art%3A10.1177%2F0092070398263005

8/9/2019 art%3A10.1177%2F0092070398263005

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/art3a1011772f0092070398263005 1/5

MA RKE TING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

C O M M E N T R Y

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S t r a t e g i e s i n

t h e M a r k e t D r i v e n S t r a t e g y E r a

Dav i d W Craven s

Texas hr is t ian Univers i ty

The very insightful analysis of ma rketing strategy im-

plementat ion by Piercy (1998 [ this i ssue]) points to

severa l key i s sues concern ing the ro l e o f m arke t ing in

the 21st century. Perhaps m ost com pel l ing is h is assess-

men t o f the po ten t i a l t h rea t s to the ro l e o f marke t ing

in the org aniza t ion and implem entat ion in particular. He

exam ines severa l impor tan t concerns p resen ted by the

lean en te rp r i se parad igm (Womack and Jones 1996) .

W hile I am m ore optimistic about the future of the disci-

pline, relevant dimensions of change promise to signifi-

cantly alter the nature and scope o f marketing strategy and

its implementation.

Business strategy has entered a new mark et and com -

petit ive env ironm ent, appropriately designated as the mar-

ket-driven era because o f i ts central focus on the market as

the basis for strategy design and implementation (Cravens,

Greenley, Piercy, and Slater 1998; Day 1994). A pervasive

dimension o f th is e ra is the pivotal role o f the market in

guiding strategic change. While the paradigms based on

the m arket-d riven era continue to evolve, i t is apparent that

ma rkets provid e the focu s of strategic thou ght and practice.

This fo cus offers an a rray of challenges and opportunities

to th e m arketing discipline.

Many academics and execut ives are examining the

funda me ntal assumptions and guidelines un derlying strat-

egy formulation. An extensiv e array of strategy paradigms

is proposed to assist exe cutives in strategy design. W hile

no paradigm dominates strategic thought and practice,

there are several ke y characteristics shared by the various

views of strategy. The characteristics of market-driven

strategies inclu de (1) developing a shared vision about the

market and how i t i s expected to change in the future;

J o u r n a l of the Academy o f M arketing Science.

Volume 26 N o. 3 pages 237-241.

Copyright 9 1998 by A cademy of Marketing

Science .

(2) selecting avenues fo r delivering superior value to cus-

tomers; (3) positioning the organization and its brands in

the marketplace using distinctive com petencie s; (4) recog-

nizing the potential value of collaborative relationships

with customers, suppliers, distribution chan nel mem bers,

internal functions, an d even competitors; and (5) reinve nt-

ing organizational designs to implement and manage fu-

ture strategies (Cravens, Greenley, Piercy, and Slater 1997).

Each of these dimensions of m arket-driven st rategy

creates important implementation issues and challenges.

An extensive analysis of the impact o f the market-driven

era on implementation is not feasible in this com me ntary.

Instead, I have selected four topics that are particularly

relevant to strategy implementation: (1) shifting from a

marketing to market-driven strategic perspective, (2) lev-

eraging modu larity to facilitate implem entation, (3) recog -

nizing the ne w econ om ics of information, an d (4) adopting

new concepts of s t rategic perform ance measurement .

IMPL IC A TION S OF TH E

M A R K E T D R IV E N P E R S P E C T I V E

As acknowledged by Piercy (1998), the 21st century is

l ikely to present the market ing profess ion wi th major

opportunities and threats that ha ve im portant implications

for strategy implementation. The role as w ell as the rele-

vance of marketing is being debated by both scholars and

business executives. So me fore cast a declining role, wh ile

others see new opportunities as the mark et is increasingly

recognized as the starting point in strategy formulation.

Shi f t ing From Funct ions to Processes

One marketing thought leader forecasts a future in

whic h marketing as a functional a rea and aca dem ic disci-

8/9/2019 art%3A10.1177%2F0092070398263005


238 JOURNA L F THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE SUMMER 1998

p l i n e w i l l h a v e d i m i n i s h e d i n f l u e n c e ( D a y 1 9 9 4 ) . A s t u d y

b y t h e L o n d o n b r a n c h o f C o o p e r s & L y b r a n d r e p o r t s t h a t

mar ke t ing as a d i sc ip l ine i s mor e v i tal than ever bu t the

mar ke t ing depar tm ent i s c r it ica lly il l ( D ea th of the Br and

M anager 1994) . Mor eover , M cK insey & Co mp any consul-

tan ts com m ent ha t la r ge mar ke t ing departments a r e of ten a

mil ls to ne arou nd an organizat ion's n eck. Regardless of the

poten tia l future threats to the discipl ine, these views poin t to

subs tan t ia l chang es in mar ke t ing thou ght and pr act ice .

