Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and ... · Strategic Types and Technology...

Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and Biotechnology Industries in U.K.

1

XIV Congreso Internacional de la

Academia de Ciencias Administrativas A.C. (ACACIA)

Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and Biotechnology

Industries in U.K.

Mesa del trabajo: Innovación y Tecnología

Autor : Atoche-Kong, Carlos E., Candidato a Doctor

Director de la MBA (M. en Administración y Dirección de Empresas

EGADE, Campus Ciudad de México

Tecnológico de Monterrey

Instituciones de adscripción:

EGADE – CCM. Tecnológico de Monterrey

The Cambridge-MIT Institute. Cambridge, UK

Dirección : Calle del Puente Nº 222. Col. Ejidos de Huipulco

Deleg. Tlalpan. Mexico. D.F. C.P. 14380

Teléfono : (52) 5483-2376

Fax : (52) 5483-2337

Correo electrónico : [email protected]

Monterrey. 27-30 de Abril del 2010


2

Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and Biotechnology

Industries in U.K.

Abstract

How do UK firms respond to changes in their environments?, what are their strategic

orientation when perceiving and confronting changes in their environment and its impact

on innovation strategy? This research uses a multi case study method to analyze 7

aerospace corporations and 14 biotechnology firms. The Miles and Snow strategic

typology is used to identify the firms’ strategic types that can explain their strategic

behavior before these changes. I use secondary data between 2004 and 2006. These

findings are compared with previous research regarding strategic fit in similar

competitive environments.

Industry effects and the technology lifecycle are identified as drivers for explaining the

firm strategic responses. Aerospace, even a mature industry, because of its competitive

dynamism and innovative nature, responds mostly as Prospector. The apparent slow

decision taking is because of its competitive pace, and not because of the prevalence of

Defenders. Biotechnology, as a growing and innovative industry, responds rapidly and

immediately to environmental changes, and also biotech firms respond mostly as

Prospector, however some Defender players are found.

Firm specific effects are also identified as strategic decision making driver, as the

specific location of the firm in the industry value chain and resources and capabilities

stocks. Biotechnology is characterized by the presence of complex alliances: across its

value chain, co-development and licensing agreements, and involving international

players.

Cyclical lack of funding is identified as the most important environmental element in the

Biotechnology industry, and government intervention and global geopolitical phenomena

are main drivers for aerospace industry.

KEYWORDS: Technology Cycles; Biotechnology, Aerospace


3

Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and Biotechnology Industries in

U.K.

Abstract

How do UK firms respond to changes in their environments?, what are their strategic orientation

when perceiving and confronting changes in their environment and its impact on innovation

strategy? This research uses a multi case study method to analyze 7 aerospace corporations and

14 biotechnology firms. The Miles and Snow strategic typology is used to identify the firms’

strategic types that can explain their strategic behavior before these changes. I use secondary

data between 2004 and 2006. These findings are compared with previous research regarding

strategic fit in similar competitive environments.

Industry effects and the technology lifecycle are identified as drivers for explaining the firm

strategic responses. Aerospace, even a mature industry, because of its competitive dynamism and

innovative nature, responds mostly as Prospector. The apparent slow decision taking is because

of its competitive pace, and not because of the prevalence of Defenders. Biotechnology, as a

growing and innovative industry, responds rapidly and immediately to environmental changes,

and also biotech firms respond mostly as Prospector, however some Defender players are found.

Firm specific effects are also identified as strategic decision making driver, as the specific

location of the firm in the industry value chain and resources and capabilities stocks.

Biotechnology is characterized by the presence of complex alliances: across its value chain, co-

development and licensing agreements, and involving international players.

Cyclical lack of funding is identified as the most important environmental element in the

Biotechnology industry, and government intervention and global geopolitical phenomena are

main drivers for aerospace industry.


4

Introduction

Kitson et.al. (2004) developed a real time multi case study analyzing organizations in the

aerospace and biotechnology industries in U.K., finding how macroeconomic changes between

2002 and 2004 could influence corporate and managerial behavior.

This study attempts to complement the original report, covering the corporate occurrences and

comparing them with macroeconomic changes in the 24 months after the original report was

published. Macroeconomic changes are called environmental changes in this paper.

Venkatraman and Prescott (1990) argue that a proper strategic fit has significant implications for

performance, and good performance can be understood not just as above average returns but also

as survival when firms confront extremely dynamic and competitive environments. In such

environments innovation becomes one of the most important sources of competitive advantage.

This study starts analyzing literature regarding strategic fit, and then it introduces Miles and

Snow strategic typology, the technology lifecycle, the relational perspective, and the resource-

based view of the firm. Then I analyze data covering firms in the aerospace and biotechnology

industries, identifying their strategic behavior.

Finally I discuss findings from this study compared with previous research, suggesting future

research in this area.

Literature Review

Strategic fit, also called strategic coalignment, consistency, or congruency, means the internal

consistency among strategic decisions or the fit between strategic choices and contingencies

posed by environmental or organizational contexts (Venkatraman, 1990).

This concept is fundamental to strategic management, and the idea of matching organizational

resources with environmental opportunities and threats has been present since the beginning of

strategic management studies (Chandler, 1962) becoming the first strategy paradigm. The most

traditional strategic management tools, as the SWOT analysis and the Five Forces Model (Porter,

1980), try to develop this match between the firm and its environment, in order to create

competitive advantage and to generate positive economical profit.

The study of strategic fit has been vast. Venkatraman and Camillus (1984) develops a complete

study regarding its concepts and how it has been used in different management theories, a critical


5

analysis of its operationalization is found in Venkatraman (1989), and its implications on

performance are covered empirically in Venkatraman (1990) and Venkatraman and Prescott

(1990).

In order to identify alignment of organizational strategy as response to environment changes it is

required to analyze the same firms in two different time frames, as Verkatraman and Prescott

(1990) did, and it is not possible to do that in this study. This study develops the second of these

analyses. I identify the strategic options developed by each firms using their events in the period

2004-2006. This process should be developed again analyzing the same firms for 2002-2004, and

combining both results strategic changes in each firm can be identified and explained accordingly

to their environment changes.

There are two perspectives when studying strategic fit, the reductionistic and the holistic

perspectives. The former one views environment and strategy using one or few dimensions that

represent them and tries to find statistical correlation among them. The latter is based on the idea

that it is important to maintain the holistic nature of the relationship strategy-environment

(Venkatraman and Prescott, 1990). This study uses the second approach.

In order to retain a holistic approach I use a typology that takes in account all relevant and

interacting elements inside the firm “where entire organizations can be viewed as integrated

wholes in dynamic interaction with their environments” (Miles et. al. ,1978). This typology is

known as the Miles and Snow strategy typology.

The Miles and Snow strategy typology (Miles & Snow, 1978; Miles et. al, 1978) is used as

theoretical framework in order to understand the decision logic in each company. They stated that

“most organizations engage in an ongoing process of evaluating their purposes, questioning,

verifying, and redefining the manner of interaction with their environment”.

They define four strategic types adopted by all Strategic Business Unit (SBU):

• Prospectors: they are innovators and are looking for new products and markets. They

avoid long‐term commitments to a single technological process. They try to coordinate

diverse operations.

• Analyzers: they are laggers; they prefer to design the second but a better strategy than the

prospectors. They try to exploit new products and market opportunities, being efficient


6

and flexible organizations. Their organizations are continuously trying to accommodate

stable and dynamic areas.

• Defenders: they are engineering‐oriented and try to maintain their niche. They try to lock

a portion of the market, creating a stable environment. Efficiency is their main objective,

and they establish strict controls through the organization.

• Reactors: they lack of a proper strategy and react to short‐term environment requirements.

Hambrick (2003) comments that this typology is still valid and generates academic interest in the

strategic management field despite this typology has been used for more than 30 years, since

1978. Zahra and Pearce (1990) can be referred for research evidence on the Miles and Snow

typology.

The industry effects on firm behavior and performance have been extensively analyzed in the

literature (Schmalensee, 1985; McGahan & Porter, 1997), as well as the prevalence of the firm

over the industry (Rumelt, 1991) This study analyzes companies competing in two different

industries (aerospace and biotechnology), and both perspectives will be quoted when necessary.

Utterback (1996) model regarding technology lifecycle is adopted in this study, as both industries

base their main source of competitive advantage on innovation. Utterback defines three phases

(or stages in a lifecycle) in the dynamics of technology evolution:

• Fluid phase: it is the stage where the highest rates of experimentation are developed, in

the product/service design. Product innovation is high, process innovation is low.

• Transitional phase: standards emerge, and the product/service innovation lowers, at the

same time the process innovation rises.

• Specific phase: the companies are focused on costs, volume and capacity. The innovation

at the product/service and process is low.

The technology lifecycle perspective explains many strategic options deployed by companies.

Inside each industry different converging lifecycle phases are also identified.

Biotechnology industry is located between the fluid and transitional phase, with players working

at different stages of the technology lifecycle. Even this industry is starting to commercialize

biotechnology products and services, different players are located in different stages of the


7

industry value chain. Figure 01 illustrates the traditional stages that characterize the location of

biotechnology firms.

Figure 01 The lifecycle of a Biotechnology Company (Hamilton, 2005)

The location of a company in the lifecycle predetermines most of its strategic behavior, and its

competitive environment. Companies in this industry are competing even at initial technological

stages, where “potential companies” in other industries are still operating at the university labs or

in a research center.

Previous Studies Identifying Strategic Types using Miles and Snow Typology

There are many empirical researches that have used the Miles and Snow typology, some of them

identifying the distribution of strategic type among different environments and industries, and

others identifying specific features characterize the different strategic types.

Strategic Types Distribution Among Industries

Hambrick (1983), using the PIMS data base, identified the distribution of strategic types and

performance indicators in different environments (see Table 01).

Environment

# % ROI # % ROIGrowth - noninnovative 59 70% 28.5 25 30% 16Growth - Innovative 53 45% 26.8 66 55% 17.6Mature -Noninnovative 425 93% 22.8 31 7% 13.4Mature -Innovative 112 59% 21.1 79 41% 18.3

Defenders Prospectors

Table 01: Defenders and prospectors in different environments (Hambrick, 1983)


8

Using these environments this study would cover aerospace and biotechnology industries. The

former industry is a mature one; however it remains as an innovative industry. The latter is a

growing and innovative industry. I expect to find similar results in this study. The growth

industries can be considered at the fluid or transitional phase, while mature industries are at the

specific phase, using Utterback’s technology lifecycle model.

Snow and Hrebiniak (1980) found distinct competences per each strategic type, and identified

another strategic type distribution in different environments using four industries (Table 02). The

environments are differenced according to uncertainty. It can be applied when discussing

aerospace and biotechnology industries.

Strategies Perceived by Top Managers, by Industry (N=247)

Industry Defender Prospector Analyzer ReactorDid not respond

Low uncertainty Automotive 22 (40%) 17 (31%) 5 (9 %) 9 (16%) 2 (4 %) Air transportation 36 (33 %) 32 (29 %) 9 (8 %) 26 (24 %) 7 (6 %)High uncertainty Plastics 19 (34 %) 18 (32 %) 8 (14 %) 8 (14 %) 3 (5%) Semiconductors 3 (12 %) 8 (3 %) 5 (19%) 7 (27 %) 3 (12 %)

Strategy

Table 02. Strategies perceived by top managers (Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980)

Even though this second study has two limitations compared with Hambrick (1983), both studies

obtained similar results. The Snow and Hrebiniak study used the four strategic types, while

Hambrick used just two.

Capabilities and Features per Strategic Type

O’Regan and Ghobadian (2006) studied 194 SME in the electronics and engineering industries in

UK. They used manager perception to classify the strategy type, and provided characteristics per

strategy type, as “that prospector firms emphasize creativity, external orientation and

departmental co-operation to a greater extent than defender type firms. Defenders appear true to

form by emphasizing internal capabilities and control to a higher degree than prospector firms”.

DeSarbo et. al. (2005) developed a quantitative-oriented analysis, which covered 709 companies

(216 American, 248 Japanese, and 245 Chinese firms) proposing numeric methods for identifying

strategic type (using the four Miles and Snow types), firm’s capabilities, environment, and

performance. Their statistical analysis generated four strategic groups (firms with similar


9

capabilities and behavior), and each one had some tendency to specific Miles and Snow strategic

types. They also identified general characteristics for each strategic group. See Annex 01 for the

survey used in that study.

Table 03 summarizes the capabilities or distinctive competences that these studies identified per

strategy type.

Methodology

This study uses a cross‐sectional and multi case study method, using secondary data from

multiple sources of information, as corporate information, trade journals, business studies, and

major news media. This data triangulation reduces corporate information bias effects.

This study analyses organizations in the British Aerospace and the Biotechnology industries

using multiple units of analysis. The strategic decision elements differ among both industries, and

also because of the firm/corporation size, diversification, geographical scope, product lifecycle,

etc. In some cases the corporation is used as the unit of analysis, in other cases the unit is the

business unit, and, especially in the biotechnology industry, the product pipeline and inter‐firm

interactions (alliances, mergers and acquisitions) are analyzed.

Data Collection

The data was collected from different sources, according to its availability and the nature or the

organization. Annex 03 summarizes the reports and data sets collected per company. At least

three different data sets were collected per company.

The sources of data for public companies were Datamonitor databases, Mergent Online, Osiris

and Factiva (major news sources and trade journals). For private companies the sources were

Factiva (major news sources and trade journals), Fame and Amadeus databases1.

In order to collect enough information regarding each company I looked for the firm’s name in

the “full article” in all sources between 01/01/2004 and 31/12/2006. In case that too many articles

were found, I reduced the search scope, using just headline and leading paragraph, or using just

European, UK, and US major news. At least 100 and no more than 200 articles per firm were the

criteria to change the searching options among regional trade news.

