Analyzing the Internal and External Environment of a Company - Literature review Example

Loopholes of SWOT By critically analyzing SWOT behavior in organizations under the influence of global competitive environment it seems previous research on internal and external atmospheres, remain unable to highlight some of the major assumptions on which SWOT principles are based, this section concludes that current perspectives are flawed and rejects them as being inadequate for a full understanding of the organizational behavior of SWOT. Why has previous research failed to provide a full understanding of SWOT analysis? This literature review reveals four sections examine: (a) gaps in the research on SWOT, (b) weakness of the research on organizational strengths infrastructures, (c) the absence of SWOT as in communication and public relations research, and (d) the practitioners’ need for research. The review would conclude that research on internal and external factors affecting organization’s pattern is sparse and generally of poor quality and that it receives little scholarly attention as a serious subject of study. Most organizations experience difficulties in meeting their formulating annual goals for finding weaknesses of their firm’s objectives, weaknesses that refer towards developing a budget, and scheduling routine activities. SWOT shares some fundamental concepts with these activities, but differs in that it addresses the development of an overall direction or strategy for the organization, rather than to focus upon a single strategy. Organizations often fail to meet their goals because of unrealistic SWOT assumptions. Ideally, if SWOT should analyze in a liberal environment it would provide a framework within which these other activities can occur. The terms ‘strategic planning’ are sometimes used interchangeably for SWOT, but there are important differences between the two. Strategic planning is focused on reaching specific, well-defined goals designed to benefit the organization as a whole. It is certainly possible to have a number of long-range defined goals and plans that are quite independent of one another and in fact lead in different directions. Understanding firm’s opportunities for improvement and gaining insights into systems are worthless if weaknesses’ analyzations are unable to turn them into improved results but not all organizations perform weaknesses assessments benefit, however. Many firms only find out what needs to change, but lack the resolve or the resources to make the needed improvements. It is often observed that firms work on improving their weakness for a while, but slack off on their improvement efforts once their crisis ends. “Despite dealing with assessing firm’s weaknesses feedback participants seek to select the highest leverage areas of improvement for inclusion in the next year’s list of priorities”. (Stankard, 2002, p. 266) According to Bendick, “Despite diversity training’s prevalence, little systematic research is available to resolve often-vociferous debates about its nature and effects. One side of these debates argues the continuing need for and effectiveness of the activity”. (Bendick et al, 2001) On one hand Stankard focuses on assessing firm’s loopholes whereas on the other hand Bendick stresses on resolving firm’s loopholes. So, addressing and resolving both matters in the scenario in which we are going to assess Gaps in SWOT. In order to assess SWOT gaps, the model must cover the selected strategy associated with the company’s internal resources and distinctive competencies with environmental opportunities and threats. The loopholes occur when despite planning overall goals and objectives of the firm are NOT met and such gaps and loopholes can be removed while choosing a strategy that focuses on the company’s strengths, conceals its weaknesses, exploits opportunities and counters or neutralizes threats. “Moving down to the departmental level, we analyze the effect of weaknesses of the research on firm’s infrastructure through those goals, which are formulated in support of the organization’s strategies but are not measurable or specific to their tasks. Measurable objectives must be specified to meet departmental goals”. (Kelly, 1998, p. 395) Based on these objectives, programs are planned and further broken down by activities and tasks. When implementation is complete, programs are evaluated by the degree to which they accomplished the set objectives. If objectives are met, goals will have been attained. In this systematic manner, the department advances the organization’s strategies, thereby helping it achieve its overall goals and fulfill its mission. No doubt SWOT and strategic planning go hand in hand and requires participation of key representatives from throughout the organization, which refers to the absence of SWOT at communicational level. Not only is comprehensive input critical, but as Mixer (1993) explained, “Those parties most affected by the plan will give it greater support if they are consulted and involved during its creation” (Mixer, 1993, pp. 96-97). According to the late