A m o n g t h e c h a n g e s u n d e r w a y i s c o n s i d e r a b l e e m -

p h a s i s o n t h e i n t e g r a t io n o f b u s i n e s s f u n c t io n s . M o r e

i m p o r t a n t , f u n c t i o n a l d e - e m p h a s i s i s n o t u n i q u e t o t h e

m a r k e t i n g d i s ci p l i n e . B r e a k i n g d o w n f u n c t i o n a l b o u n d a -

r i e s i s p e r v a s i v e a c r o s s o r g a n i z a t i o n s . O r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e

b e i n g t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o f la t s tr u c t u r e s . B u s i n e s s d e s i g n s

a r e i n c r e a s in g l y v i e w e d a s p r o c e s s e s ( S l y w o t z k y I 9 9 6 ) .

Por te r ( 1996) pr o pose s tha t the ac t iv i ti e s tha t f o r m or ga-

n i z a ti o n a l p r o c e s s e s a r e f u n d a m e n t a l c o m p e t e n c i e s . T h e

i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s v i e w i s t h a t s t r a te g y i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

( e .g . , n e w p r o d u c t d e v e l o p m e n t ) b e c o m e s p r o c e s s d r i v e n

i n v o l v i n g m u l t i fu n c t i o n a l t e a m s , a n d t h i s s t r en g t h e n s a s

w e l t a s c o m p l i c a t e s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . A s o r g a n i z at i o n s

s h i f t f r o m h i e r a r c h y t o m a n a g i n g c o r e p r o c e s s e s , t h e i r

d i s t inc t ive capabi l i t i e s a r e c lose ly l inked to m ar ke t - dr iven

pr ocesse s l ike sa les gene r a t ion ( D ay 1994) . P r ocess de f i -

n i t i o n , d e s i g n , a n d m a n a g e m e n t re q u i r e n e w s k i ll s a n d a

m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l p e rs p e c t i v e , al l o f w h i c h c o m p l i c a t e i m -

plem enta t ion e f f or t s .

Sha re d Re s p ons ib i l i ty f o r Cus t ome rs

S a l e s a n d m a r k e t i n g h a v e t r a d i t io n a l l y s h a r ed r e s p o n -

s i b il i ty f o r t h e c u s t o m e r , w i t h s a l e s p e r s o n n e l p l a y i n g t h e

d o m i n a t e r o l e . T h e t r an s i ti o n t o m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l t e a m r e -

s p o n s i b i li t y f o r c u s t o m e r s e x p a n d s t h e p a r t i c ip a n t g r o u p ,

e n h a n c e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s u p e r i o r c u s t o m e r v a l u e ,

a n d c o m p l i c a t e s t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f c u s t o m e r - d r i v e n

s t r a teg ies . I n s i tua t ions involv ing s t r a teg ic a l l i ances be -

t w e e n o r g a n i z a ti o n s a n d o u t s o u r c i n g o f c u s t o m e r c o n t a c t

r e s p o n s ib i l it y , c u s t o m e r r e s p o n s i b i li t y m a y e x t e n d o u t s i d e

or ganiza t iona l boundar ies .

R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c u s t o m e r re l a t io n s h i p s t ra t e g y u s e d

by the or gan iza t ion , r e spons ib i l i ty f or the r e la t ionsh ip may

i n c l u d e o t h e r f u n c t i o n s b e s i d e s m a r k e t i n g . S al e s a n d m a r -

k e t i n g p e r s o n n e l r o l e s m a y r a n g e f r o m l e a d e r sh i p t o p a r-

t i c i p a n t i n c u s t o m e r m a n a g e m e n t s i t u a t i o n s . H o w e v e r ,

t h e s e c h a n g e s s h o u l d c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t ie s fo r e n h a n c i n g

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n t h r o u g h i n t e rf u n c t io n a l c o o r d i n a t io n a n d

par t ic ipa t ion . U nf or tuna te ly , a s P ie r cy ( 1998) po in t s ou t ,

c o n t e m p o r a r y s t r a te g y i m p l e m e n t a t i o n g u i d e l i n e s h a v e

not been deve lop ed o match pa r ad igm changes . The mar ke t-

dr iven e r a r equi r es a l t e r ing s t r a teg ic thou ght and pr ac t ice

t o e x p a n d b e y o n d t h e s i n g l e o r g a n i z a ti o n a n d t r a d i ti o n a l

f u n c t i o n a l s p e c i a li z a t io n v i e w s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , m u c h o f

t h e t h o u g h t a n d a n a l y s is u n d e r l y i n g s tr a te g y i m p l e m e n t a -

t i o n i s o b s o l e t e b e c a u s e o f t h e d r a s t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

c h a n g e s o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h e l a s t d e c a d e .

