Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Co-evolution of Firms

Was thinking of "Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions" by Johann Peter Murmann again.

I was thinking of what makes the approach of the writer different. That environment affects business is increasingly understood. In strategic planning, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis uses frameworks like PESTEL (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal) factors to evaluate impact of external environment on a firm. Then what is new in co-evolution? Co-evolution attempts to show that as external forces affect a firm, the vice-versa is true as well. Moreover, all the players in the game affect each other. I like it as I feel that it is something very close to what I believe about the world in general (Masterplan and Gaming the World). I think a good understanding of probability and vectors (Mathematics) along with relativity (Physics) would help to model the proposed economic theory. Due to the inherent complexity, it will also acquire an intellectual and philosophical dimension. The theory will also help to dispense away with the idea of a corporation as a helpless victim or lucky benefactor of its environment. Lobby groups are a hard-truth, and the level of their success can have a positive or negative impact on the industry's growth or decline. This does not do away with firm specific advantages (management, marketing, R&D), but adds additional influencing factors and uses the paradigm of co-evolution to explain how an entrepreneurial culture and a pro-active corporate organisation (that is all companies in the industry finding a platform to work collectively and affect the external environment) play an important role. A good example is that the failure rate of dye firms was similar in UK, US and Germany: around 75% of the dyes failed. However, in Germany the number of dye firms that tried starting a business was significantly higher than either UK or US. It, hence, had more successful and unsuccessful dye firms than them. This higher level of trials, experimentation and growth was facilitated by the education system and the legal framework. In turn, a stronger dye industry fostered and lobbied successfully for better educational institutions and favourable legal framework, hence creating a virtuous circle. The opposite was true for US and UK: other industries were more powerful in these countries and dye firms were simply sidelined.

Concluding, I love business history books as they present rich, factual data about real-events. Very much a case study. This book does not disappoint on this front. Additionally, it collates the events in a pretty practical and useful fashion. I agree that co-evolution in business context needs more research and that it has the potential to become a powerful theory. On the other hand, it also points to the fact that common sense, love for work and long-term perspective on events is very important. It also reaffirms that basic principles espoused in "Good to Great" and "In Search for Excellence" are pretty much accurate. A nice book overall.

No comments: