Strategic responses of successful enterprises: An analysis …globalbizresearch.org/Dubai_Conference2015_Oct/pdf/DF558.pdf · for Management Development (SDMIMD), Mysore, India. Email:

Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking

(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9

16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558

1 www.globalbizresearch.org

Strategic responses of successful enterprises:

An analysis across ownership forms

M. R. Suresh,

Professor,

Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute

for Management Development (SDMIMD),

Mysore, India.

Email: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Market environment of enterprises is dynamic due to rapid changes that take place in the

political, economic, social and technology spheres. Enterprises respond to such changes in

multiple ways and the success and growth of firms are often determined by appropriate

strategies pursued by them. In the Indian context there seems to be a relationship between the

ownership form of the enterprise such as a large independent cooperative, a widely held

private sector and their strategic responses. This paper is part of larger study by the author

that examined the issue and to understand implications for decision-makers. The paper uses

Case Research method in view of the organizational context of these enterprises. The paper

examines two enterprises, one, a very successful market oriented dairy cooperative

(GCMMF- Amul) and the other, a well-known widely held IT services firm (Infosys).

Information collected has been from published and secondary sources. While GCMMF’s

strategic responses have been in brand building, new product development, quality initiatives

and strengthening distribution network, in the case of Infosys the responses have been in

developing a global delivery model, moving up the value chain, brand building and

organizational restructuring etc. The cases of enterprises studied have been compared on

dimensions such as organization-environment fit, strategic adaptation, organizational

positioning and leadership. The research also compares the cases studied, in a limited way,

with certain other enterprises, operating in similar domains and delineates as to how

ownership forms seem to influence strategic responses. The paper suggests possible direction

the enterprises can pursue and indicates implications for other firms.

___________________________________________________________________________

Keywords: strategic responses, ownership forms





1. Introduction

Liberalization process was set in motion in India in 1991-92. Policy makers, irrespective

of political formation, have recognized the limitations of the public sector dominant approach

and have given more space to the private sector reducing the role of government in business.

Emerging countries such as India have had an unusual evolution of business sector with

multiple forms of ownership of enterprises. Each of these forms has had different doses of

support from the government and hence these ownership forms display variation in terms of

capital, infrastructure and managerial resources. While a few sectors such as defence

electronics were reserved for the public sector/ government owned firms, other sectors as

dairying were tightly controlled by the government with cooperatives often being required to

follow government diktats. Whereas sectors such as Information Technology(IT) got

considerable fillip and enormous policy support and concessions that spurred India as a force

to reckon globally in the IT sector. Intensity of competition has also increased after India

embarked on a process of liberalization. Many firms have succeeded and have found new

avenues for business growth thorough new product launches, market development and market

penetration in other countries. Many well-known firms embarked a path of market

orientation. Even public sector firms which were known for conservatism in business have

been formulating responses in a systematic manner. However the experience has so far been

mixed. While some firms have succeeded, others have fallen by wayside despite operating in

the same business environment. The reasons for success seem to lie in the strategic responses

formulated to changes in the market environment. This in turn is influenced by the ownership

form as enterprises within the same business environment have performed differently. It is of

interest to see as to how the leadership of the successful enterprises have had the space for

strategic and managerial decision-making to formulate responses to a dynamic market

environment. It would be helpful to decision-makers to understand this issue in the current

context of ‘Make in India’ campaign to enable enterprises respond better. This paper analyses

two Indian enterprises GCMMF (Amul) and Infosys with different ownership forms and

operating in different business environments but yet successful and also have had charismatic

founders.