communication scholar Robert Simmons (1990), widespread participation and the resulting plan enable an organization to integrate all its components. Every decision made and action taken is congruent with the mission of the organization. Simmons stated, “Strategic planning represents a powerful fusion of theory, methodologies, principles, and techniques drawn from management, the social sciences (including communication) . . . and scientific research” (p. 2). Unlike traditional methods of long-range planning that assume the future is a linear extension of the past, SWOT analysis still in need for research, Kearns (1992) said, “assumes that goals and strategies emerge from the juxtaposition of opportunities and threats in the external environment and strengths and weaknesses in the internal environment” (Kearns, 1992, p. 6). He warned that the most frequent and costly error in using SWOT is failure to link the assessments of the two environments. For example, organizational managers may develop strategies involving fund raising solely on the basis of perceived internal strengths or weaknesses without regard for what is happening outside the organization. On the other hand, they may perceive an external opportunity for fund raising without realistically weighing the internal conditions necessary to take advantage of the opportunity. Kearns (1992) recommended that SWOT analysis be used not only to establish the strategic direction of the organization, but also at the departmental level as a way for practitioners to organize their thinking about specific situations and issues. The procedure he outlined provides a valuable analytical tool that has been adapted here for fund raising and is embedded in the research step of the ROPES process. It emulates issues management; the function primarily related to corporations that identifies issues in the environment and monitors, analyzes, and incorporates them in operational plans (Heath & Nelson, 1986). “Haberberg (2000) and Warren (2002) have observed the continuous decline in satisfaction of users sine the users are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the poor results of SWOT analysis. Hussey et al. (1997) observes that a number of scholars have proposed alternative methodologies like WOTSUP, where UP stands for “Underlying Planning” and another is SOFT, where weaknesses have been re-identified as “Faults”. Some have combined available techniques such as Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Score Card with SWOT (Lee and On Ko Sai, 2000). Others have conducted Cross Impact analysis with SWOT (Proctor, 2002) or taken into consideration Porter’s Five Forces Model to formulate SWOT-based strategies (Ruocco and Proctor, 1994)”. (2006a) Porter’s Five Forces Model This model serves as an analyzing tool for SWOT based strategies. “One of the oldest controversies in competition analysis concerns the relationship between market structure and innovation. As usually posed, the question is whether monopoly is more conducive to innovation than competition. No one has been able to give a clear-cut answer, probably because there is none”. (Hope, 2000, p. 36) In a sense, however, the question is more interesting than the answer not so much in its own right as in what it reveals about the traditional way of thinking about market structure. Most economists, and virtually all designers of competition policy, take market structure as their starting point as something which is somehow, almost exogenously, given (although it may be affected by competition policy), and which produces results in terms of costs, prices, innovations, etc. “Market structure is inherently endogenous; determined by the behaviour of existing firms and by entry of new ones, simultaneously with costs, prices, product ranges, and investments in R&D and marketing”. (Lloyd, 1999, p. 54) This is true not only for the relationship between market structure and innovation - it is true more generally for the relationship between market structure, competition, and economic efficiency which refers indirectly to Porter’s five forces. We can, of course, easily construct cases in which a high degree of market concentration goes along with lack of competition and inefficient resource use. We can, however, equally well construct examples in which concentration is the result of aggressive competition, and where the result is efficiency. It is also possible to construct cases where concentration reflects monopoly, but where monopoly power is exploited in a way, which is consistent with efficiency. The question that should be asked is not, therefore, what the ‘ideal’ market structure might be, but what set of circumstances are conducive to static and dynamic efficiency and what implications that has for the design of competition policy and for the way in which the competition authorities should handle particular cases. Once the question is formulated in this way, it is immediately apparent that market structure by itself is of little interest. Circumstances will affect efficiency to the extent that they affect the behaviour of firms; and the