Exploração versus exploração

Um texto que dá para reflectir um pouco:
.
"The pursuit of a sustainable advantage has long been the focus of strategy. But advantages last only until competitors have duplicated or outmaneuvered them. ... protecting advantages has become increasingly difficult. Once the advantage is copied or overcome, it is no longer an advantage. It is now a cost of doing business. Ultimately the innovator will only be able to exploit its advantage for a limited period of time before its competitors launch a counterattack. With the launch of this counterattack, the original advantage begins to erode, and a new initiative is needed.

...

Of course, if companies can extend these plateaus of sustainable advantage, they can reap profits. So what is the harm of trying to sustain an advantage for as long as possible? In an environment in which advantages are rapidly eroded, sustaining advantages can be a distraction from developing new ones. It is like shoveling sand against the tide rather than moving on to higher ground. (Moi ici: Quando ocorre uma mudança estrutural num mercado, os apoios e subsídios apenas adiam o inevitável. Por isso, são recursos desperdiçados. Talvez o mais importante deles todos seja o tempo, seja a atenção. Se o tempo é alocado a defender o passado e o presente apenas, como criar o futuro? Se só se explora (exploitation) o presente, quem explorará (exploration) o futuro)

.

Trying to sustain an existing advantage is a harvest strategy rather than a growth strategy. It is designed to milk what assets you have now rather than to seek new assets to build on. Even in high-growth markets old advantages based on old assets may not be ones that will be the source of future success. A strategy of sustaining the advantage created by your existing assets creates a danger of complacency and gives competitors time to catch up and become strong. 

.

The declining power of brands, described above, may be a result of firms seeking to sustain their static competitive strategies. Companies have rested upon the sustainable advantage of brand equity rather than building new advantages." (Moi ici: É a isto que chamo: marcas falidas. Marcas que vivem da herança e já não rasgam)

.

Trecho retirado de "Hypercompetition" de Richard D'Aveni.

Beating the Commodity Trap

O tema não é novo neste blogue. No entanto, nunca me cansarei de chamar a atenção para ele, talvez, assim, possa abrir os olhos a algumas pessoas.

.

"Traditionally, when facing low-cost competition companies try to cut costs or innovate. But this can trap them in “never-ending cycles of hypercompetition”, D’Aveni says. Survival requires smarter and subtler responses.
.
The author describes three types of commodity trap. First, there is deterioration, where low-end businesses enter with “lower cost, lower benefit” options that attract the mass market, much in the way Zara, the Spanish fashion chain, has done. In the deterioration trap, prices go down, and the benefits for customers go down too.
.
The second type is proliferation. Here, either cheaper or more expensive alternatives with “unique benefits” attack different parts of an incumbent’s market – as Japanese and American motorcycle makers did to Harley-Davidson. Prices and benefits for customers may go up or down.
.
Third, and perhaps most dramatically, there is escalation. Here, players offer more benefits for the same or lower price, squeezing everyone’s margins, as Apple has done with iPods. Prices go down and benefits for customers go up.
.
In this world of commodity traps, D’Aveni says, managers will understand what the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland meant when she said: “Here you must run faster and faster to get nowhere at all!”
.
To move on, companies must be resourceful, and “change the industry’s structure”, “redefine price” or “define new segments”.
.
How do you avoid deterioration? Diesel, the fashion business, has done this by establishing expertise in denim products, the author says. Other high-end fashion companies have begun selling “baby cashmere” clothes, made from the first combing of a young goat. You need 20 goats to make one jumper. “This is a place where low-end players cannot follow,” D’Aveni writes."

.

Retirado daqui.

.

O valor que os compradores atribuem a um bem ou serviço é algo de subjectivo, volúvel e está, como um prego em água salgada, em permanente corrosão. Quem não percebe isto...