2. Select literature review

Chandler (1962) in his classic study defined strategy as “the determination of the long-

term goals and objectives of the enterprise and adoption of courses of action and allocation of

resources necessary for carrying out these goals”1. Mintzberg and Waters (1981) while

analyzing the history of Canadian Lady endeavoured to comprehend the formation of strategy

by examining decisions over a long periods and proposed strategies as “patterns in streams of

decisions”2. Child and Kaiser, as quoted in Nystrom and Starbuck, concluded that





environmental variables affected by the internal dynamics of the enterprise led to strategy

formulation by the enterprise3. Miles and Snow (1978) classified enterprises on the basis of

organizational typologies in relation to their adaptation to the environment4. They called these

typologies as Defender, Prospector, Analyzer and Reactor. Porter (1996) also proposed

strategy as the creation of a unique and valuable position to gain competitive advantage.5

Another thought process of research proposed the concept of strategic intent as contributing to

competitive advantage. Strategic intent “envisioned a desired leadership position” (Hamel and

Prahalad, 1989).6 Marketing strategy researchers proposed that marketing strategy involved

understanding the behaviour of enterprises and its contextual underpinnings (Varadarajan and

Jayachandran 1999)7. Derek Abell (1978) proposed the concept of strategic windows a

situation when market opportunities and firm level capabilities match.8

Murthy (1984) proposed a framework of three stages in the evolution of strategic

management of public enterprises.9 The model is based on case studies of seven public

enterprises in four countries: India, Brazil, US and Italy. It was developed using concepts

from corporate strategy and political science. As per this framework these enterprises start

with strategies that are more influenced by ideological and value considerations of key

decision-makers than economic aspects in Stage I. In Stage II there is a balance between the

two aspects, there is emphasis on growth and diversification. In the final stage, the enterprise

internalizes the values and aligns them with the business aspects in a manner acceptable to

external decision-makers. Stage III the strategic management is rests entirely with the

enterprise management. In the Indian context Murthy (1987) examined the corporate strategy

of public sector enterprises. He proposed that that strategic competence of the enterprises was

the ability to reduce the hiatus between the stated goals and subsequent decisions to achieve

the goals in a quick manner10. This helped in the enterprise responding to environmental

challenges. In the context of cooperative enterprises, Shah (1992) looked at the logic of

cooperative enterprises and the design issues in building energetic farmers’ organizations11.

Jain (1992) analyzed lessons from successful cooperative enterprises12. Venugopal and Dixit

(1998) looked at policy reforms and identified opportunities for research in areas such as

innovation and liberalization, inter-enterprise differences across sectors, ownership etc13.

Krishnan (1998) provided insights into Strategic Planning at TELCO. He indicated that

customer orientation, quality and growth from within influenced their strategic thinking.14

Shah (2000) examined cases of high performance knowledge institutions and proposed that

initial design and launch practices were critical for their later day successes.15 This has

relevance for IT service firms that are into high end consulting which have common

dimension with knowledge institutions. Public sector companies, such as NGEF, a Bangalore

based large public sector electrical engineering enterprise, turned sick despite product quality,





outstanding engineering expertise and an excellent brand reputation. An important reason for

its sickness was the mismatch between the requirements of the external market environment

and its internal business processes that were characteristic of the pre-reforms era, forced

decisions on the enterprise by the government (the ultimate owner) coupled with an inability

to respond to changes in the market environment unlike the company’s privately owned

competitors (unpublished TECS report, 1995).16 This leads one to think that ownership form

and lack of autonomy have a bearing on the ability of an enterprise to respond to market

changes. Inability to cope with the environmental changes and limitations of control of

government on a cooperative federation were examined in a management case on marketing

edible oil by a state federation (Suresh and Ramanujam, 2000).17 Maheshwari (2007)

analyzed turnaround in six cases and identified that type of ownership as as one of the causes

for organizational decline18. Sharma (2000)19 used the CINE matrix framework of

controllable and non-controllable factors, addressing internal and external factors that limit

organizations in the Indian tea industry and used it to develop action plans. The framework

classifies a factor into any of the four cells: controllable-internal, controllable-external, non

controllable-internal, non controllable-external. The model has been applied in the context of

role of leadership in strategically guiding organizations to success. (Sharma 2007)20 and also

in understanding strategic responses of firm under different ownership forms (Suresh 200921,

Suresh 2010)22

3. Methodology

The research study presented is part of a larger initiative to understand the strategic

responses of enterprises to changes in market environment across different ownership forms

covering the public sector, private sector, producer-owned cooperative and government

controlled cooperative which vary in terms of ownership and control. This paper focuses on

two successful cases, one a producer-owned cooperative and a widely held private sector

company.