1 FAME combines comprehensive information regarding UK firms, Amadeus is a similar one containing European companies data.


10

Re

fere

nc

eD

efe

nd

er

Pro

sp

ec

tor

An

aly

ze

rR

ea

cto

r

Sn

ow

an

d H

reb

inia

k (

19

80

)G

en

era

l M

an

ag

em

en

tG

en

era

l M

an

ag

em

en

tG

en

era

l M

an

ag

em

en

tF

ina

nc

ial

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Pro

du

ct

R&

DE

ng

ine

eri

ng

En

gin

ee

rin

gE

ng

ine

eri

ng

Ma

rke

tin

g-S

ell

ing

Pro

du

cti

on

De

Sa

rbo

et.

al.

(2

00

5)

(De

f 5

5%

, R

ea

45

%)

(Pro

52

%,

An

a 3

2%

)(A

na

43

%,

De

f 2

7%

, P

ro 2

6%

)(A

na

54

%,

Pro

46

%)

Ma

rke

tin

g C

ap

ab

ilit

ies

Te

ch

on

olo

gy

C

ap

ab

ilit

ies

Ma

rke

t-li

nk

ing

(M

ark

et-

se

ns

ing

, D

ura

ble

re

lati

on

s w

ith

s

up

pli

ers

, C

ha

nn

el-

bo

nd

ing

)M

ark

eti

ng

Ca

pa

bil

itie

s

Ma

rke

t-li

nk

ing

C

ap

ab

ilit

ies

Info

rma

tio

n

Te

ch

no

log

y

Ca

pa

bil

itie

s

Ma

ng

m.

Ca

p.

(Co

st

co

ntr

ol,

fin

an

cia

l m

an

ag

., P

rofi

t. R

ev

. F

ore

c.,

ma

rke

tin

g

pla

nn

. P

roc

.)M

an

ag

em

en

t C

ap

ab

ilit

ies

Ma

ng

m.

Ca

p.

(Pro

fita

bil

ity

an

d

rev

en

ue

fo

rec

as

tin

g,

Ma

rke

tin

g p

lan

nin

g

pro

ce

ss

)

Ma

rke

t-li

nk

ing

(C

us

tom

er-

lin

kin

g

ca

pa

bil

itie

s)

O'R

eg

an

an

d G

ho

ba

dia

n (

20

06

)1

. In

tern

al

ori

en

tati

on

(6

4%

)1

. S

taff

cre

ati

vit

y

(65

%)

1.

Inte

rna

l o

rie

nta

tio

n

(30

%)

1.

Inte

rna

l c

oo

pe

rati

on

(2

0%

)2

. E

xte

rna

l O

rie

nta

tio

n (

45

%)

2.

Ex

tern

al

ori

en

tati

on

(4

5%

)2

. D

ep

art

me

nta

l-

Co

op

era

tio

n (

20

%)

2.

Ex

tern

al

co

op

era

tio

n (

20

%)

3.

Str

ate

gy

-Co

ntr

ol

(40

%)

3.

De

pa

rtm

en

tal-

co

op

era

tio

n (

48

%)

3.

Sta

ff c

rea

tiv

ity

(2

00

%)

3.

Str

ate

gy

co

ntr

ol

(20

%)

Tra

ns

ac

tio

na

lH

um

an

Re

so

urc

es

Hu

ma

n R

es

ou

rce

sT

ran

sa

cti

on

al

Hu

ma

n R

es

ou

rce

sT

ran

sfo

rma

tio

na

l

"Strategic type"

"Leadership type"

Table 03. Capabilities and Distinctive Competences per Strategic Type

Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and Biotechnology Industries

in U.K.

11

Data Analysis

The Datamonitor’s “Company Profiles” and “SWOT analysis” were the initial

information sources, if available. The annual reports were reviewed in order to identify

strategic directions and relevant decisions taken in the analyzed period.

The Amadeus and Fame general reports provide some financial information of UK

companies, as well as their dynamism, as mergers and acquisitions (M&A), dissolutions

and patent information.

The media news were used intensively in the biotechnology firms, as they lack of

formal and public information. The news were “skimmed” and news logs were created

for each company, with the most relevant paragraphs that commented companies

changes and features, and provided some strategic insights. With this method most of

the recent company history was recreated.

Strategic Type Identification

I identified the strategic orientation for each firm using the criteria used in the

questionnaire provided by Snow and Hrebianiak (1980) (see Annex 02). I used also the

distinct competences and some characteristics per type as identified by O’Regan and

Ghobadian (2006), and specific capabilities per strategic type as identified by DeSarbo

et.al. (2005)2.

When a firm had combined features of different strategic types, I chose its type taking in

account what strategic type was more recalled by these features.

The Macroeconomic Environment

The macroeconomic environment was analyzed at two different levels: at the country

and at the industry level later, identifying the most important factors that affected

organizational strategic decisions.

U.K. Competitive Environment3

The United Kingdom is the second largest European economy, and the fourth largest

economy in the world. During the twentieth century UK has been declining

economically, but in the last decade its economic performance was steady, with a GDP

2 I summarize these criteria in Table 03. 3 See Datamonitor (2005b) and EIU (2005)


in U.K.

12

growth of 2.5% during 1999-2004 (55 continuous quarters of growth), creating a

favorable business environment.

Despite its complicated and high tax structure, U.K. has remained as one of the world

largest recipients of FDI (1st in 2005, UNCTAD, 2006).

U.K.’s economic growth hidden that U.K has structural inefficiencies, such as lack of

innovation (compared to the U.S. and European leader players) that will cause a decline

in its growth forecasts in next years. An interesting issue is that foreign innovation

developed in U.K. is growing: inward investors now account for one-third of business

research and development spending (R&D). It can generate technology appropriation

problems.

The manufacturing sector is declining, accounting for just 15% of UK GDP, but

remains some strong sectors, as pharmaceuticals, electrical and optical equipment. The

strength of sterling is another obstacle for its development, as most of goods produced

are exported. Manufacturing sectors have lost 1 million jobs in the last years. In the

other side services is growing at an impressive pace, having created 4 million jobs in the

same years.

As a summary, the U.K. economic environment is contradictory, even though a

sustained growth is observed; manufacturing sectors are declining, as well as innovation

and technological competitiveness, but at the same time receiving strong funds from

foreign companies in innovative activities. Services sectors are supporting U.K.

economic growth.

The Aerospace Industry

Aerospace is a mature, global and concentrated industry4, and bases its revenues on

manufacturing civil and military aerospace, and defense equipment and parts

(Datamonitor,2005a).

This industry has some peculiar characteristics:

- Expensive and time consuming product development: the development of a new

airplane model costs billions of dollars, and it can take up to 10 years

- The demand can not be forecasted

4 Civil and military aircraft production is in the hands of few players: Boeing and Lockhead Martin in the U.S., and BAE Systems and EADS in Europe.


in U.K.