behaviour of firms reflects profit opportunities and other incentives that firms face. It is through the effects on firm incentives, therefore, that exogenous variables affect efficiency. It follows that the focus of competition analysis should be on incentives and variables that affect those. Perhaps the most important question in competition analysis is what the object of analysis should be. An incentive-oriented approach is best towards competition analysis. Is it the market, the industry, or the individual firm we want to study? The obvious answer is the market. We are ultimately concerned with prices and quantities, and these are determined in the market. Often we are forced to set our prices due to the competitor’s goodwill. Although that is obviously correct, we argue that the focus ought to be on the individual firm regardless of competitors’ concern. There are two reasons for this. One is purely pragmatic: the firm is a well-defined entity; the market is not, and there are good reasons to avoid the minefield of market definition. The other reason is substantive: we cannot understand the market unless we understand the agents in the market; and in imperfectly competitive markets, the ‘interesting’ agents are the firms. Prahalad (1975) and Doz (1976) provided one of the first conceptualizations for examining global strategy. Their framework, termed the integration-responsiveness framework, suggests that participants in global industries develop competitive postures across two dimensions. The first dimension, integration, refers to the coordination of activities across countries in an attempt to build efficient operations networks and take maximum advantage of similarities across locations. The second dimension, responsiveness, refers to the attempt to respond to specific needs within a variety of host countries. According to Porter, businesses in the locally responsive group perceive high levels of domestic competition and constraints from host governments. Simultaneously, these businesses (as members of a global industry) face significant pressures from worldwide competitors, many of whom may have cost advantages. The need to differentiate from competitors and to respond to host government pressures, in concert with potential cost disadvantages, places the locally responsive competitors in a position that demands some form of competitive response. Since these businesses lack cost advantages, the default choice for the locally responsive competitors is some form of differentiation (Porter 1986). We propose that changes to organizational niches in which competition is more intense will be detrimental to prospects of organizational survival and that changes to organizational niches in which competition is less intense will improve organizational survival chances. Shifting to a more competitive organizational niche may increase the risk of failure for several reasons. Intense competition creates resource scarcity (Carroll & Hannan 1989). When resources are scarce, organizations cannot move quickly to full-scale operation and may find it difficult to minimize performance disruptions by, for example, maintaining both old and new ways of doing things during periods of transition. Intense competition also results in tight niche packing (Baum & Singh, 1996). In considering the successes and failures of the mass markets mistakes have been made, but the organizations have survived by making constant adjustments with such variables as in target marketing, image, physical environmental resources, and human resources. These mass retailers did not necessarily obtain high grades using all variables, but some of the variables were used and implemented in an exceedingly capable manner. Innovation took place when proper strategy was established with respect to the competitive forces. (Greco J. Alan, 1995, p. 34) PESTLE Analysis The main dilemma, which resides with this analysis, is the continuous change it confronts to every time when the policies of external organization changes. This paradox is due to the intrinsic complexity of international relations and the wide range of external factors, which make it difficult to assess the influence and importance of external factors and to establish unequivocal causal relationships (Pridham, 1994). A glimpse at the empirical reality shows the variety and the magnitude of external factors. They leave out the specific (and this implies: different) internal political, socio-economic, historical and political-cultural conditions and aspects in the respective countries and they also leave out the possibility that the project of external stabilization, and, in particular, a premature enlargement of these institutions, may overstretch their institutional and organizational capacities (Sandschneider 1996). Developments in the international economic as well as in the international political system, changes in the relationship between prominent actors as well as the existence and the functioning of international institutions are important external political as well as macro-economic frameworks affecting