Case method is the research method followed as case research method conveys the context

effectively for the following reasons:

Case study as a research tool enables the researcher in understanding “how” and

“why” of a situation and allows deeper investigation

“Real business of a case study is particularization and not generalization” (Stake as

quoted in Naumes and Naumes 1999)23

Yin (1981) defines case study as an “empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary

phenomenon within its real life context”24 when the phenomenon and the context are

interrelated. Case research is advisable where the researcher has to examine the situation





deeply in unique contexts and where generalization is not easy. The case study method is

suitable for such research (Yin 1989)25.

4. Sources of information

For this research study these include

Case research on different facets using annual reports and other reports/ write-ups of

the organizations

Understanding of management literature particularly in strategy, marketing, business

growth in the Indian context in various growth oriented firms

Examination of earlier cases pertaining to the chosen organizations

5. Evolution and objectives of GCMMF in brief

GCMMF evolution is aligned with the freedom movement of India. On the advice and

guidance of freedom fighters such as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Morarji Desai and

Tribuvandas Patel, in 1946 AMUL (Anand Milk Union Ltd) was started to prevent the

exploitation of milk producers at the hands of middlemen, insulate them from market

imperfections, vulnerability to large multinationals and provide market opportunities to milk

producers. It was in a producer-owned cooperative form of enterprise with focus on member-

control for producing, procuring, processing and marketing milk. AMUL started with just two

village societies and a procurement of 247 litres of milk in a day.26 This grew to 12792

village societies (18436 in 2014-15) with a daily average of 65 lakh litres per day in 2006-07

(148.5 lakh litres per day in 2014-15).27 AMUL initially focused on Mumbai (earlier

Bombay) as a major market for liquid milk. In 1963, to meet the requirements of the Indian

defence forces further expansion in capacities to manufacture cheese and milk powder was

undertaken.

The evolution of GCMMF is based on a comprehensive model and incorporates lessons

learnt from Anand pattern of cooperative (farmer owned) dairy development. The model

involved among other things:28

Building a nation-wide marketing and distribution network.

Creating and building a strong brand.

Deployment of high technology for milk processing (including IT).

Mobilisation of financial resources.

Milk collection systems with technical support at the village level.

Farmer-owned set up at the grassroots with emphasis on member education and

involvement.

Milk production enhancement, animal health services.

A few lessons helped GCMMF formulation of its strategic responses right from its inception.

These lessons included stemming from Anand pattern of dairy development were:





Market as a necessity for post subsistence production in dairying.

Marketing is an essential first step to build successful producer enterprises a point

repeatedly emphasized by Dr. Kurien. (unlike government controlled setups that focused

on supply enhancement)

Member-control of organizations with professional management;

To avoid unhealthy competition among successful milk unions in Gujarat, Dr. Kurien, in a

wise and strategic move formed, in 1973, the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation

(GCMMF) with headquarters at Anand. GCMMF is the apex marketing federation of 17 milk

unions of Gujarat and owning brands AMUL and Sagar. (The popularly known AMUL brand

was earlier owned by Anand Milk Union Limited, the precursor to the present Kaira District

Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd, constituent unions under the GCMMF umbrella.

This is often confused with GCMMF and NDDB).

The major objective of GCMMF is:

To operate, own, marketing and distribution network across India and outside India.

GCMMF also identified the following mission statement:29

“We, at GCMMF, endeavour to satisfy the taste and nutritional requirements of the

customers of the world, through excellence in marketing by our committed team.

Through cooperative networking, we are committed to offering quality products that provide

best value for money.”

To achieve this mission, GCMMF, formulated a two pronged business strategy that governs

its activities, as below:

To serve the interests of milk producers

To provide quality products to consumers and value for money

GCMMF at present has 17 constituent district milk unions. It has 50 plants across the

country with a processing capacity of 240 lakh litres per day. It should be noted the business

environment of the dairy sector is tightly controlled by the government in India. So it is a

herculean challenge to synchronise both business objectives and social responsibility.