13

- Government support, especially in Europe

- Importance of State Defense and Security Departments in the industry (the

industry is sensible to spending cuts, or the emergence of unexpected

requirements).

The global aerospace market is divided 86.4% in the defense sector and 13.6% in the

civil sector. In UK defense accounts for 75% and civil sector for 25%.

The global aerospace industry has growth 4.3% per year in the 2000-2004 period, its

European division grew just 0.7% per year in the same period, and the U.K. division

juts 0.1% per year. The U.S. industry is the one that benefited most of the global market

growth, and the U.K. industry remains as the largest one in Europe. The European

market is valued in USD 249.9 billions, and the UK market in USD 50.9 billions

(20.11% of the European market).

The “9/11 event” has changed the dynamism of this industry, and because of its global

nature, it has affected to American and European players. In the civil sector it caused a

plumb in civil aircraft demand; however in the defense sector it started an increase in

demand. This resulted in a net increase in the global, European and U.K. market, but

with differenced effects on each large player (according to their market mix).

It is expected that the UK market will grow to 59 billion to 2009 (3.5% annual), with

the highest rate in Europe, recovering part of market share that has lost in the last years.

The Biotechnology Industry

Biotechnology is defined as “the manipulation (as through genetic engineering) of

living organisms or their components to produce useful and usually commercial

products” (Merrian-Webster online dictionary). Biotechnology market consists of the

development, manufacturing and marketing of products based on advanced

biotechnology research (Datamonitor, 2006). These markets include pharmaceuticals,

agriculture, food, chemicals, and pollution controls. This study is limited to

pharmaceutical biotechnology. Revenues in this industry consist on product sales,

licensing fees, royalties and research funding.

This industry is in its fluid and transitional stages, characterized by large R&D

investments (over 500 million USD per approved drug), long new product development

cycles (up to 10 years, Datamonitor, 2006), close links with university and research


in U.K.

14

centers (as a science-based industry), and complex regulatory for drug approval. These

elements create high risk-perception in the market, but also high potential pay off that

creates sensitive competitive environment.

Hamilton (2005) identifies some drivers and resistors for this industry, as seen in Table

04. Innovation gap in pharmaceutical industries is one of the most important drivers in

this industry. Pharmaceutical’s response to this weakness is the acquisition of

biotechnology firms, as I found in this study, even with the acquisition of very large

biotech companies. In the resistor side, the emergence of bio-generics and regulations

are two of the most important obstacles for the industry development. Funding is a

cyclic phenomenon: before 2001 funds were available for almost any biotech initiative,

until the bursting of the high-tech bubble. In 2004 funds again started to increase, and

some analysts expect that this trend will create another bubble. In this moment funding

is a resistor for the industry, especially in Europe.

Drivers Resistors

Innovation gap in pharma R&D Government costs

Patent expiries of traditional blockbuster

drugs

Generics in biotechnology industry

(biogenerics)

Higher approval rates in biotechnology Sales and marketing capabilities

Diagnostic innovation Regulations

Fulfilling unmet ideas Funding resources and analyst perception

Enabling technologies Ethics and public concerns

Investors confidence

Table 04. Biotechnology industry drivers and resistors (Hamilton, 2005)

Despite the bursting of the high-tech bubble, the global biotechnology market has

grown at 12.8% per year in the period 2001-2005, with total revenues of 126.3 billion

USD in 2005 (77.7 billion USD in medical segment). UK market was 7.7 billion USD,

with 5.4 billion USD in medical segment. It is expected to grow at 12.3% per year at the

global level (226 billion USD in 2010), and in U.K. its growth could be 10.1 % (12.5

billion USD), increasing the industry gap between US and UK.

The industry is also highly concentrated: ten top biotechnology players have 80% of

total revenues. However small and medium enterprises (SME) proliferate in the industry

in the initial stages.


in U.K.

15

UK is the European leader: 49% of products in pipeline, and 62% of biotechnology

drugs in phase III in Europe are from UK (Sainsbury, 2003)

This industry is in its fluid phase, as most of the investment is directed to develop new

products instead of manufacturing them. However there are some players that have

jumped to the transition phase, and they are operating at commercialization stage.

Figure 01 identifies the different maturity levels of firms in this industry. Thus firms can

be classified as technology providers and developers, as early-stage drug developers, as

late-stage drug developers, and as fully integrated players.

Government intervention is high as regulator, as well as with taxation and funding

policy. Sainsbury (2003) reported that R&D tax credits in U.K. represented a

government investment of 500 million pounds (Aprox. 900 million USD).

The industry requires more funding than available, causing a lower growth rate than it

could do. This is one of the differences between the UK and US biotechnology markets.

Another relevant characteristic of the industry is the importance of the R&D and

technological collaboration among players, including the big pharmaceutical

corporations, and public and private research centers. The industry creates regional

clusters in specific locations, as the Cambridge and the East London Biotechnology

Clusters in U.K.

Company Analysis

Aerospace Industry

Aerospace industry is highly concentrated, and technology innovation is a common

competitive feature that every player must own, and it does not mean that the company

should be a Prospector organisation.

According to Hambrick (1983) this industry there should be more Defenders than

Prospectors, however this report identified five Prospector companies, and just two

Defender ones. The strategic type identification can be seen in Table 05.

Airbus is a typical Prospector-type company. Airbus developed first-mover advantage

strategy with its A380 design, the international R&D joint-ventures is also another

innovation initiative that provides more first-mover advantages. Fuel reduction projects

are other activities that strengths technological capabilities, thus providing more support


in U.K.

16

for the Prospector-type strategy. Rapid response to B787 threat, with the design of A350

supports Analyzer features, but as a whole I classify Airbus as a Prospector company.

BAE Systems, even though is Airbus’ owner, develops a different strategy. I found

high R&D intensity (Prospector feature), but BAE Systems’ main strategies are directed

to secure its current competitive position, to create barriers to entry, and to reduce costs,

becoming a profit driven company. Thus BAE Systems is a Defender competitor in

aerospace industry.

Complete company analysis of all seven players are available upon request.

Biotechnology Industry

Biotechnology is a science-based industry, then it is expected that most of the firms

were prospector companies, especially firms located in the lowest maturity levels (see

Figure 01).

Table 06 summarizes the strategy type identification process. I found 9 Prospector, 1

Defender, and 1 Analyzer firms. There are three companies that were dissolved

(Adprotech, Cellfactors, and Iceni) and they did not have enough information.

M&A processes are also quite common in this industry. Almost all firms in this sample

were involved in this activity: acquiring other firms, or being acquired.

Strategic alliances are also common, creating complex collaboration networks. Every

company is aware that lacks the sufficient resources to compete successfully in this

market, thus it complements them using collaboration agreements. These alliances are

not just along the value chain (technology, trials, commercialization), but also involving

players from different parts of the world.