Responsib i l i ty for Implementat ion

B e s t ( 1 9 9 7 ) h i g h l i g h t s th r e e m a j o r f o r c e s t h a t a f f ec t t h e

s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s t r a te g i c m a r k e t i n g p l a n s :

( 1 ) o w n e r s h i p o f t h e p l a n , ( 2 ) s u p p o r t i n g t h e p l a n , a n d ( 3)

a d a p t i v e p l a n n i n g . O w n e r s h i p b e c o m e s m o r e c o m p l e x i n

t e a m - o r i e n t e d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , b u t o w n e r s h i p a l s o e n -

h a n c e s t h e p r o c e s s b y l e v e r a g i n g t h e u n i q u e t a l e n t s o f t e a m

m e m b e r s ( R u e k e r t a n d W a l k e r 1 9 8 7 ). S u p p o r t i n g th e p l a n

i n v o l v e s g a i n i n g o r g a n i z a t io n a l c o m m i t m e n t to t h e s t ra t -

e g y b e i n g i m p l e m e n t e d ( p r o v i d i n g t i m e t o s u c c e e d , r e -

s o u r c e a l l o c a ti o n , c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d t h e n e c e s s a ry s k i l ls

t o s u c c e e d ) ( E n g e l h o f f 19 9 3 ). A d a p t i v e p l a n n i n g r e c o g -

n i z e s t h e e s s e n t ia l r o l e o f c o n t i n u o u s i m p r o v e m e n t , fe e d -

b a c k m e a s u r e m e n t s , p e rs i s te n c e , a n d c o r r e c t iv e ( s ta g e d )

imp leme nta t ion ( Bes t 1997) .

R e s p o n d i n g t o t h e th r e e fo r c e s d e p e n d s o n h o w r e s p o n -

s ib i l i ty f or imp lem enta t ion is a l loca ted . Func t ion a l spe -

c i a li z a ti o n w o r k s a g a i n s t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . T e a m c o n c e p t s

a r e i n c r e a si n g l y p o p u l a r i n s t ra t e g y d e s i g n a n d i m p l e m e n -

t a t i o n , p l a c i n g o w n e r s h i p o f s t r a t e g i c p l a n s w i t h t e a m

m e m b e r s . Si m il ar ly , t e a m i n v o l v e m e n t s h o u l d e n h a n c e

s u p p o r t f o r p la n s a n d p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r a d a p t i v e p l a n n i n g .

A s o r g a n i za t io n a l l e a r n i n g a b o u t t e a m p r o c e s s e s o c c u r s ,

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s h o u l d b e e n h a n c e d .

M O D U L R I T Y N D IM P L E M E N T T IO N

O n e o f t h e m a j o r c h a l l e n g e s i n s u c c e s s f u l s t r a t e g y

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n i s c o o r d i n a t i n g a n d i n t e g r a ti n g t h e a c t iv i -

t i es o f t h e p a r t i c i p a ti n g i n d i v i d u a l s a n d f u n c t i o n s . T h e

d e v e l o p m e n t a n d l a u n c h o f a n e w p r o d u c t i s i ll u s tr a ti v e .

M a n y c o n t r i b u t o r s a r e i n v o l v e d i n d e s i g n i n g a n d c o m -

m e r c i a l iz i n g n e w p r o d u c t s . A l l m u s t w o r k w i t h i n a n i n t e r -

l i n k e d n e t w o r k o f a c t iv i t ie s , a n d b e c a u s e o f t h i s , i m p l e -

m e n t a t i o n i s c o m p l e x .

T h e m o d u l a r i ty p a r a d ig m p r o v i d e s a p r o m i s i n g f ra m e -

w o r k f o r s t r at e g y i m p l e m e n t a t i o n n t h e m a r k e t - d r i v e n e ra .