Awareness of consumers as to what constitutes a good quality dairy product is low. In

addition, subsequent to liberalization, many private companies, big and small, have entered

the arena. None of these investor-owned firms have the responsibility to focus of liquid milk

and concentrate only value-added dairy products. GCMMF however has to blend business

and social responsibility. MNCs have also entered the market as India is big market for dairy

products with emerging consumer needs and rising incomes. It also faces non-tariff

restrictions in the global market imposed on dairy products of Indian origin.

5.1 Achievements of GCMMF

It is useful to summarize the achievements of GCMMF.





It has created a comprehensive model for dairy business in India. The model is being

replicated in other states of India, and with modifications in other countries, but also,

provides an approach for other agribusinesses. The GCMMF model has the following

features summarized as below:

Milk collection systems at the grass root village level.

Pooling and processing of milk collected and its conversion to products on a large

scale, thus achieving economies of scale (though not obvious, many agribusinesses

suffer from this lacuna).

Access to latest technology from the village level to the customer point. For instance,

usage of automatic testing machines at village collection point, usage of IT from the

village level to the sales depot and deployment of modern technology for processing.

Creating a countrywide marketing and distribution network.

Involving producers in managing the organization at all levels.

An examination of development programmes initiated in India in the 20th century

indicated the only one that has sustained is the Amul/Anand experiment by virtue of its

marketing orientation.30

From a miniscule collection of 247 litres per day in 1946, the organization has grown

rapidly. Its current reach, expansion and professionalism in marketing, in a market with a

strong presence of MNCs, can be linked to the formation of GCMMF in 1973.31

GCMMF’s current turnover is around Rs 20733 crores. It has emerged as India’s largest

food products marketing organization and has emerged as India’s largest exporter of dairy

products with major markets in the West Asia, SAARC countries, USA and Singapore

GCMMF also pioneered the concept of IT applications in the cooperative sector as also in

the marketing field.

GCMMF’s product portfolio is very diversified and has often defined the product-market

category by its offerings as can be inferred from the earlier discussions and is a market

leader in most product categories with significant market share

5.2 Strategic responses

The strategic responses of GCMMF in relation to changes in the market environment

particularly, after 1992 have been as below:

Quality interventions as an instrument of change.

Investment in information technology.

Strengthening of Amul brand.

Launch of new products and diversification.

Strengthening the distribution network.

Strengthening human resources.





Investment in marketing research.

Advocacy to influence policy changes.

6. Evolution and objectives of Infosys in brief

On the occasion of Infosys completing 25 years in 2006, N. R. Narayanamurthy, its

founder stated “A great corporation must live on. Hence, we are all babies. Even these initial

baby–years have taught us several lessons. These lessons are valuable not for just our future

journey but for other corporations in the country and, perhaps the world………Finally I

would urge Infosys to choose a worthy dream, to go after it confidently, and to play a role that

would make us proud in the years to come.”32

Infosys was born out of the vision of one individual, N. R. Narayanamurthy, who inspired

his colleagues working with the software firm Patni Computers Limited in Pune to join him in

the entrepreneurial venture. A major reason as to why N. R. Narayanamurthy decided to

start Infosys was to take advantage of the differential tariffs paid for professional software

services in India and those in USA. Infosys was started with a capital of Rs.10000 in 1981.

Its revenue in 2014-15 was Rs 47300 crores. Earlier in 1993 the company went public.

Evolution of Infosys has at its core a business model driven by professional entrepreneurs.

The other co-founders were Nandan Nilekani, Nadathur. S. Raghavan, Kris Gopalakrishnan

and Shibulal. In contrast to most other enterprises in India, the promoters were not born in

business families. They also did not have investment capabilities derived from profits from

modern agriculture as in the case of entrepreneurs from land-owning families or got support

from family-run enterprises since none of them belonged to traditional trading communities

noted for business acumen in India. They had their origins in middle class families with only

professional education as their strength.