democratization. Therefore, we can expect prospects for democracy to be best when favorable internal conditions meet with a favorable external environment. (Kummell, 1998) The development of mostly asymmetrical and highly complex interdependencies in the globalization process poses a fundamental challenge to the actors because this process provides new sources for conflict and is accompanied by what Keohane and Nye called interdependence susceptibility and interdependence vulnerability (Keohane/Nye 1977). In general, interdependence enhances the influence of factors beyond the actors’ control. Therewith, these actors lose a good deal of their sovereignty and leeway of action. Moreover, interdependence generates costs, organizational and transaction costs, which are, at times, weighed against the benefits of interdependencies. At times, then, growing interdependence costs produce resistance to bear them, especially when they are perceived (or interpreted by important or core societal and political groups) as exceeding the interdependence benefits. In these cases, the actors are tempted to retreat from interdependencies by strategies of dissociation or not to enter them right from the start when pursuing isolationist goals (Jager/Kummel 1994). We may take up Whitehead’s admonition that “any systematic analysis of the role of international factors in stimulating democratization in this region must carefully specify which pressures were most significant; how, when and where they produced their main effect; and in what historical context they were embedded and constrained” (Whitehead, 1994). It may be taken for granted that the external dimension influences the prospects of democratic transition and consolidation. To specify the exact degree, however, in which factors outside the systems influenced the course of internal events is a very ticklish undertaking and, indeed, this is the very problem we are confronted with. It is even more difficult to single out one or more external factors as the principal factors shaping these processes. What can be said concerning the influence of external factors is that they have a certain impact, but that, in general, the concrete form of these impacts emerges through the specific response of internal actors to these external influences. (Kummel, 1998) Believing that members enact organizations through the dialectical tensions of relationships, Benson (1983) challenged the rational structuring model of organizations. The rational structuring model assumes that an “all-knowing” boss creates a rational structure by which to guide the activities of others. Reflecting on this model, Benson observed, “The old forms of organization theory focusing on the rational structuring of unitary organizations were invented within the context of competitive capitalism consisting . . . of internally rational organizations within irrational societies” (Benson, 1983, p. 45). Monge (1987) observed, “Organizations must identify their boundaries and distinguish their environments from what they consider to be themselves. The flow of information through internal networks is essential to organizational functioning; but organizations must also establish linkages with relevant parts of their environment. Without the ability to gather and distribute information with the environment, most organizations would languish in isolation” (Monge, 1987, p. 254). Huber and Daft (1987) emphasized the importance of each company’s information environment. The need is to identify and diagnose the flow of information from the company and from key publics to it. Members of the company need to monitor the extent to which these networks contain similar or compatible zones of meaning. Research on market orientation has centered on understanding the construct and examining its relationship to performance. Two important studies sought to define and operationalize market orientation. Based on an extensive review of the literature on sustainable competitive advantage and marketing strategy, Narver and Slater (1990) operationalized market orientation as consisting of three dimensions: customer orientation, competitor orientation, and inter-functional coordination. Using both a literature review and field interviews of managers, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) operationalized the market orientation construct as consisting of three basic components: intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, and responsiveness. Intelligence generation extends beyond collecting information about customer needs and preferences to include information about the entire task environment confronting an organization. To be market-oriented, an organization has to communicate, disseminate, and often “sell” market intelligence to relevant departments and individuals in the organization. (Kumar, Subramanian, & Yauger, 1998). And finally, the market-oriented organization responds to or acts on the market intelligence gathered and disseminated. The two approaches to defining the market orientation construct are similar in their emphasis on behavioral issues (Greenley, 