M o d u l a r i ty co n s i s t s o f b u i l d i n g a c o m p l e x p r o d u c t o r

p r o c e s s f r o m s m a l l e r s u b s y s t e m s t h a t c a n b e d e s i g n e d

i n d e p e n d e n t l y y e t f u n c t i o n a s a w h o l e ( B a l d w i n a n d

Cla r k 1997: 84). M odula r i ty enables l ink in g toge the r s ev-

e r a l i n d e p e n d e n t o rg a n i z a t io n s , e a c h r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a

m o d u l e o r s u b s y s t e m . M o d u l a r i t y h a s i t s r o o t s i n t h e

c o m p u t e r i n d u s tr y a n d h a s l a rg e l y b e e n f o c u s e d o n p r o d u c -

t ion processes . Nonetheless , the paradigm has potentia l ly

imp or tant implicat ions for s tra tegy im plem entat ion , par t icu-

lar ly in s i tuat ions invo lving netwo rks of organizat ions .

Modular i ty in Perspect ive

M o d u l a r i ty i n v o l v e s b r e a k i n g u p a p r o c e s s i n t o u n i t s

t h a t a re d e s i g n e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y b u t a r e i n t e r li n k e d b y a

s y s t e m a r c h i t e c tu r e th a t i n d i c a t e s e a c h m o d u l e ' s f u n c t i o n s

a n d h o w i t i n t e r fa c e s w i t h t h e t o ta l s y s t e m ( B a l d w i n a n d

C l a r k 1 9 9 7) . T h e s e a c t i v it i e s a r e q u i t e s i m i l a r t o w h a t m u s t

8/9/2019 art%3A10.1177%2F0092070398263005


Cravens IMPLEMENTATIONSTRATEGIES 239

be do ne to achieve successful implementat ion. The po wer

of modularity is how it coordinates the interlinking of

comp onents whi le enabling each m odule to funct ion inde-

pendently. M odula rity in produ ct and process design and

s t ra t egy implementa t ion share the impor tan t charac-

teristics of inde pen dent contributions and the ne ed to in-

terlink the activities of participating units. Th e paradigm

offers a promisin g basis f or interlinking strategy mo dules

(e.g., promotion, distribution). Like process design, strat-

egy re quires coordinating ma ny activities and participants.

Im p l ica t ions f or Im plem ent a t ion

The modulari ty paradigm offers a useful fram ework for

coordinating the contributions of different mplementation

participants. Strategies (e.g., new prod uct design and com -

mercialization) typically require combining several inter-

related modules . The compel l ing logic o f modularity as a

guide to im plementat ion centers on the concept of archi-

tecture and the interfaces between the modules that specify

how the m odu les interact (e.g., fi t together, function, an d

com mun icate) (Baldwin and Clark 1997).

The logic of mo dularity also highlights th e importance

of spelling out in detail the implementation strategy while

providing eac h mo dule flexibili ty in perform ing functions,

but also interfacing via the sy stem architecture. Th e suc-

cess of m odularity in the com puter industry demonstrates

the feasibili ty of successf ully integrating the contributions

of several ind epen dent participants. This is the essenc e of

strategy implementation.

Applying the modularity paradigm to strategy imple-

me ntation is far from a n obvious tec hnolog y transfer.

Nonetheless, in view o f the ineffectiveness o f the contem -

porary im plem entation concepts and guidelines discussed

by Piercy (1998), benchmarking successful modularity

applications appears potentially useful. There are many

similarit ies between the process of modular design and

strategy design and implementation.

C O M P E T I N G I N T H E

I N FO R M T IO N E C O N O M Y

Evans and W urster (1997) exa mine the fundamental

shift in the economics of information and its potential

impact on strategy. The challenges of competing in the

information eco nom y prom ise to have important implica-

tions for strategy implementation. Two characteristics of

the econ om ics of information, in particular, appear mo st

significant: (1) reduction in the ability of organizational

units and individuals to mo nopo lize control o f information,

and (2) op portunities to leverage information access to com -

press the time nec essary for strategy implem entation.

c c e s s t o I n fo r m a t i o n

We kn ow that strategy implementation is very depend-

ent on the people participating in the process. Piercy

(1998), in his perceptive analysis of mark eting imp lem en-

tation, discusses many people issues that may negatively

affect implementation such as th e formulation-implemen-

tation dichotomy (Cespedes 1991). Ye t , the underlying

reasons fo r negative behavioral interactions affe cting strat-

egy implementation are less apparent. Are the problems

due to lack of information, interfunctional conflict , or

protective behavior?