The growth of Infosys in many ways symbolizes the liberalization initiatives of India and

its search for a status in global business commensurate with its potential. From a modest

turnover of around Rs.11.63 lakh in 1991, the turnover of Infosys grew to around Rs.13149

crore in 2006-07 (Rs 47300 crores in 2014-15). The number of employees grew from a

modest 162 in 1991 to 72241 in 2006-07 (176000 in 2014-15). Infosys also improved its

position steadily in the export front since its inception. On December 9, 2006, Infosys became

the first ever Indian firm to be included in the prestigious NASDAQ-100 index which is well

known and “is one of the world’s most recognized benchmarks that owes the distinction to its

…. companies that are leaders in a diverse range of industries” according to the Deccan

Herald.33 Its officials perceived that this recognition, in the silver jubilee year of Infosys’

inception, was for the firm as well as for India.

The vision of Infosys according its founding Chairman, emphasized in his various

speeches, was and is to become the world’s most respected software corporation that offered





top class software solutions for business organizations. As indicated earlier Infosys’s pattern

of enterprise building was influenced by some early learnings and had an influence on its

strategies. These learnings in a nutshell were:

Market success is an extremely relevant for building a successful enterprise.

In addition, as N R Narayanamurthy indicated in various newspaper interviews that

globalization ought to be welcomed as India did not have adequate demand for IT

services initially. Thus Infosys was a ‘born- global’ company

Decision-makers have to take a strategic view of business with forethought for

accomplishment.

As Narayana Murthy, in various fora, emphasized that resources have to be sourced at the

most economical place, conversion of the same where the product/service is cost-effective

and marketing ought to be at places where it is most profitable without being hampered or

limited by national boundaries.

Minimisation of risk by not over-focusing on any single client, technology or as far as

practically possible geography.34 Human resources are critical for success in business.

6.1 Industry and marketing environment of Infosys

In the light of increasing control on the IT industry in the late 1970 by restricting the

extent of ownership by foreign firms, many MNCs decided to exit the country. The gap that

was created by these companies was filled by Indian firms and operated in areas such as basic

data-processing, software development and maintenance. Taking advantage of low-cost

skilled engineers with good communications skills in English, companies such as Tata

Consultancy Services (TCS), Tata Unisys Limited (Tata Burroughs) recruited many Indian

professionals to develop software at customer sites in the USA. Taking advantage of

favourable Indian government policies many new firms entered the software industry. High

quality infrastructure is another important aspect of this industry. Development of campuses

with continuous expansion in seating space requirement and top class telecommunication

infrastructure were important.

A comparative study of a few IT and Biotechnology firms indicated some interesting

features of the IT sector in India.35 Having clear client focus, cheap cost of technical

manpower, large pool of scientific manpower and ability to work with high end technologies

were sources of competitive advantage. Establishing strategic alliances, increasing R&D

spending, clear definition of the target market were important approaches to coping with the

challenges of globalization. Entering new markets and product innovation were also

considered important. Institutional branding i.e. marketing of the IT firm was relevant in the

IT industry. Favourable market conditions were more important than government support.

Dependence, right from inception, on foreign markets for growth was high in the IT industry.





The IT industry also enjoyed favourable government policies as there was a perception among

policymakers across all political hues that IT was symbol of nation’s progress. This was the

business environment in which Infosys operated in India

6.2 Strategic responses of Infosys

The strategic responses formulated by Infosys to deal with the business environment could be

summarized as below:

Conscious and continuous development of infrastructural facilities.

Initiatives to move up the value chain and brand building.

Designing of Employee Stock Option Plan.

Developing a broad banded human resources management.

Listing in NASDAQ.

Acquisitions and strategic investments.

Redesigning the organizational structure.

Formulating a Global Delivery Model.

Conceiving Profitability, Predictability, Sustainability, De-risking model.

Investment in quality processes.

Networking with industry.

Social responsibility.

7. GCMMF and Infosys – some commonalities

There are interesting commonalties in the context of both GCMMF and Infosys. As can be

seen GCMMF is an institutional response to prevailing market conditions. Infosys was also

started as a market response to the emerging need for software services globally. Both were

started by charismatic founders Dr Kurien, in the case of GCMMF and Mr Narayana Murthy

in the case of Infosys. Both the leaders were visionaries and designed their respective firms to

achieve market dominance. Right from the inception there was emphasis on market

orientation and brand building. Despite having different levels of government controls in the

respective sectors both firms had strong market emphasis and emerged as market leaders.