1995). Both groups of researchers identify the construct as consisting of collecting information about the task environment, disseminating the information to all organizational units, and readying the organization to act on the information to provide value to the customer. Both approaches are similar also in operationalizing the market orientation construct as a multi-dimensional concept, where each dimension measures a different feature of market orientation. Finally, both studies view an organization's magnitude of market orientation as the sum total of its relative emphasis on the different components of market orientation. (Kumar, 2000, p. 16) La Force and Novelli conclude that “complex convergence of political, legal, technological, and organizational issues represent a rapidly emerging and formidable set of problems which will continue to modify the external environment of most business enterprises and will create the need for concurrent internal modifications in management practices and training.” (Siedel, 2000, p. 717) Since the seminal work of Chandler (1962), the notion of a linkage between strategy and structure has become widely accepted-that is, if an organization is to implement its strategy most effectively, it needs the appropriate structure and support systems. At the same time, it needs the flexibility to exploit strategic options that arise from environmental changes. However, at least in the short run, a firm cannot easily change its organizational structure, and this may be a major impediment to its ability to change its strategy. In an increasingly globally integrated world, firms attempting to become major players in their industry need to cope with and exploit environmental changes and adjust their organizational structure to create what Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) termed “transnational” organizations. In other words, firms need to be able simultaneously to achieve local responsiveness, global efficiency and the creation of knowledge (learning). (Aharoni, 1996, p. 6) Organizations are basically information-processing entities, and must match the demand for information processing with the capacity of the firm to do it. The information required depends on the environment, on technology, and on other variables such as size and complexity. Nowadays, firms can create significant competitive advantage on the basis of sophisticated use of information systems. New information technologies are facilitating new forms of organizations and different structures, allowing greater integration across national borders. The increased power of personal computers, for example, is profoundly affecting both structures and systems. Computers have also allowed service firms to achieve both low-cost positions and customized services. All these new developments arc allowing new types of structures, such as the “infinitely flat” organization (Quinn and Paquette, 1990). Organizational structure is no longer considered a sufficient explanation of multinational operations, and an understanding of managerial systems and control mechanisms is perceived to be a necessary additional line of inquiry (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1993; Ghoshal and Westney, 1993; Hedlund, 1986) Information technologies and other changes have allowed many new forms of organization. The common denominator of all these entities is the form of the organization’s various boundaries. The legal boundaries remain the same, as in strategic alliances, so that coordination has to be achieved among legally separate organizations. This active coordination means extensive expansion of the information boundaries and often of management boundaries. Thus. suppliers may be allowed to get into the computer of a firm and supply goods without a specific order. In a network type of activity, the organization must be defined to include all the separate legal entities that comprise the network. The management boundaries are extended to the whole network to ensure coordination. Coordination itself can be achieved through different forms that may or may not be centralized. The process of coordination and integration may be formal- developing systems, policies, and standards (Child, 1972); it may be effected through central processes by the direct intervention and actions of an elite group based in a unit designed as headquarters in the management of each separate division (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989); or it may be achieved through socialization. The latter prevails when the task is unique, integrated, or ambiguous (Ouch), 1977, 1980). Bartlett and Ghoshal (1993) argue that, in new organizations, each subsidiary is a self-contained unit that is part of a whole. These and other new forms of organization are more prevalent in service firms, particularly in professional service firms. Many of the new technologies are offshoots of the evolution of computing and information technologies. Mitchell and Mabert (1986) stated that small manufacturers often felt they could not afford advanced automated technologies. However, small