Evans a nd Wurster (1997) offe r a com pelling analysis

of how the explosion in information c onne ctivity achiev ed

by co mm unicat ing elect ronical ly promises to h ave a major

impact on business and marketing strategies. They point

to the explosion in conne ctivity as the enab ling factor to

unbundle information from its physical carrier (e.g., sales-

person). Universal, open standards f or excha nging infor-

ma tion over Internets facilitate cross-functional team s and

chan ge hierarchical structures a nd proprietary inform ation

systems. These trends in access to information should

enha nce strategy implementation efforts. Exp ande d infor-

m ation connectivity should facilitate interfunctional c oop-

eration and redu ce the pow er of information possession,

which together will facilitate strategy implementation.

S peed and S t ra t egy

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

The changing econom ics of informat ion should also

help to compress the time required for implementation.

The c oncept of speed as a type of s t rategy favors act ion

com pared to analysis (Schnaars 1998). Exten sive access to

information m ay offer the advantages o f more c om plete

analysis w ithin a sh ort t ime span. We kn ow that the bene -

fits of t ime compress ion in new p roduct developm ent and

commercialization and other strategies are significant.

Speed, of course, is a people issue as well as an inform ation

access consideration.

M E S U R I N G

S T R T E G IC P E R F O R M N C E

Deciding how to keep score is an important im plem en-

tation issue. A strategy tha t is perfo rm ing well indicates

successful implementation. Yardsticks for m easuring stra-

tegic perform ance are extending beyon d traditional finan-

cial measures. A growin g group o f compan ies is adopting

the balanced scorec ard approach, wh ich is used to keep

score on how well a strategy is performing (Kaplan and

Norton 1996a; Slater, Olson, and Reddy 1997). This ex-

panded view of organizational performance includes ob-

ject ives , measures , targets , and ini t iat ives relat ive to

financial, customer, internal business process, an d lear ning

and grow th perspectives. This approach to me asuring stra-

tegic perform ance provides a promising m easu rem ent ap-

proach f or evaluating m arket-drive n strategies, be cause it

extends bey ond financial o utcom e me asures, incorporates

an extended t ime horizon, and provides a fram ework for

strategic analysis and action.

8/9/2019 art%3A10.1177%2F0092070398263005


240 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE SUMMER 1998

Strategy Fo rmulat ion

and Implem entation

The balanced scorecard does not explicitly indicate

how or to what extent) strategy formulation versus strat-

egy implementation contributes to pe rform ance. However,

by expand ing the d imens ions o f measurement beyond

financial performance, there is a basis for examining the

specific contributions of strategy design versus implemen-

tation. The information genera ted by th e scorecard facili-

tates diagnosis.

This view of s t rategic performan ce mea surement pro-

vides multiple indicators o f how well the strategy is per-

fo rming . Unsa t i s fac to ry per fo rmance can be fu r ther

analyzed to determine whether the strategy formulation

and/or the ex ecution are faulty. Also, an important contri-

but ion of the expanded view of performance is that i t

extend s the time fra me for gau ging strategy effectiveness

bey ond sho rt-term financial re porting requirements.

Framew ork for Strategic nalysis

The balanced scorecard can be used as a strategic

ma nagem ent system, helping manag ers to evaluate imple-

me ntation as i t occurs and m odi fy strategies du e to strate-

gic learning Kaplan and No rton 1 996b ). It lays out a

usefu l diagnostic fram ew ork for strategy implem entation

and evolution over t ime. Managers are able to obtain

feed back and ad just their strategies to ac coun t for market,

competitor, and tec hnolog ical changes.

Th e balanced sc orecard requires m anage rs to articulate

objectives, m easure s, targets, and initiatives f or each di-

me nsion of perfo rm ance financial, internal business proc-

ess, learning and growth, and customer). The creation o f

the score card contributes to implementation strategy by

l inking the m easures from the fou r dimensions or perspec-

tives into a strategic fram ew ork that is used to mana ge the

strategies being pursued by the organization Kaplan and

Norton 1996b).

CO NCL US I O N

Achieving successful implementation is a continuing

chal lenge to the execut ives responsible for execut ing

strategies and to the scholars see king to understand imple-

me ntation processes. T he im portan ce of implementation is

not questioned by executives or scholars, although the

activity warrants much more attention than it has been

given in the past. Penetrating analyses of strategy imple-

me ntation by scholars l ike Pierc y 1998) are important and

essential to m ovin g the topic beyond action checklists to

conceptual foundations for guiding empirical rese arch and

execut ive act ion. Advancing the s tate of knowledge of

implementation will be enha nced if scholars and exe cu-

tives w ork toge ther to advan ce thought and practice.