There has been strong focus on achieving business leadership, value creation for customers

and investment in technology. Both the firms are focusing on global expansion entering new

geographies. Organizational structure incorporated professionalism at all levels with high

emphasis on quality recruitment at the entry levels. Interestingly both the organizations

bowing to stakeholder demands have moved to being headed by professional CEOs in the last

few years and are no longer headed by their charismatic founders. Both GCMMF and Infosys

have been able to combine market leadership with social responsibility and have been seen as

jewels in Indian business arena. Their continued success is symbol of Indian entrepreneurship

and is relevant for current ‘Make in India’ campaign.





8. Analysis and conclusions

A few relevant dimensions need to be examined in the context of ownership form of these

successful enterprises and whether their strategic decisions were in any way influenced by

their ownership. These have to be answered by examining from different managerial

perspectives with regard to the following issues:

Whether the responses of GCMMF and Infosys have been market driven

Whether GCMMF and Infosys have been able to blend their social/ founder’s

priorities and their business goals

Whether form of ownership enabled them to take crucial strategic decisions

An analysis of the strategic responses (when examined in detail) would indicate that

GCMMF’s responses quite a few of them have been in controllable- external domain of the

organization. These include shift in brand strategy through ‘Amul-the Taste of India’

campaign, quality management process as a change management approach covering even

dealers and retailers, expansion of distribution network and investment in cold chain,

formation of distribution highways for its products, continuous investment in market research.

In the non-controllable external domain GCMMF lobbied with government for favourable

policies along with other cooperative federations. Infosys also right from the start has focused

on brand awareness campaign and increasingly has been moving towards creating a ‘brand

identity’ which is essential in the IT services known for strong competition on the basis of

prices. It focused on giving value. Infosys also formulated the Global Delivery Model to

combat limitations of operational restrictions in the context of sending professionals to USA

and to cope up with entry of MNCs in India. Both GCMMF and Infosys capitalized on

‘strategic windows’ which were open with favourable market conditions and matching

organizational capabilities. For instance, GCMMF launched ice-creams, branded curds and

various other value-added dairy products and entered new geographical markets. Similarly

Infosys, entered new segments to reduced its dependence on a few markets. It also set up a

division to focus on high-end consulting. It also launched Finacle, a product for banking

software. On the non-controllable external domain Infosys networked with state governments

for creation of infrastructure and availability of land for IT parks. It collaborated on this front

with industry bodies such as NASSCOM. Both GCMMF and Infosys initially focused on

ideological / founders' priorities and moved into Stage II where business objectives of growth

and diversification were balanced with social responsibility (Infosys formed an exclusive

Foundation to pursue social objectives). Both these firms are in Stage III with founders

having exited the scene; the strategic management is entirely in the hand of professional

managers and they have emerged as highly valued institutions. In terms of organizational

positioning till recently, both GCMMF and Infosys, focused on cost leadership and are





increasingly moving in the direction of offering value-added products in their respective

businesses and leveraging on their multiple competencies. GCMMF and Infosys are

diversifying into new markets in other countries. GCMMF has initiated manufacturing

operations in USA while Infosys has looked at China and Australia. They have established

strategic alliances. A major reason as to why such sagacious strategies have been formulated

is due to the visionary leadership and continuance of leadership without too many changes

ensuring continued strategic direction. Right from its inception GCMMF in 1946 has seen

only 4 Chief Executive Officers, while Infosys has again seen only 5 Chief Executive

Officers. This is in contrast to large government controlled cooperatives and public sector

technology firms where the CEO has a limited tenure of a few years before superannuation

affecting strategy formulation. In the case of government controlled cooperatives and public

sector technology firms focus has mainly been on meeting social objectives and less of

business objectives. This has been due to limited autonomy for the decision-makers. In the

case of certain competing firms (government controlled dairy cooperatives in the case of

