Application Of Strategic Management Theories In Google Essay.

Using an organization that has been in the news in the past two years, apply and critically evaluate how each of the following theoretical concepts influences strategic management practices in that organization. Provide recommendations that would enhance strategic management in your chosen organization

Industry attractiveness
Resource based view (resources, capabilities and core competencies)
Competitive advantage

Industry attractiveness

The management theories are mainly implemented to handle the increase of organisational productivity and service quality. The combination depends on the workforce with strategies set to implement the increased worker productivity. The selected organisation is Google and how it allows the management strategies to utilise a better leadership approach. Along with this, it includes the participation from workers, with proper understanding of how the different systems affect the worker to achieve the goals (Grant, 2016). The system helps the manager to coordinate programs to work as a collective whole for the overall goal or mission, where the change is inevitable and rarely controlled. The organisation increase energy to maintain the new level of complexity as organisation tend to spend more time to achieve stability as well.

Google is the industry for different search engines and has a high barrier in preventing the new entry. It is easy to see that the search engine of Google is commendable. It is very difficult to find or develop a software to gather information on all the topics in the world and then find a proper way to organise them in the search engine (Pearlson et al., 2016). The establishment of the company is to bring and earn revenue, which is from the advertisements of the companies place on the website. Along with this, if the company is forming the name which is unknown, then the other companies would be sceptical about the exposure of the advertisements. The industry can be profitable enough for the starting out as there are different barriers which tend to prevent the issues of profitability (Rothaermel, 2016).

The overall industry attractiveness is matched with the ability to maintain a strong interaction with advertisers, internet users and websites. As per the analysis of the Porter’s Five Forces in Google, the focus is on:

1. The rivalry where the competition is based on the non-pricing scope like the industry companies which tends to cut the pricing and the cost of the switching brands is also low.
2. The threat of new entrance shows the sign of high technology where the internet search engine has a lower barrier to entry (Mellahi et al., 2016). The threat is weak where Google hold key and relationship with advertisers, users and the websites. The products like Google apps or Yahoo Messenger agree to the firms with establishing a good hold of the users.
3. The threat of substitute products is about how one can replace Google whereas for advertisers like Facebook which is a powerful substitute. There is no major good substitute to deliver online search engines.
4. The bargaining power of the suppliers, where the industry does not get affected with it.
5. The bargaining power of the buyers is where Google tend to drive a position in search industry with 85% of the market share. The buyers of Google search services are wanted to display the ads related to the search terms of Google users in particular (Pisano, 2017).

Resources: The resources are important for search engine, driving the advertisements which mainly focus on 96% of Google $37.9 billion revenue. Here, one needs to be of creative company culture in highly effective operations with creation of innovative sources and tools. The company resources are mainly defined with the strengths and weakness which are set under the tangible and the intangible assets and geared to a corporation. According to the resources based views, there is a need to focus on the internal sources of the company with synthesis which tends to make distinction between the company and the other people (Haas & Stuebiger, 2017). The resource based revenue helps in focusing on the performance and the sustainable competitive advantage.

Capabilities: With minimalist user interface, Google Search tends to offer an unparalleled way to retrieve the information which is tough to substitute. The use of the resource based view could be through Google sustained competitive advantage which is mainly through the resources. the resources are mainly in-imitable and also difficult to substitute. The capabilities of Google are to advertise the multiple resources which are both tangible and intangible. Here, the resources are the determinant factor where the focus is on the customer resources, brand and the technical resources as a whole.

Resource based view

Core competencies: Google is in strict competition with Yahoo, Microsoft where the companies are not able to understand about the tools of search engine optimisation. Google does not disclose much about its infrastructure where there are estimations of huge number of data centres and servers worldwide. It has become difficult to duplicate the success of Google when the market is less saturated or competitive (Davis & Davis, 2017). The organisation possesses the ability to compete in the market place with the stand-alone chance to come with the right combination that will help in achieving the competitive advantage. The instance is to consider the information technology organisation where the software industry also need to possess the competencies to write programs and design the tools in a proper manner (Delery & Roumpi, 2017).

Considering the size, innovation and the market position, Goole has different infrastructure, innovative services and the market share. It focusses on the infrastructure which is not replicated. The company does not discuss about the data centres or servers they tend to operate, but the estimates could be only through the size and the infrastructure of the company. The infrastructure of the company is effective that helps in computing the know-how to spend on building and establishing the backbone of the operations (Rosenberg & Ferlie, 2016). The competitive advantage is about the innovative services where the services include the Google search, Gmail blogging and Google App as well. Here, the incredible value of the services mainly lie that the services are set at zero cost to the web uses. Hence, Google is able to offer the attractive model which could make a lot of money as well. The market share of Google is also considered to be the major competitive advantage which is mainly set in terms to the technology monitoring. It tends to issue the month reports on the marketing share for the larger number of digital services. The market share reports also are publics through the media outlets like Reuters or Bloomberg. The company competition is mainly with Microsoft with 15.3% difference. Google has been able to focus on the majority of search in the market share where the company has also significant foothold in the search industry.

Google market share in the different industries is mainly to create a stronger competitive advantage with the search on the Internet (Peppard & Ward, 2016). It also gives the edge for different and new products or services where customer loyalty plays an important role for the Google services which are less likely to be seen for the other competitors. The strong position of the company makes it different with strategic advantages that lends the credibility to a better start and better end.

Google can think about focusing mainly on improving the activity drivers and the resources which share different similarities, like the resources. Here, the drivers influence the cost of the firm and differentiation in the position with the needs of managerial involvement. The drivers need to be controlled with the resources organised in a proper manner (Finch et al., 2016). The frameworks are related to the conflicting views so that one can contribute greatly to the development of better and strong business strategy. The integration of frameworks can help in enabling the activity view with solving the implementation issues. The enhancement is mainly of the individual weakness where Google needs to focus on the human capital with time caused issues for accounting, when set for the total business and intangible asset valuation. The dynamic role is mainly set through contributing to the firm level value creation along with focusing on operationalisation as well.

Conclusion

Google need to focus on the strategic intent envisions with desired leadership position to establish the sense of improving the progress (Peppard & Ward, 2016). The focus can be on active management which involves the essence of winning, motivating the people by communicating the value of target, and sustaining the enthusiasm by providing new operational standards and change. This is mainly through resource allocation. The strategic intent tends to capture the essence of winning, where Google focus on evaluating the managers with the feedback survey so that the responses are reported and analysed (Davis & Davis, 2017). This will bring a change in the working as they also try to bring colleagues closer with the conversation worksheet. This eventually helps to make use of the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options and Will) so that any person who is not working as per his choice can leave the company and fulfil his dreams. 

References

Davis, P. J., & Davis, P. J. (2017). How HR can create competitive advantage for the firm: Applying the principles of resource-based theory. Human Resource Management International Digest, 25(2), 4-6.

Delery, J. E., & Roumpi, D. (2017). Strategic human resource management, human capital and competitive advantage: is the field going in circles?. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 1-21.

Finch, D. J., Peacock, M., Levallet, N., & Foster, W. (2016). A dynamic capabilities view of employability: exploring the drivers of competitive advantage for university graduates. Education+ Training, 58(1), 61-81.

Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary Strategy Analysis Text Only. John Wiley & Sons.

Haas, A., & Stuebiger, N. (2017). Why and When Do Firm–Customer Relationships Lead to Competitive Advantage? An Abstract. In Marketing at the Confluence between Entertainment and Analytics (pp. 1209-1210). Springer, Cham.

Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. (2016). A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42(1), 143-173.

Pearlson, K. E., Saunders, C. S., & Galletta, D. F. (2016). Managing and Using Information Systems, Binder Ready Version: A Strategic Approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2016). The strategic management of information systems: Building a digital strategy. John Wiley & Sons.

Pisano, G. P. (2017). Toward a prescriptive theory of dynamic capabilities: connecting strategic choice, learning, and competition. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(5), 747-762.

Rosenberg Hansen, J., & Ferlie, E. (2016). Applying strategic management theories in public sector organizations: Developing a Typology. Public Management Review, 18(1), 1-19.

Rothaermel, F. T. (2016). Competitive Advantage in Technology Intensive Industries. In Technological Innovation: Generating Economic Results (pp. 233-256). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.