orders@superbacademics.com
+1 914 979 2828
+1 914 979 2828

Matching Problems and Solutions Discussion

We’re going to go back to Week 2 and revisit the Garbage Can Model of Decision Making. If you remember, the authors weren’t exactly positive or supportive
of this model of decision making, yet it can be useful and can provide positive results.
Knowing what you know now, discuss how you would approach your own organizational ‘garbage can’. What would you view as the most important factor(s)
in selecting the combination of problem and solution? Examine how this topic would impact your selection and matching of problem and solution, and the
specific types of innovations and change projects that would be supported/not supported by the factor. When writing your response, be sure to include
Darnall and Preston’s perspectives from Chapter 2 of your text.
Also, in your post you should consider these topics:
The organization itself; its innovation culture, change culture, and diversity within
The leaders, followers, and champions that are present
The breadth of impact and the knowledge transfer requirements, including stickiness of knowledge
The potential costs and benefits
Note: you can include the challenges of obtaining these numbers, as well as the challenges of generating a positive business case
The challenges of taking action
Once you have read the instructions, post your response to the prompt

 

Sample Solution

is believed by strategy scholars worldwide that some firms consistently outperform others, and there is some reliable evidence underlying this belief (Rumelt, 1991; McGahan and Porter, 1997). This poses challenges for many economists, who are inclined to assess persistent differences in performance as a function of underlying ‘unobserved heterogeneity’ (Mundlak, 1961; Griliches, 1986). The theoretical base of the paper is derived from three fundamental paradigms of marketing and strategy domain: Market based view of the firm (MBV) and the Resource based view of firm (RBV) and Schumpeterian view of entrepreneurship. MBV implies that firm’s sources of market power explain its relative competitive advantage. However it was researched that market power and market knowledge alone cannot explain firm’s superior advantage. (Caves & Porter 1977; Porter 1980, 1985, 1996; Peteraf & Bergen 2003). Market based view (market orientation) and the resource based view (firm market capabilities) may be strong correlates but cannot on its own explain firm competitive advantage. What the firm needs is the optimum interaction effect of both which has propensity to bestow sustainable competitive advantage to the firms (Bruni and Verona 2009; Cavusgil et al. 2007; Dacko et al. 2008; Fang and Zou 2009; Morgan 2012) have introduced and explained the term ‘dynamic marketing capabilities’ (DMCs) and identified various marketing mechanisms that contribute to sustainable competitive advantage. However in case of highly uncertain environments, the predictive power of even dynamic marketing capabilities on sustaining competitive advantage and holding market leadership positions is challenged. In turbulent as well as hypercompetitive environments the entrepreneurial proclivity of the firm provides augmented momentum thus providing ability to amplify and sustain firms’ competitive advantage. To capture the above ideas following model has been proposed by authors in the form multi-layered capability structure and its effect on sustainability of competitive advantage.
Table 1: Integrative model displaying amplification of competitive advantage with three layers of capability formation