GCMMF, high technology public sector firms) focus has been on internal aspects such as

quality improvement etc., and missed many ‘strategic windows’ of market opportunities. In

fact one public sector firm that was the first to setup a software export cell (around the same

time Infosys Technologies started its operations) did not capitalize on the revolution in the IT

and telecom sector and missed golden opportunities for growth. They have been ‘Reactors’ or

‘Defenders’ in the market. In contrast in the case of GCMMF which is a genuinely producer-

owned cooperative with no government control and Infosys Technologies which is a widely

held private sector their forms of ownership has given the leaders freedom to formulate

strategies to make the respective firms market oriented. GCMMF helped in creating IRMA

Anand, a leading management institute while Infosys created Infosys Leadership Institute at

Mysore to meet emerging professional manpower needs for sustained growth. The

organizational structures of the companies are designed to respond to market requirements.

GCMMF has been coping with global competition.36 It is also leveraging its product and

brand management capabilities37. All these have been possible due to the ownership form.

Increasingly, both GCMMF and Infosys Technologies, have multiple competencies and have

embraced the forces of globalization, are on a path strengthening their market orientation, by

launching new products and services gearing up for a phase of further business growth.

Therefore the lesson from this research study, for policy makers, is to provide greater

autonomy to achieve business objectives without compromising on social objectives. While

leadership does play a crucial role in formulating strategic responses, developing capabilities

in the enterprise to meet market changes, the ownership form also enables the leader to set the

direction, aligning the resources, motivating employees and bring about change.





(The paper has been written using secondary sources of information for academic purposes.

This paper also draws from the author’s doctoral research).

Acknowledgement: The author acknowledges the nuances of the business provided by dairy

industry experts from GCMMF, NDDB, and KMF in various industry interactions in IRMA

and other fora. Similarly for the nuances and insights of Information Technology sector in

various industry interfaces at IBS, Bangalore, IBA Bangalore and at SDMIMD, Mysore and

other fora)

References

1 Chandler, Alfred (1962): quoted in S. Shivaramu (1999), Strategy Formation, New Delhi: Wheeler

Publishing, p. 93.

2 Mintzberg, Henry and Waters J.A. (1984), “Researching the Formation of Strategies: the History of

Canadian Lady 1939-1976”, in Competitive Strategic Management, R B Lamb (Ed), Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp.62-93.

3 Childs, John and Keiser in Paul Nystrom and William Starbuck (1981), Handbook of

Organizational Design, New York: OUP.

4 Miles, Raymond E, Charles C. Snow, Alan D. Meyer, Henry J. Coleman, Jr. (1978), Organizational

Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw -Hill Kogakusha, pp.3-30.

5 Porter, Michael. E. (1996) “What is Strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, pp.61-78.

6 Hamel, Gary and C. K. Prahalad (1989), “Strategic Intent”, Harvard Business Review, May-June,

pp.63-76.

7 Varadarajan, Rajan P. and Satish Jayachandran (1999), “Marketing Strategy: an Assessment of the

State of the Field and Outlook”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27, Issue: 2,

pp.120-143.

8 Abell, Derek (1978), “Strategic Windows”, Journal of Marketing, July, pp.21-26.

9 Murthy, K. R. S. (1984), Strategic Management of Public Sector Enterprise – Framework of

Analysis, BP 178, Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management, pp.1-33.

10 Murthy K. R. S. (1987), “Do Public Enterprise Need a Corporate Strategy”, Vikalpa-the Journal for

Decision makers, Vol. 12, No 2, April-June, pp.9-17.

11 Shah, Tushar (1993), Building Energetic Farmers' Organizations, Design and Performance:

Synthesis and Evidence, Workshop Summary, Symposium on Cooperatives, Anand: Institute of

Rural Management, pp.1-10.

12 Jain, Pankaj (1993), Excellence in Cooperatives: Lessons from Successful Cooperatives, Workshop

Summary, Symposium on Cooperatives, Anand: Institute of Rural Management, pp.1-10.

13 Venugopal R. and M. R. Dixit (1999), “Enterprise Response to Public Policy Reforms: a Scan of

Extant Literature and an Agenda for Future Research”, Vikalpa-the Journal for Decision makers,

Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management, April-June, pp.11-22.