business owners are ever more frequently asked, “Can you afford not to use such technologies?” Gone are the days when small businesses are solely concerned with regional competition. Due to developments in transportation and communication, small businesses can no longer feel immune to the threat of distant competition. Also, affordable computing technology has provided businesses with the opportunity to substantially enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. References & Bibliography Aharoni Yair, 1996. “The Organization of Global Service MNEs” in “International Studies of Management & Organization”. Volume: 26. Issue: 2. Aharoni, Yair. “Globalization of Professional Business Services.” In Yair Aharoni (ed.), Coalitions and Competition The Globalization of Professional Business Services. New York: Routledge, 1993, pp. 121-142. Baum A.C. Joel & Jitendra V. Singh, 1996. “Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Competition” in “Social Forces”. Volume: 74. Issue: 4. Bernard, H. R. (1994). ‘Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Benson J. K. (1983). “Paradigm and praxis in organizational analysis”. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 33-56). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Bendick Marc, Mary Lou Egan & Suzanne M. Lofhjelm, 2001. “Workforce Diversity Training: From Anti-Discrimination Compliance to Organizational Development”in “Human Resource Planning”. Volume: 24. Issue: 2. Publication Year: 2001. Bromwich, M., & Bhimani, A. (1991). “Strategic Investment Appraisal”, Management Accounting, 72(9), 45-48. Brown, John L.: Cooper, David J.; Greenwood, Royston; and Hinings, C.R. “Strategic Alliances within a Big-Six Accounting Finn: A Case Study.” International Studies of Management and Organization, 26, 2 (1996), this issue. Bartlett, Christopher, and Ghoshal, Sumantra. “Tap Your Subsidiaries for Global Reach.” Harvard Business Review (November-December 1986), 87-94. Barry John, 1999. “Environment and Social Theory”: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Child, John. “Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance.” Sociology (1972), 1-22. Doz, Yves. 1976. “National policies and multinational management”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Business School. Eccles, Robert G., and Crane, Dwight B. Doing Deals. Investment Banks at Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1988. Francis M. Duffy, 2004. “ Navigating Whole-District Change: Eight Principles for Moving an Organization Upward in Times of Unpredictability” in Magazine Title: School Administrator. Volume: 61. Issue: 1. Greenley, G.E. (1995). “Forms of market orientation in UK companies”. Journal of Management Studies, 32(1): 47-66. Garsombke, T.W., & Garsombke, D.J. (1989). “Strategic implications facing small manufacturers: The linkage between robotization, computerization, automation and performance”, Journal of Small Business Management, 27(4), 34-44. Ghoshal, Sumantra, and Westney, E. Organizational Theory and the Multinational Corporation. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. Gilbert A. Jacqueline, 2000. “An Empirical Examination of Resources in a Diverse Environment” in “Public Personnel Management”. Volume: 29. Issue: 2. Greco J. Alan & Michman D. Ronald, 1995. “Retailing Triumphs and Blunders: Victims of Competition in the New Age of Marketing Management”: Quorum Books. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Glen Dunlap & Meme Hieneman, 2001. “ Factors Affecting the Outcomes of Community-Based Behavioral Support: II. Factor Category Importance” in “Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions”. Volume: 3. Issue: 2. Heath R. L., & Nelson R. A., 1986. “Issues management: Corporate public policymaking in an information society”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Haberberg, A. (2000), “Swatting SWOT”, Strategy (Strategic Planning Society), September. Hussey, D.E., et al. (1997), “Glossary of techniques for strategic analysis”, Strategic Change, Vol. 6, pp. 97-115. Hope Einar, 2000. “Competition Policy Analysis”: Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Hannan, Michael T., and Glenn R. Carroll. 1992., “Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Competition, and Legitimation”. Oxford University Press. Heath L. Robert, 1994. “Management of Corporate Communication: From Interpersonal Contacts to External Affairs”: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of Publication: Hillsdale, NJ. Huber G. P., & Daft R. L. ( 1987). “The information environments of organizations”. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam , K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 130-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Julius H. Johnson Jr., 1995. “An Empirical Analysis of the Integration-Responsiveness Framework: U.S. Construction Equipment Industry Firms in Global Competition” in “Journal of International Business Studies”. Volume: 26. Issue: 3 Julien P.A. (1995). “New Technologies and technological information in small businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing 10(6), 45975. Jager, Thomas/Kummel, Gerhard (1994). “Isolation und Dissoziation in der internationalen Politik” in: Bredow, Wilfried von/Jager, Thomas, eds. Regionale Grossmachte. Internationale Beziehungen zwischen Globalisierung und Zersplitterung (Opladen: Leske & Budrich), pp. 151-170. Kelly S. Kathleen, 1998. “Effective Fund-Raising Management”: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of Publication: Mahwah, NJ. Kearns K. P, 1992. “From comparative advantage to damage control: Clarifying strategic issues using SWOT analysis”. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 3 (1), 3-22. Keohane, Robert O./Nye, Joseph S. (1977). “Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition” (Boston: Little, Brown & Co.). Kummel Gerhard, 1998. “Democratization in Eastern Europe. the Interaction of Internal and External Factors: An Attempt at Systematization” in “East European Quarterly”. Volume: 32. Issue: 2. Publication Year: 1998. Kumar Kamalesh & Sam Subramanium, 2000. “Navigating the External Environment through a Market Orientation” in “SAM Advanced Management Journal”. Volume: 65. Issue: 1. Kohli, A.K., & Jaworski, B.J. (1990). “Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications”. Journal of Marketing, 54: 1-18. Kumar, K., Subramaniam, R., & Yauger, C. (1998). “Examining the market Orientation Performance Relationship: A Context Specific Study”, Journal of Management, 24(2):201-233. Lloyd P.J. & Kerrin A Vautier, 1999. “Promoting Competition in Global Markets: A Multi-National Approach”: Edward Elgar. Place of Publication: Cheltenham, England. Lee, S.F. and On Ko Sai, A. (2000), “Building balanced score card with SWOT analysis, and implementing ‘Sun Tzu’s the art of business and management strategies’ on QFD methodology”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 68-76. Lincoln, D.J., & Warberg, W.B. (1987). “The role of microcomputers in small business marketing”, Journal of Small Business Management, 25(2), 8-16. Macewan Arthur, 1985. “The Current Crisis in Latin America and the International Economy”. in Magazine Title: Monthly Review. Volume: 36. Mitchell, R.H., & Mabert, V.A. (1986). “Robotics for smaller manufacturers: Myths and realities”, Business Horizons, 29(2), 9-16. Mixer J. R., 1993. “Principles of professional fundraising: Useful foundations for successful practice”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Monge P. R. (1987). “The network level of analysis”. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 239-270). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Narver, J.C., & Slater, S.F. (1990). “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”. Journal of Marketing, 54: 20-35. Proctor, T. (2002), “Strategic marketing management for health management: cross impact matrix and TOWS”, Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 47-56. Prahalad, C.K. 1975. “The strategic process in a multinational corporation”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Business School. Pridham, Geoffrey (1994). “The International Dimension of Democratisation: Theory, Practice, and Inter-Regional Comparisons” in: Pridham, Geoffrey/Herring, Eric/Sanford, George, eds. Building Democracy? Porter, Michael, editor. 1986. “Competition in global industries”. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Ruocco, P. and Proctor, T. (1994), “Strategic planning in practice”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 24-9. Quinn, James Brian, and Paquette, Penny C. “Technology in Services: Creating Organizational Revolutions.” Sloan Management Review, 31, 2 (Winter 1990), 67-78. Riggs, & Bracker, (1986). “Operations management and financial performance, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, 10(3), 17-23. Schroeder, D.M., Gopinath, C., & Congden, S.W. (1989). “New technology and the small manufacturer: Panecea or plague?”, Journal of Small Business Management, 27(3), 1-10. Sandschneider, Eberhard (1996). “Die Europaische Union und die Transformation Mittel- und Osteuropas. Zum Problem exogener Stabilisierungsstrategien in Transformationsprozessen,” Zeitschrift far Politikwissenschaft, 6: 1 Simmons R. E., 1990. “Communication campaign management: A systems approach”. White Plains, NY: Longman. Stankard F. Martin, 2002. “Management Systems and Organizational Performance: The Quest for Excellence beyond ISO9000”: Quorum Books. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Siedel George, 2000. “Six Forces and the Legal Environment of Business: The Relative Value of Business Law among Business School Core Courses” in American Business Law Journal. Volume: 37. Issue: 4. Sonny S. Ariss, Anand. Kunnathar & T. S. Raghunathan, 2000. “Factors Affecting the Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technology in Small Firms”. SAM Advanced Management Journal. Volume: 65. Issue: 2. Warren, K. (2002), “Competitive Strategy Dynamics”, Wiley, New York, NY. Whitehead, Laurence (1994). “East-Central Europe in Comparative Perspective” in: Pridham, Geoffrey/Herring, Eric/Sanford, George, eds. Building Democracy? 2006a Read More