An interesting example of these alliances was Domantis alliance agreements: In these

agreements Domantis remained as technology generator (first maturity level), as it lacks

of experience and funds to rise to the next maturity level (trial phases), signed an

agreement with Peptech, so Peptech develops pre-clinical activities. In a similar way,

Peptech, even with some commercialization capabilities required additional support at

this level, and signed an additional agreement with Biosceptre to co-develop

commercialization activities.

.


17

Pro

sp

ecto

rD

efe

nd

er

An

aly

zer

Reacto

r

Airbus

- F

irst

mover

with A

380

√-

Rapid

resp

onse

with A

350 t

o 7

87

√√

- In

novative f

uel consu

mption r

eduction

√-

Str

ate

gic

alli

ances

for

co-d

esi

gn a

nd c

o-d

evelo

pm

ent

with C

hin

a,

Japan,

and

Russ

ia (

firs

t m

over

in inte

rnational te

chnolo

gy t

ransf

er

in c

lose

d a

ero

space R

&D

opera

tions)

√

BAE Systems

- H

igh R

&D

expenditure

s (1

2.8

- 1

3.6

%)

√-

Div

ers

ifie

d m

ark

ets

√

- C

ash

genera

tor

√

- F

inancia

l m

anagem

ent

stre

ngth

√

- It

is

reest

ructu

ring e

uro

pean o

pera

tions

(cost

reduction)

√

- A

pro

fita

ble

ori

ente

d o

rganiz

ation

√

GKN Plc

- T

echnolo

gy leaders

hip

√

- D

evelo

pin

g innovative c

om

posi

te s

tructu

res

√

- M

ark

et

leaders

hip

tro

ugh t

echnolo

gic

al in

novations

√

- T

echnolo

gy d

riven a

cquis

itio

ns

(rein

forc

ing t

echnolo

gic

al capabili

ties)

√

Goodrich Corporation

- Leader

develo

pin

g a

nd im

pro

vin

g t

echnolo

gy a

nd p

rocess

es

(lean p

roduction)

√

- A

pply

ing innovative t

echnolo

gie

s w

ith c

ust

om

ers

√

- O

pera

tional excelle

nce:

pro

cess

innovations

√

- F

irst

cost

eff

icie

nt,

fully

inte

gra

ted b

reakin

g s

yst

em

√

- C

ontr

acts

to c

olla

bora

te w

ith m

ost

modern

air

pla

ne m

odels

: B

787,

A350,

A380

√

- S

pin

off

s fr

om

opera

tions

√

- H

igh R

&D

inte

nsi

ty levels

√

Rolls Royce

- R

olls

Royce is

the b

enchm

ark

for

every

engin

e t

echnolo

gy p

layer

√

- S

trate

gy:

long t

erm

gro

wth

base

d o

n t

echnolo

gic

al in

novations

√

- H

igh R

&D

inte

nsi

ty√

- P

ioneer

in U

niv

ers

ity T

echnolo

gy C

ente

r N

etw

ork

s (U

.K.,

Norw

ay,

Germ

any)

√

- 306 p

ate

nts

per

year

√

Smiths Group Plc

- F

ocuse

d R

&D

√

- T

echnolo

gy d

riven a

cquis

itio

ns

(rein

forc

ing t

echnolo

gic

al capabili

ties)

√

- H

igh R

&D

inte

nsi

ty (

Apro

x.

10%

revenues)

√

- 20%

of

pro

ducts

were

develo

ped in t

he last

3 y

ears

in m

edic

al se

cto

r√

Thales

- P

roduct

div

ers

ific

ation s

trate

gy

√

- G

eogra

phic

al m

ark

et:

geogra

phic

al div

ers

ific

ation

√-

Covers

entire

suply

chain

(vert

ical in

tegra

tion,

cost

reduction)

√

Str

ate

gic

ori

en

tati

on

Co

mp

an

yS

ign

ific

an

t fe

atu

res,

eve

nts

Assig

ne

d

Str

ate

gic

T

yp

e

Pro

sp

ec

tor

Pro

sp

ec

tor

De

fen

de

r

Pro

sp

ec

tor

De

fen

de

r

Pro

sp

ec

tor

Pro

sp

ec

tor

Table 05. Aerospace Companies: Strategic Type Identification.


in U.K.

18

I identified also pipeline portfolio as an important strategic asset. Many M&A or

funding decisions were based on pipeline potential, especially if the firm had advanced

candidates in its pipeline. In this case it became a good candidate to receive funding or

to be acquired. I explain three cases, the rest of cases are available upon request.

Arakis is not an orthodox biotech company. It has strong technology scanning

capabilities that permits it to identify useful existing and, if possible, available

technologies, or off-patent drugs. This way Arakis identifies low risk opportunities that

allow it to develop its drugs in a quite rapid pace. Using this “Analyzer” approach,

Arakis could have 7 products in pipeline, 5 of them in advanced stages, in just 4 years.

A typical Prospector company is Biowisdom. It became market leader because of the

quality of its technology offer. Biowisdom is committed to develop and launch new

products continuously, increasing its technological capabilities, with high R&D

investment, or via M&A activities (as LION bioscience acquisition to incorporate bio-

informatics capabilities).

Mature biotech companies use to perform as Defenders, as CAT and Celltech Group,

because of their commercialization activities. Perhaps, as public companies (early-stage

firms use to be private companies), their commitment with shareholders forces them to

become profit-driven firms, adopting Defender tactics.

Celltech Group is a special case. When it was working as an independent company it

started to create barrier to entry (vertical integration), its alliances and M&A were

oriented to this purpose and to complement resources in an effort to optimize its

processes, acquiring mature products (requiring stronger production and engineering

capabilities) that could generate cash, and creating a specific division oriented to

generate profit. This is a Defender structure.

When Celltech Group was acquired by UCB (May 2004), Celltech Group’s strategy

changed dramatically, as UCB required a different approach in order to align Celltech

activities to its corporate strategies. Celltech Group became the “Technology

Generator” for UCB Corporation. UCB decided to cancel many licensing agreements

that could difficult Celltech’s technology developments, adopting as strategy for

Celltech the development of new products, and rising its R&D intensity. Thus, Celltech

Group changed its strategy from Defender to Prospector. This was the only case of

dramatic strategic change identified in this study.


in U.K.

19

Prospector Defender Analyzer Reactor

Adprotech - It had Phase I and II in advance (entry stage in drug development)- It was acquired by Inflazyme on april 2004 There is not enough information-Inflazyme decided to close its operations

Arakis - Products in Phase Iia and IIb (Late-stage drug development) √- Strategy: to identify useful existing technology √- Another source of opportunities: off-patent drugs √- Arakis looks for low risk and rapid development opportunities √- In 4 years it has 7 products in development, 5 of them in advanced stages! √ √- It was acquired by Sosei (Japan), at 106.5 million pounds

Astex - Multiple pipelines in development √- Complementary technologies (x-ray) √ √- Management capabilities √ √ √- Alliances to strenght technological capabilities √

Biowisdom - Market leader in delivering biological intelligence to pharmaceutical industry √ √- Strength of technological capabilities √- Launch of new developments √

- It acquired LION bioscience, a bioinformatics company (technol. Capabil. Strength) √

CAT - CAT covers all the lifecycle (trials, commercialization and internationalization) √ √- CAT's specific technologies (barriers to entry) √ √- Library (technological capability and barriers to entry) √ √- Multiple technology offers (TC and barrier to entry) √ √- Continuous capability formation √- Everything is about antibodies

Cellfactor - It provided service to other companies to identify new technologies √ √- It entered to administration There is not enough information

Celltech Group

- Celltech Groupcovers all the lifecycle (trials, commercialization, and internationalization) √ √

(as independent firm) - Alliances with other biotech and pharma (complementary capabilities) √ √- Mature products (engineering and production) √- One division focused on profit (financial management) √

Celltech Group - UCB acquired celltech Group in May 2004(UCB's subsidiary) - UCB-Celltech cancelled many licensing agreements √

- New strategy: to develop new products √

- Higher R&D intensity √

CeNeS Pharmaceuticals - Phase II and III (Late-stage drug development) √

-Patents grants √

- Alliances with biotec (Xention) and pharma (GlaxoSmithKlein) √

- Strong presence in scientific events and journals √

Domantis - Late-stage drug development √

- Patents granted √

- Novell Technology √

- Alliances with bio (Argenta) and pharma (Abbot): reinforce techn. Capabilities √

- Domantis: Technology generator, Peptech: preclinical, Peptech/Biosceptre: commerc. √Iceni - Phase II (early-stage drug development)

- Disolved There is not enough information

Ionix - Phase II (V1003, IX-1003) (Early-stage drug development) √

- R&D driven activities √

- Alliance with Achimedes: technol. Capabilities acquisition √

- Alliance with Rockitt Benckiser Healthcare (development and commercialization) √ √- It was acquired by Versalis

Lorantis - Phase II (Hepvax) √

- Alliances with bio (Coriza corp, Althea Technol., and Power Med) √

- It was acquired by Celldex

solexa - Provides services (commercialization) √

- R&D intensity √

Vernalis - Vernalis covers all the lifecycle (trials, commercialization and internationalization) √ √- Strategy: profitability and sustainability √

- Strategy: to build a leading R&D-based specialty bio-pharmaceutical comp. √

- Alliances √

Prospector

Prospector

Defender

Prospector

Prospector

Defender

Prospector

Analizer

Prospector

Prospector

Prospector

Prospector

Strategic orientationCompany Significant features, eventsAssigned Strategic

Type

Table 06. Biotechnology Companies. Strategic Type Identification.


in U.K.

20

Discussion and Conclusions

This study analyses the effects of environment changes on organization strategic

decisions in the Aerospace and Biotechnology industries. Firms’ reactions to

environmental conditions and changes typify the strategy orientation that each one of

these firms has adopted.

Findings in this study contradict Hambrick’s strategic composition in similar

environments (Aerospace has a mature and innovative environment, and Biotechnology

a growth and innovative environment). Schmalensee (1985) provides an explanation

when suggesting that industry affects firms’ behavior and performance. Hambrick

(1983) studied 649 companies in PIMS database, locating many industries together

under the label “mature-innovative” environment. I think that particular features of

Biotechnology and Aerospace industry, and temporal context effects have determined

the different strategic choices in each firm in those industries.

A common characteristic that I found in both industries is the high levels of R&D

investments, however at different intensity in each industry. This characteristic tells us

that even Defenders will have strong innovation capabilities, as it is necessary to acquire

competitive parity in their industries, and it is not any more the specific feature to

identify Prospector firms in these industries. It made it a bit more difficult the

identification process in the study.

There are large differences among both industries: Aerospace is a high concentrated and

vertical integrated industry that causes the existence of multinational corporations

(MNC) at the integrator level as well as at the supplier level (e.g. Rolls Royce is a MNC

supplier). There are not small firms in this industry.

Biotechnology is quite different. Even tough biotechnology is a consolidated industry at

commercialization level (top 10 players generate 80% of industry revenues), at the

technological and trial stages it is crowded by small and micro companies. Most of

companies analyzed in this industry have less than 50 employees. A common issue is

the necessity to develop alliances in order to gain competitive parity and to complement

resources and to acquire the minimum number of drug pipelines in order to survive.

Another interesting finding is the importance of management in this novel industry.

Competitive management teams provide trust to financial sector, and funding is the

most important survival factor for firms working in this industry.


in U.K.

21

Further Research

It was not possible to identify changes in strategic orientation to confront changes in the

environment, as it was proposed in the initial research question, but companies’

strategic actions to accommodate to new circumstances gave the necessary insights to

identify their “strategic orientation”.

In order to answer the original question it is required to develop this study in another

period of time to compare the strategic types that same firms were using. Identifying

changes in environment and strategic types in these firms will be useful to conduct

interviews to find causalities in these decisions.

I also suggest developing a classification of firms according to their strategic type using

the provided surveys.

References

Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American

Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press.

Conant, J., M. Mokwa, et al. (1990). "Strategic Types, Distinctive Marketing

Competencies and Organizational Performance: A Multiple Measures-Based

Study." Strategic Management Journal 11(5): 365-383.

Datamonitor (2005a). "Global Aerospace & Defense 2005. Industry profile." Industry

Profile. Global Aerospace & Defense 2005: 1-16.

Datamonitor (2005b). "United Kingdom Country Profile 2005." Country Profile. United

Kingdom: 1-36.

Datamonitor (2006). "Biotechnology in the United Kingdom. Industry profile."

Industry profile. Biotechnology Industry: 1-18.

Desarbo, W., C. Di Benedetto, et al. (2005). "Revisiting the miles and snow strategic

framework: uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities,

environmental uncertainty, and firm performance." Strategic Management

Journal 26(1): 47-74.

EIU (2005). "Country Profile 2005: United Kingdom." Country Profile. United

Kingdom: 1-54.


in U.K.

22

Hambrick, D. (1983). "Some Tests of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of

Miles and Snow's Strategic Types." The Academy of Management Journal

26(1): 5-26.

Hambrick, D. (2003). "On the staying power of defenders, analyzers, and prospectors."

Academy of Management Executive 17(4): 115-118.

Hamilton, G. (2005). The Biotechnology Market Outlook. Growth opportunities and

effective strategiesfor licensing and collaborations., Business Insight Ltd: 1-

112.

Kitson, M., D. Primost, et al. (2004). Corporate Responses to Macroeconomic Changes

and Shocks. Cambridge, ESRC Research Report.

McGahan, A. and M. Porter (1997). "How Much Does Industry Matter, Really?"

Strategic Management Journal 18(s 1): 15-30.