14 Krishnan, V.S. (1998), Strategic Planning at TELCO, in Corporate Strategy and Policy

Perspectives, Madhavan, Ravichandar and J. Saha (Eds), Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of

Management, pp.31-34.

15 Shah, Tushar (2000), “Building and Managing High Performance Knowledge Institutions: Lessons

of Indian Experiences in Designing and Managing Rural Development Organizations”, in K.

Prathap Reddy and Katar Singh (Eds), New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company, Ltd.

pp.31-64.

16 TECS (1994), Study of NGEF, unpublished study, Bangalore: Tata Economic Consultancy Services

(mimeograph), pp.1-95.





17 Suresh, Maruthi. R. and A.S.Ramanujam (2001), “Marketing Edible Oil by Deshfed” (teaching

case-company name disguised), Written with special permission from NDDB, Anand: Institute of

Rural Management (mimeograph), July, pp.1-12.

18 Maheshwari, Sunil K.(2007), Organizational Decline and Turnaround, New Delhi: Sage Publications

pp.1-37.

19 Sharma, Subhash. C. (2000), “Forward Engineering for Strategic Gearing: the Indian Tea Industry”,

Management Review, Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management, June, pp.57-65.

20 Sharma, Subhash. C. (2007), CINE Matrix: a Model of Strategic Scanning in New Mantras, in

Corporate Corridors-from Ancient Routes to Global Routes, Bangalore: New Age International,

pp.315-326.

21 Suresh, M. R. (2009), Strategic responses of enterprises to changes in market environment: an

examination across ownership form: case study of Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), Paper presented at

ICOMBS, IBS, Hyderabad, 2009.

22 Suresh, M. R. (2010), Strategic Responses of Enterprises to Changes in Market Environment - an

Examination Across Ownership Form: Case Study of a Regional Cooperative Milk Producers’

Federation Ltd (RCMPF), 3D... IBA Journal of Management & Leadership, Vol:2 ,Issue:1 ,July-

December 2010, Special Issue on Consciousness and Leadership, (Ed) , Sangeetha Menon and

Subhash Sharma, IBA, Bangalore, pp.97-107.

23 Stake R E, as quoted in William Naumes and Margeret Naumes (1999), Case study research,

London: Sage Publications, p.60.

24 Yin, Robert K. (1984), Case study research: design and methods, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,

p17.

25 Yin, Robert K. as quoted in William Naumes and Margeret Naumes (1999), Case study research,

London: Sage Publications, p.59

26 GCMMF (2004), Amul India Story, p.4.

27 GCMMF (2004), Amul India Story, p.6. Also see

http://www.amul.com/chairmanspeech_annual08.html

28 GCMMF (2004), Amul India Story, GCMMF, p.14.

29 GCMMF (2001), A Tryst with Quality-the GCMMF experience, 1994-2001, p.51.

30 Suresh, Maruthi R., and Veena Joshi (1988), Institutional Analysis of Renewable Energy

Programmes, New Delhi: Tata Energy Research Institute, pp.5-15.

31 http://www.amul.com/chairmanspeech_annual06.html ,accessed on 22.11.2007.

32 Narayanamurthy, N.R. (2006), Infosys Annual Report 2005-06, pp.21-22.

33 Jacobs (2006), Deccan Herald, Bangalore Edition, 10.12.2006, p.1.

34 Infosys (2003), Annual Report 2002-03, pp.111-112.

35 Vasudev, Arjun (2004), A Study of IT and BT Firms PGD-ABPM Special Focus Area report,

Bangalore: Indian Institute of Plantation Management, pp.1-125.

36 Chairman’s speech, 41st Annual General Body Meeting held on 14th May, 2015

37 Sodhi, R S (2015), “We are focusing on branded products to maximise Amul's profits”, reported by

Anto Joseph, 4 February, DNA, Mumbai edition

(Also see www.infosys.com and www.amul.com for basic information on the enterprises)



http://www.infosys.com/

http://www.amul.com/

Documents

Strategic responses of successful enterprises: An analysis …globalbizresearch.org/Dubai_Conference2015_Oct/pdf/DF558.pdf · for Management Development (SDMIMD), Mysore, India. Email: