Competitive Strategy and Industrial Organization (5cr)

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

After completion of the course the student is able to:
- describe different market structures
- understand the role of business model as the part of management discussions
- explain the effects of market structures and their changes on the business and business environment
- view location, market strategy and portfolio analysis as the part of firm’s tools of competition strategy.

Execution methods

Lectures (16 h), ICT practices (10 h), familiarizing with literature.

Accomplishment methods

Team work, exercises and essays. Alternatively written examination containing lectures and other materials of the lectures and practices as well as literature.

Content

Basics of industrial organization and competitive strategies, and their similarities and differences. Competition and cooperation between firms (coo-petition) and their restrictions. Business model perspectives. Core competence and clusters, location decision of the firms, portfolio analysis, market strategy and customers as a part of competitive strategy of the firm, life cycle models of the firm, the effects of public sector and legislation on the tools of competitive strategy. The business environment of the information goods and competitive strategies. Statistical methods in business and management research.

Materials

Rusko, R. (2011). Coopetition in the Finnish Forest Industry: A Case Study. Lapland University Press.
Juntunen, M. (2017). Business model change as a dynamic capability. Universitatis Ouluensis G94. Unversity of Oulu. http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526216621.pdf
Porter, M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, January 2008, 78–93.
Porter, M. (2001). Strategy and the Internet, Harvard Business Review, March 2001, 62–78.
Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January–February 2011, 62–77.
Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy & Society. The link between competitive ad-vantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, December 2006, 78–92.
Mooney, A. (2007). Core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advantage: What is the difference? Journal of Education for Business, November/December 2007, 110–115.
Begg, D. (2005) Economics, 8th Edition, Parts 1–3. McGraw-Hill.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Fail: Performance is highly deficient or erroneous. The work may be based on serious misunderstandings.

Sufficient and satisfactory (1-2): Performance is lacking in scope, superficial, or corresponds poorly to the assignment. The author merely lists things out of context or addresses them one-sidedly. The work may contain errors or obscurities.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Good and very good (3-4): Performance corresponds to the assignment, manifesting comprehension and a skill to analyse and justify. The author has addressed the issue comprehensively. The work may contain some deficiencies.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Excellent (5): Performance delineates an extensive whole and the author can apply knowledge in a multifaceted way or place it in various contexts. The work manifests independency and insight, and it is a flawless entity that involves justified thinking or critical contemplation. The work is well written and implemented.

Qualifications

JOMA0200 Management: Intermediate Module or HAJO1200 Administrative and Management Sciences: Intermediate Module