Miles, R. and C. Snow (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process, Ebrary.

Miles, R., C. Snow, et al. (1978). "Organizational strategy, Structure, and Process." The

Academy of Management Review 3(3): 546-562.

O'Regan, N. and A. Ghobadian (2006). "Perceptions of generic strategies of small and

medium sized engineering and electronics manufacturers in the UK: The

applicability of the Miles and Snow typology." Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management 17(5): 603-620.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy, Free Press New York.

Rumelt, R. (1991). "How Much Does Industry Matter?" Strategic Management Journal

12(3): 167-185.

Sainsbury, L. (2003). "Comment: the UK government's strategic approach to the

biotechnology industry'." Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 9(3): 189-

191.

Schmalensee, R. (1985). "Do Markets Differ Much?" American Economic Review

75(3): 341.

Snow, C. and L. Hrebiniak (1980). "Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and

Organizational Performance." Administrative Science Quarterly 25(2): 317-

336.


in U.K.

23

UNCTAD (2006). World Investment Report 2006. . FDI from Developing ans

Transition Economies, UNCTAD.

Utterback, J. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation, Harvard Business School

Press Boston, MA, USA.

Venkatraman, N. (1989). "Strategic Orientation Of Business Enterprises: The Construct,

Dimensionality, And Measurement." Management Science 35(8): 942-962.

Venkatraman, N. (1990). "Performance Implications Of Strategic Coalignment: A

Methodological Perspective." Journal of Management Studies 27(1): 19.

Venkatraman, N. and J. C. Camillus (1984). "Exploring the Concept of 'Fit' in Strategic

Management." Academy of Management Review 9(3): 513.

Venkatraman, N. and J. Prescott (1990). "Environment-Strategy Coalignment: An

Empirical Test of Its Performance Implications." Strategic Management

Journal 11(1): 1-23.

Zahra, S. and J. Pearce (1990). "Research Evidence On The Miles-Snow Typology."

Journal of Management 16(4): 751.


in U.K.

24

Annex 01: Roadmap of Scale, Measurement Items, and Sources.

Miles and Snow Typology Items

(From DeSarbo et. al., 2005; adapted from Conant et. al., 1990)

The following statements describe some characteristics of this selected strategic

business unit/division. Please circle the description that best describes

this selected business unit.

1. In comparison to our competitors, the products which we provide to our customers

are best described as: (Entrepreneurial—product market domain)

a. Products that are more innovative, and continually changing.

b. Products that are fairly stable in certain markets while innovative in other

markets.

c. Products that are stable and consistently defined throughout the market.

d. Products that are in a state of transition, and largely respond to opportunities

and threats in the marketplace.

2. In contrast to our competitors, we have an image in the marketplace that:

(Entrepreneurial— success posture)

a. Offers fewer, select products which are high in quality.

b. Adopts new ideas and innovations, but only after careful analysis.

c. Reacts to opportunities or threats in the marketplace to maintain or enhance our

position.

d. Has a reputation for being innovative and creative.

3. The amount of time our business unit spends on monitoring changes and trends in

the marketplace can best be described as: (Entrepreneurial—surveillance)

a. Lengthy: We are continuously monitoring the marketplace.

b. Minimal: We really don’t spend much time monitoring the marketplace.

c. Average: We spend a reasonable amount of time monitoring the marketplace.

d. Sporadic: We sometimes spend a great deal of time and at other times spend

little time monitoring the marketplace.

4. In comparison to our competitors, the increases or losses in demand that we have

experienced are due most probably to: (Entrepreneurial— growth)

a. Our practice of concentrating on more fully developing those markets which we

currently serve.

b. Our practice of responding to the pressures of the marketplace by taking few

risks.

c. Our practice of aggressively entering into new markets with new types of

products.


in U.K.

25

d. Our practice of assertively penetrating more deeply into markets we currently

serve, while adopting new products after a very careful review of their potential.

5. One of the most important goals in these business units in comparison to our

competitors is our dedication and commitment to: (Engineering—technological goal)

a. Keep our costs under control.

b. Analyze our costs and revenues carefully, to keep costs under control and to

selectively generate new products or enter new markets.

c. Insure that the people, resources and equipment required to develop new

products and new markets are available and accessible.

d. Make sure we guard against critical threats by taking any action necessary.

6. In contrast to our competitors, the competencies (skills) which our managerial

employees possess can best be characterized as: (Engineering—technological

breadth)

a. Analytical: their skills enable them to both identify trends and then develop new

products or markets.

b. Specialized: their skills are concentrated into one, or a few, specific areas.

c. Broad and entrepreneurial: their skills are diverse, flexible, and enable change

to be created.

d. Fluid: their skills are related to the near term demands of the marketplace.

7. The one thing that protects us from its competitors is that we: (Engineering—

technological buffers)

a. Are able to carefully analyze emerging trends and adopt only those which have

proven potential.

b. Are able to do a limited number of things exceptionally well.

c. Are able to respond to trends even though they may possess only moderate

potential as they arise.

d. Are able to consistently develop new products and new markets.

8. More so than many of our competitors, our management staff in this business unit

tends to concentrate on: (Administrative—dominant coalition)

a. Maintaining a secure financial position through cost and quality control.

b. Analyzing opportunities in the marketplace and selecting only those

opportunities with proven potential, while protecting a secure financial position.

c. Activities or business functions which most need attention given the

opportunities or problems we currently confront.

d. Developing new products and expanding into new markets or market segments.

9. In contrast to many of our competitors, this business unit prepares for the future by:

(Administrative—planning)


in U.K.

26

a. Identifying the best possible solutions to those problems or challenges which

require immediate attention.

b. Identifying trends and opportunities in the marketplace which can result in the

creation of product offerings which are new to the industry or reach new

markets.

c. Identifying those problems which, if solved, will maintain and then improve our

current product offerings and market position.

d. Identifying those trends in the industry which our competitors have proven

possess long-term potential while also solving problems related to our current

product offerings and our current customers’ needs.

10. In comparison to our competitors, our organization structure is: (Administrative—

structure)

a. Functional in nature (i.e., organized by department—marketing, accounting,

personnel, etc.).

b. Product or market oriented.

c. Primarily functional (departmental) in nature; however, a product- or market

oriented structure does exist in newer or larger product offering areas.

d. Continually changing to enable us to meet opportunities and solve problems as

they arise.

11. Unlike our competitors, the procedures we use to evaluate performance are best

described as:

a. Decentralized and participatory encouraging many organizational members to

be involved.

b. Heavily oriented toward those reporting requirements which demand immediate

attention.

c. Highly centralized and primarily the responsibility of senior management.

d. Centralized in more established product areas and more participatory in new

product areas.


in U.K.

27

Annex 02: Strategy Types Identification

(From Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980)


28

An

nex

03.

