Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:14:39.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Putting PIMS into perspective: enduring contributions to strategic questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

George S. Day
Affiliation:
Professor of Marketing and Co-director of the Mack Center for Technology Innovation Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
Paul W. Farris
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Michael J. Moore
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access

Summary

This is an opportune time to put the PIMS program into an historical perspective. Not because it is yesterday's news, but in recognition of its continuing relevance. Indeed, it is striking how well the PIMS framework complements contemporary thinking on strategy-making.

This retrospective view also reveals some continuing dilemmas the field of strategy is struggling to address. While PIMS may not resolve these issues, the framework and the cumulative research using the database help to highlight and properly frame the questions.

The sources → positions → performance framework for assessing the competitive advantages (Day and Wensley 1988) of businesses will guide our exploration of the contributions of PIMS and the evolution of the field of strategy. The sources are the resources the firm deploys – their capabilities, assets, and controls – and the strategic choices of markets to serve and competitive positions to pursue. What one sees in the market, from the vantage point of a customer or competitor, is a positional advantage. These advantages can be achieved in a myriad of ways through some combination of lower costs and superior customer value (Markides 2001). These positional advantages should translate into superior performance (growth, profitability, and economic value creation).

The evolution of strategy

Firms have always had strategies, whether strategy is viewed as a choice of competitive position; as a collection of rules; as stretch and leverage; as intent; as the embodiment of a firm's values, or in other ways (Markides 2001).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy Project
Retrospect and Prospects
, pp. 28 - 40
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amit, Raffi, and Schoemaker, Paul J. H.. 1993. “Strategic Assets and Organization Rent.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, Jay B. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management 17 (March): 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzzell, Robert D. 2004. “The PIMS Program of Strategy Research: A Retrospective Appraisal.” Journal of Business Research 57: 478–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coviello, Nicole, Brodie, Roderick, Danaher, Peter, and Johnston, Wendy. 2002. “How Firms Relate to their Markets: An Empirical Examination of Contemporary Marketing Practices.” Journal of Marketing 66 (July): 33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, George S. 1998. “The Evolution of Market Driven Strategies.” Proceedings of the 14th Paul D. Converse Award. University of Illinois at Champaign
Day, George S., and Wensley, Robin. 1988. “Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority.” Journal of Marketing 52 (April): 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dierckx, Ingemar, and Cool, Karel. 1989. “Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage.” Management Science 35 (December): 1504–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markides, Costas. 2001. “Strategy as Balance: from Either-Or to And.” Business Strategy Review 12: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittal, Banwari, and Jagdish Sheth. 2001. Value Space: Winning the Battle for Market Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill
Porter, Michael E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press
Prahalad, C. K. 1995. “Weak Signals Versus Strong Paradigms.” Journal of Marketing Research 32 (August): ⅲ–ⅷCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, Rajendra, Shervani, Tassu, and Fahey, Liam. 1999. “Marketing, Business Processes and Shareholder Value: An Organizationally Embedded View of Marketing Activities and the Discipline of Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treacy, Michael, and Fred Wiersema. 1995. The Discipline of Market Leaders. New York: Addison-Wesley
Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. “A Resource-Based View of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 5: 171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×