney, who highlighted the importance of internal resources in companies, evaluates strategic management as one of the least mature areas in management studies [3]. According to Barney, the interdisciplinary nature of strategic management hindered its development until areas such as finance, accounting, organizational behavior, marketing, and management established rigorous theories. However, as these areas matured, strategic management has gradually improved its position. Notably, Michael Porter's "Competitive Strategy" (1980) [4] and Richard Rumelt's "Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance" (1974) [5] are recognized by Barney as seminal papers that significantly contributed to the academic status improvement of strategic management.

History of Strategic Management Edit Birth of Strategic Management Edit The concept of strategy from military studies was introduced to management studies, and the discussion of corporate management strategies began in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. Notable researchers during this formative period of strategic management include Alfred Chandler, Philip Selznick, Igor Ansoff, and Peter Drucker.

Alfred Chandler, known for the proposition "organizations follow strategy," emphasized the importance of a forward-looking long-term perspective. He advocated the coordination of functions and departments comprehensively under a strategic long-term perspective, rather than considering individual functions or departments separately [6].

Selznick introduced the idea that the adaptability of an organization to its environment is crucial. This perspective later contributed new insights to SWOT analysis, emphasizing opportunities and threats.

Ansoff classified management strategies based on Chandler's research. In his 1965 work "Corporate Strategy," Ansoff developed the gap analysis framework, which is still used as a framework for business analysis. This framework suggests understanding the gap between the current state of the company and its desired state, and acting to reduce that gap [8].

Drucker, a prolific writer on management, made two significant contributions to the field of strategic management. Firstly, he emphasized the importance of clear goals, stating that an organization without clear goals is like a ship without a rudder [9]. Secondly, he foresaw the importance of intellectual property early on. Drucker predicted the increase in knowledge workers and highlighted the significance of managing knowledge workers, suggesting that knowledge work, being non-hierarchical, would lead to temporary leaders emerging based on expertise.

Ellen-Earle Chaffee (1985) summarized management strategy in the 1970s as follows [10]:

• Strategic management focuses on adapting the organization to the business environment.
• Strategic management is fluid and complex, requiring organizational responses to new connections in environmental factors that demand non-structured and non-repetitive reactions.
• Strategic management influences the entire organization by indicating direction.
• Strategic management is comprised of strategy formation (content) and strategy execution (process).
• Strategic management consists of planned and unplanned elements.
• Strategic management includes hierarchical levels such as overall corporate strategy and business-level strategy.
• Strategic management involves conceptual and analytical thinking processes.

Growth Strategy and Portfolio Theory Edit Much of the strategic management discourse in the 1970s focused on size, growth, and portfolio theory.

The PIMS (Profit Impact of Market Strategy) study, conducted over 19 years from 1960, aimed to explore the impact of market strategy on market share. Initiated at General Electric and later transferred to Harvard University and the Strategic Planning Institute, the study accumulated a wealth of information on the relationship between profitability and strategy. In the early stages of the PIMS study, the vague result that "higher market share leads to higher profitability" was obtained. This result was interpreted as high market share allowing companies to benefit from economies of scale and learning curve effects, leading to improved profitability. The proposition that a high market share contributes to improved profitability garnered attention, and companies engaged in diversification, horizontal integration, vertical integration, diversification, franchising, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and organic growth were actively discussed.

In the 1980s, a contradictory conclusion emerged, stating that both high and low market shares were associated with high profitability, while intermediate market share indicated lower profitability. This issue, known as the "hole in the middle," was later explained by Michael Porter. The influence of the abnormality brought about by this mechanism is explained by Porter. Other studies also suggested the relationship between low market share and high profitability, indicating that niche companies with low market share could achieve high profits.

Portfolio theory is one of the most valuable theories in the management strategy of diversified companies. This theory is based on portfolio analysis developed by financial theorists such as Harry Markowitz. The essence of portfolio analysis is that a broad portfolio of financial assets reduces risk. In the 1970s, researchers applied product portfolio theory to business portfolio theory. Analytical methods for considering the optimal business portfolio, such as BCG analysis developed by the Boston Consulting Group and General Electric's G.E. Multi-Factoral model, were developed. These methods suggested that it is desirable for a company to have many businesses referred to as "cash cows," businesses with high market share that can generate profits even with reduced additional investment. Until the 1980s, companies continued diversifying because the influence of business portfolio theory was strong, and it was only recognized later that pursuing synergy between businesses is more efficient than owning individual businesses separately.

Marketing Revolution Edit The 1970s saw the rise of market-oriented companies.

Since the establishment of capitalism, the key to business success has been considered to be the quality of the product. That is, during the era dominated by the product-oriented approach, it was believed that if a company produced high-quality and durable products, selling them would not be difficult. This was the era of "if you build a good product, customers will come" [Footnote 2].

However, with the saturation of markets due to the expansion of the middle class in the post-World War II era, selling products became increasingly challenging. The 20th century's early years saw a shift from the era of product orientation to a focus on sales. The 1950s and 1960s were known as the era of sales orientation, where the dominant philosophy shifted from making efforts to create good products to making efforts to sell them.

By the early 1970s, researchers at Harvard University, including Theodore Levitt, argued that a sales-oriented approach was outdated. They asserted that it was more important to "know what the customer wants and then make it" rather than "make a product and sell it." In other words, they proposed a philosophy where "customers drive all strategic decisions." This market-oriented thinking gained traction under various labels such as customer orientation, marketing philosophy, customer intimacy, customer focus, customer-driven, and market-focused, accumulating research.

This period marked a revolution in the way companies approached their markets, shifting from a focus on creating good products to understanding customer needs and preferences. The idea was to align business strategies with customer demands, emphasizing the importance of being customer-driven in strategic decision-making.

These developments in the 1970s laid the foundation for a more customer-centric approach in strategic management, where understanding and satisfying customer needs became a central focus. The evolution of strategic management continued with an increased emphasis on market-oriented strategies and a departure from traditional product-centric viewpoints.