Co

llec

ted

Dat

a p

er C

om

pan

y

Co

lle

cte

d R

ep

ort

sO

siri

s

Co

de

Na

me

Pri

nte

dD

igit

al

To

tal

Co

mp

an

y

Pro

file

SW

OT

Cu

sto

miz

ed

rep

ort

An

nu

al

Re

po

rt 2

00

5

An

nu

al

Re

po

rt 2

00

4

An

nu

al

Re

po

rt 2

00

3

An

nu

al

Re

po

rt 2

00

2

An

nu

al

Re

po

rt 2

00

1

Ge

ne

ral

Re

po

rtS

um

ma

ry

De

tail

ed

ne

ws

Ge

ne

ral

Re

po

rt

On

e-P

ag

e

Re

po

rt

12

34

85

67

A0

1A

irb

us

UK

20

20

1‐A

01

‐P(I

ncl

ud

ed

)N

o0

2‐A

01

‐PN

oN

oN

oN

o

A0

2B

AE

Sy

ste

ms

44

80

3‐A

02

‐P0

4‐A

02

‐P0

5‐A

02

‐P0

6‐A

02

‐P0

7‐A

02

‐D0

8‐A

02

‐D0

9‐A

02

‐D1

0‐A

02

‐D

A0

3G

KN

Ae

rosp

ace

25

71

1‐A

03

‐P(I

ncl

ud

ed

)1

2‐A

03

‐P1

3‐A

03

‐D1

4‐A

03

‐D1

5‐A

03

‐D1

6‐A

03

‐D1

7‐A

03

‐D

A0

4G

oo

dri

ch2

57

18

‐A0

4‐P

(In

clu

de

d)

19

‐A0

4‐P

20

‐A0

4‐D

21

‐A0

4‐D

22

‐A0

4‐D

23

‐A0

4‐D

24

‐A0

4‐D

A0

5R

oll

s R

oy

ce4

48

25

‐A0

5‐P

26

‐A0

5‐P

27

‐A0

5‐P

28

‐A0

5‐P

29

‐A0

5‐D

30

‐A0

5‐D

31

‐A0

5‐D

32

‐A0

5‐D

A0

6Sm

ith

s A

ero

spa

ce3

36

33

‐A0

6‐P

(In

clu

de

d)

34

‐A0

6‐P

35

‐A0

6‐P

36

‐A0

6‐D

37

‐A0

6‐D

38

‐A0

6‐D

No

A0

7T

ha

les

Av

ion

ics

44

83

9‐A

07

‐P4

0‐A

07

‐P4

1‐A

07

‐P4

2‐A

07

‐P4

3‐A

07

‐D4

4‐A

07

‐D4

5‐A

07

‐D4

6‐A

07

‐D

B0

1A

dp

rote

ch3

14

47

‐B0

1‐P

48

‐B0

1‐D

49

‐B0

1‐P

50

‐B0

1‐P

B0

2A

rak

is3

14

51

‐B0

2‐P

52

‐B0

2‐D

53

‐B0

2‐P

54

‐B0

2‐P

B0

3A

ste

x3

14

55

‐B0

3‐P

56

‐B0

3‐D

57

‐B0

3‐P

58

‐B0

3‐P

B0

4B

iow

isd

om

31

45

9‐B

04

‐P6

0‐B

04

‐D6

1‐B

04

‐P6

2‐B

04

‐P

B0

5C

AT

74

11

63

‐B0

5‐P

64

‐B0

5‐P

65

‐B0

5‐P

66

‐B0

5‐P

67

‐B0

5‐D

68

‐B0

5‐D

69

‐B0

5‐D

70

‐B0

5‐D

71

‐B0

5‐P

No

No

72

‐B0

5‐P

73

‐B0

5‐P

B0

6C

ell

Fa

cto

rs3

14

74

‐B0

6‐P

75

‐B0

6‐D

76

‐B0

6‐P

77

‐B0

6‐P

B0

7C

ell

Te

ch6

17

78

‐B0

7‐P

79

‐B0

7‐P

No

No

No

No

No

No

80

‐B0

7‐P

81

‐B0

7‐P

82

‐B0

7‐D

83

‐B0

7‐P

84

‐B0

7‐P

B0

8C

eN

eS

75

12

85

‐B0

8‐P

86

‐B0

8‐P

87

‐B0

8‐P

88

‐B0

8‐D

89

‐B0

8‐D

No

90

‐B0

8‐D

91

‐B0

8‐D

92

‐B0

8‐P

93

‐B0

8‐P

94

‐B0

8‐D

95

‐B0

8‐P

96

‐B0

8‐P

B0

9D

om

an

tis

31

49

7‐B

09

‐P9

8‐B

09

‐D9

9‐B

09

‐P1

00

‐B0

9‐P

B1

0Ic

en

i3

14

10

1‐B

10

‐P1

02

‐B1

0‐D

10

3‐B

10

‐P1

04

‐B1

0‐P

B1

1Io

nix

31

41

05

‐B1

1‐P

10

6‐B

11

‐D1

07

‐B1

0‐P

10

8‐B

10

‐P

B1

2Lo

ran

tis

31

41

09

‐B1

2‐P

11

0‐B

12

‐D1

11

‐B1

1‐P

11

2‐B

11

‐P

B1

3So

lexa

62

81

13

‐B1

3‐P

No

11

4‐B

13

‐PN

oN

o1

15

‐B1

3‐P

11

6‐B

13

‐D1

17

‐B1

3‐D

11

8‐B

13

‐PN

oN

o1

19

‐B1

3‐P

12

0‐B

13

‐P

B1

4V

ern

ali

s7

41

11

21

‐B1

4‐P

12

2‐B

14

‐P1

23

‐B1

4‐P

12

4‐B

14

‐P1

25

‐B1

4‐D

12

6‐B

14

‐D1

27

‐B1

4‐D

12

8‐B

14

‐D1

29

‐B1

4‐P

No

No

13

0‐B

14

‐P1

31

‐B1

4‐P

To

tal

Co

rpo

rate

re

po

rts

81

50

13

1

Ind

ust

ry a

nd

Ma

cro

-le

ve

l R

ep

ort

s

C0

1C

ou

ntr

y A

na

lysi

s1

12

13

2‐C

01

‐P1

33

‐C0

1‐P

I01

Ind

ust

ry A

na

lysi

s‐A

ero

spa

ce2

02

13

4‐I

01

‐P1

35

‐I0

1‐P

I02

Ind

ust

ry A

na

lysi

s‐B

iote

cho

log

y3

14

13

6‐I

02

‐P1

37

‐I0

2‐D

13

8‐I

02

‐D1

39

‐I0

2‐D

14

0‐I

02

‐P

# R

ep

ort

s8

75

21

39

Da

ta m

on

ito

r re

po

rts

Me

rge

nt-

on

lin

e r

ep

ort

s#

Re

po

rts

Fa

me

Fa

ctiv

a-M

ed

ia n

ew

s

Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and ... · Strategic Types and Technology...

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Types and Technology Cycles in the Aerospace and ... · Strategic Types and Technology...