The changing characteris tics of the market-driven era

will undoubtedly affect strategy form ulation and its exe-

cution. W hile there are ma ny factors releva nt to strategy

implementation, I have selected four that promise to be

particularly important as the world moves into the 21st

century. M y objec tive is to anticipate how implementation

ma y be affected as organizations shif t from a marke t ing to

a market-driven strategic view, modu larity bec om es m ore

pervasive in business designs, com peting in the inform a-

tion economy is altered by electronic connectivity, and

new m easures are developed to gauge s t rategic perform -

ance. These changing dimensions of s trategy promise to

facili tate as we ll as constrain strate gy implementation, and

they require analysis a nd evaluation as ma rketing strategy

implementation evolve s in the 21st century.

REFERENCES

Baldwin , Car l is s Y. and Kim B . C la rk . 1997 . Man ag ing in an Age

of Modula r i ty .

Harvard Business Review

Sep tember-October ,

pp. 84-93.

Best, Roger J. 1997.

Market-Based Man agement.

Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cespedes, Fran k V. 1991. Organizing and Implementing the M arketing

Effort. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Cravens, David W ., Gordon Greenley, Nigel E Piercy, and Stanley Slater.

1997. Integrating Contempo rary Strategic Perspectives.

Long Range

Planning

August, pp. 493-506.

, , , and .. .. . . 199 8. Mapping the Path to

Market Leadership: The Market-Driven Strategy Imperative. Work-

ing Paper.

Day, George S. 1994. Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations.

Journal of M arketing

October, 37-52.

Death of the Brand Manager. 1994.

Economist

April 9, pp. 67-68.

Engelhoff, William. 1993. Great Strategies or Great Strategy Implemen-

tat ion -T wo Ways of Competing in Global Markets.

Sloan Manage-

ment Review

Winter, pp. 37-50.

Evans, Philip B. and Thomas S. Wurster. 1997. Strategy and the New

Economics of Information.


September-

October, pp. 70-82.

Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton. 1996a.

Balance d Scorecard.

Boston: Harvard Business Schoo l Press.

.and .1996b. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic

Management System. Harvard Business Review January-February,

pp. 75-85.

Piercy, Nigel E 1998. Marketing Implem entation: The Implications of

Marketing Paradigm W eakness for the Strategy Execution Process.

Journal of the A cademy of Marketing Science

26 (3): 222-236.

Porter, Michael E. 1996. What is Strategy?


Novem ber-Decem ber, pp. 61-78.

Ruekert, Robert and Orville Walker, Jr. 1987. Marketing's Interaction

With Other Functional Units: A Conceptual Framework a nd Empirical

Evidence.

Journal of Marketing

51 (January): 1-19.

Schnaars, Stephen P. 1998.

Marketing Strategy.

2d ed. N ew York: Free

Press.

Slater, Stanley F., Eric M. Olson, and Venkateshwar K. Reddy. 1997.

Strategy-Based Performance Measurement. Business Horizons

July-August, pp. 37-44.

Slywotzky, Adrian J. 1996. Value M igration. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

8/9/2019 art%3A10.1177%2F0092070398263005


Cravens / IMPLEMENTATIONSTRATEGIF_~ 241

Womack,James P. and D aniel T. Jones. 1996. Lean Thinking New York:

Simon Schuster.

B O U T T H E U T H O R

Da v i d Wo Cr a ve n s , Ph . D . , ho ld s t he Eun i c e a nd J a me s L . We s t

Chai r o f Am er ican Enterpr ise Studies a t Texas Chr is t ian Univer-

s i ty . Previous ly he was the Alcoa Foundat ion professor a t the

Univers i ty of Tennessee, where he chai red the Depar tment of

Market ing and Transporta tion and the Manage men t Science Pro-

gram. Before becom ing an educator , he he ld var ious indust ry and

gove rnme nt execut ive pos i tions. He i s in ternat ionaUy recognize d

for h is research on market ing s t ra tegy and sa les m anagem ent ; he

has cont r ibuted over 100 ar tic les , m onograp hs , books , and pro-

ceedin gs papers. H e has bee n a visit ing scho lar at universities in

Austria, Australia, Chile, Czec h Rep ublic, Englan d, Ireland, Ge r-

many, Mexico, the Nether lands , New Zealand, Singapore , and

Wales. H is textbook, S tra teg ic Market ing (Irwin 1997), is widely

used in s t ra tegy and m anagem ent courses .

Documents

art%3A10.1177%2F0092070398263005