Competition has, since the 1990s, led to wider gaps between industry leaders and laggards. There are more “winner-take-all” environments and greater churns among industry sector rivals. We have witnessed sharp increases in the quality and quantity of IT (Information Technology) investments. We’ve seen striking competitive dynamics, particularly in sectors that spend the most on IT. Some of the competitive dynamics models include the Destroy Your Business (DYB) strategy, the Grow Your Business (GYB) strategy, the Information Systems (IS) and strategic advantage, and the social business strategy.
Instructions
Write a 4–5 page paper in which you:
Compare and contrast the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability.
Examine the “cannibalization” strategy and determine if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Provide two business examples.
Determine whether changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Provide three reasons to support your position.
Examine how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Consider collaborative capabilities; and what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy.
important and thus deemed worth protecting; securitising actors in society decided which process or object in society is important and must be protected. Ole Wæver in his book Securitization and Desecuritization proposes a theoretical explanation of securitization. To understand the security process Wæver writes about national security and threats to it, his argument composes a threat-defence model, he formulates this models from his observation of operations conducted in the field of security. (Wæver, 1995) Weaver regarded security as a “speech act”, a person with authority can voice a situation to be a security issue and thus giving it special status and allowing measures to be taken to deal with the issue. ‘It is by labelling something a security issue that it becomes one.” (Weaver, 1995) The Copenhagen School defines securitization as “Based on a clear idea of the nature of security, securitization studies aim to gain an increasingly precise understanding of who securitizes, on what issues (threats), for whom (referent objects), why, with what results and, not least, under what conditions (what explains when securitization is successful).” (Buzan et al 1998) A successful securitization process is expediated by internal or speech act and by external or contextual factors, it’s a process between the social capital of the main person or organisation and the nature of the threat. (Buzan et al 1998) For example, refugees in the past were not considered a security threat instead was seen as a humanity issue but now they are considered a security threat; through the naming process they are considered a security issue therefore, political communities will have to respond within their community. The study of security has changed drastically since the end of the end of the Cold War. A multipolar world developed so the idea of securitization was seen in a different way, security was no longer presented as national defence. (Wolfers, 1952) Security initially had a traditional narrow state-centric and military meaning to it, but the Copenhagen School rejected this meaning following the Cold War, they replaced the old meaning with a “constructivist thinking”, by developing the concept by considering the threats and socially and politically constructed. (McDonald, 2008) The important feature of the constructivist thinking is the referent object – the person or object that is under threat-, the securitising actor, the one who decides to label an issue a threat through discourse starts a “securitising mo