The paper "IKEAs’ Competitive Behavior" is an outstanding example of a management case study. Organization Competitive behavior is one of the concepts that have received a lot of renewed attention in modern or contemporary management literature. This can be attributed to various factors among them the increasing changes that companies face today, the complex and dynamic business arena, globalization, the ever-changing consumer preferences, competition, introduction or revolution of information technology communications as well as the discharge of global trade (Kahreh, Ahmadi and Hashemi, 2011: 28). Despite this renewed interest, there still exist information gap, particularly in organizational management strategies.
One question one might ask is how companies cope with this dynamic business environment and new challenges. This paper is aimed at discussing in details the subject of competitive behavior and how IKEA has survived in this challenging business environment. In particular, it will explore IKEA’ s competitive standing against a background of generic competitive strategy models. This paper is structured in four parts. The first section as already seen presents a brief introduction to the study problem. The second section will give a brief description of IKEA while the third part introduces a light touch on a related or key concept.
Part four gives a SWOT analysis of IKEA followed by the fifth part which gives key management strategies adopted by IKEA with special emphasis on competitive advantage as well as a generic competitive strategy. Finally, the study will conclude in the last part by giving a summary of the major findings drawn from the analysis. Background Information IKEA is a Swedish home-furnishings retailer and has 231 stores in 33countries, mainly from European countries, Canada, Canada, United States, Asia, as well as Australia.
More than 20 opened in the year 2005. IKEA is regarded as one of the few store chains known located in Israel and the Middle Eastern nations. The company is quite famous for its affordable furniture which consumers are required to assemble for themselves (accessed on 3rd March 2012; 2:05 am). Key Concepts Competitive advantage mainly relates to firms Competitiveness which in simple terms means the relative advantageous position of an organization against its rival companies or firms. Competitive advantage is basically formulated from the values that can be created by the company, so customers are willing to buy products at cost price the vendor-supplied in creating, while the value is what buyers or consumers are willing to pay and superior value derived from it offer lower prices than competitors for corresponding benefits or giving unique remuneration that more than just compensate the higher price.
(Porter quoted in Suliyanto, 2011: 30) In summary, competitive advantage generally entails a unique position through which an organization improves itself in an effort to beat its rivals (Suliyanto, 2011: 31) On the contrary, a Competitive strategy mainly has an emphasis on ways through which an organization or a firm can acquire the most advantageous position that it possibly can.
The generic strategy is simply those approaches used to outdo competing firms. Porter (1998:35) describes strategies as simply those often intended to compete or outperform other organizations in business and is mainly composed of cost leadership, differentiation, as well as focus.
Allen, R.S. & Helms, M.M. 2006. Linking Strategic Practices and Organizational Performance to Porter’s Generic Strategies. Business Process management 12 (4), 433-454.
Clulow, V., Gerstman, J., and Barry, C. 2003. The resource-based view and sustainable competitive advantage:
Frambach, Ruud T., Jaideep Prabhu. & Theo M.M. Verhallen, 2003. The Influence of Business Strategy on New Product Activity: The Role of Market Orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.20 (4), 377-97.
Gopalakrishna P. and Subramanian, R., 2001. Revisiting the Pure versus Hybrid Dilemma: Porter’s Generic Strategies in Developing Economy. Journal of Global Marketing Vol.15 (2), 61-79.
Gyaneshwar Singh Kushwaha, 2011 competitive advantage through information and communication technology (ICT) enabled supply Chain management practices International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems ISSN (Online): 2230-8849 Vol. 1 Issue 2 July 2011
http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/about_ikea/press_room/rightquality.pdf accessed on 3rd March, 2012; 2:35am
Johnson, Scholes and Whittington, 2005. Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Cases, 7th Edition. Prentice Hall
Kahreh, M.S., Ahmadi, H., and Hashemi, A., 2011. Achieving competitive advantage through empowering employees: An empirical study Far East Journal of Psychology and Business Vol 3 No 2 May 2011
Ocicka, B., 2009. Reconfiguration of the Supply Chain Structure: Case Studies, Department of Logistics, Warsaw School of Economics, Best Log Project the case of a financial services firm. Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27, No.5: 220-232.
Porter, M. E., 1998. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for analysis industries and Competitors, Brookline, Massachusetts, January 1998.
Porter, M, E., 1996. What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, November –December 1996 v74, n6 (18 pages).
Porter, M.E., 2008.The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy Harvard business review, January 2008. Pp 25-41
Raduan, C. R, Jegak, U, Haslinda, A, Alimin, I. I, 2009. Management, Strategic Management Theories and the Linkage with Organizational Competitive Advantage from the Resource-Based View European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 11, Number 3 pp 402-418
Suliyanto, 2011. The effect of orientation learning on Competitive Advantage through Innovation: Study on Small and Medium Enterprises, Business and Management Review Vol. 1(7) pp. 28 – 36 September, 2011
Venohr, B., 2007.Business Strategy Competitive Positioning, Berlin: IMB institute of management, May 2007
Zhi Li, 2010. The Competitive Advantage of IKEA and IKEA in China, University of Cavle: Master thesis, Department Of Technology and Built Environment, June 2010