Strategic Management Assignment final

Strategic Management

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 2

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Background 4

3.0 Strategy 5

3.1 Strategy Analysis 6

3.1.1 External Audit 6

3.1.2 Internal Audit 8

3.2 Strategy Formation 8

3.3 Strategy Implementation 9

4.0 Paradoxes 10

4.1 Logical (Rational) versus Creative (Generative) Strategies 10

4.2 Intended (Deliberate) versus Realised (Emergent) Strategies 12

4.3 Strategy Fit versus Strategy Stretch 14

5.0 Conclusion 16

6.0 References 17

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 1


Executive Summary

This paper assumes a Singapore based organisation, Asia Pacific Breweries aspirations to be

more active in the global level by offering its leading brand, Tiger Beer on tap for the

European market. We examine some literature reviews by leading commentators on the

strategic management process and discuss several paradoxes from a beer market point of

view. Recommendations for the company’s move were also made based on challenges and

advantages that are predictable.



1.0 Introduction

The long-term survival of many organisations around the world owes its success to effective

strategic management based on solid strategic planning. According to Porter (1980), the goal

of the strategist is to find a position in the industry where his or her company can best defend

itself against the forces which exist in the industry or to use them in its favour. Many

organisations often rely on various approaches to develop strategy by processing industry

information as part of the strategy development process (Hofer and Schendel 1978; Porter

1980). Many studies on strategic processes could also be found in environment with

sufficient market data to facilitate such analyses (Benson et al, 1999; Theodore, 2009; Selley,

2007).

With the increasingly global and competitive business world, strategic decision making has

become more complicated as many companies are now forced to find ways to counter these

challenges. Some of the obstacles faced by companies include the need to increase

productivity, improve on operation abilities, innovate and develop new technologies and

manage organisational change that is vital for survival. As a result, it is particularly easy to

make poor strategic judgments. A traditional way to avoid strategic errors is to simply wait to

see how events unfold, or to imitate others (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1987). However, the

"wait and see" and "me too" decision strategies may also result in failure, as competitive

positions change and windows of opportunity close. The dilemma of strategic decision

making in this environment is that it is easy to make a mistake by acting too soon, but equally

ineffective to delay decision making or to copy others.

Beer is the predominant alcoholic drink in many parts of Europe and possesses a huge market

share in the global market (Vrontis, 1998). The European beer market generated total

revenues of US$213.7 billion in 2009. Standard lager sales proved the most lucrative for the

market in 2009, generating total revenues of US$100.2 billion, equivalent to 46.9% of the

market's overall value (Datamonitor, 2010). At a glance, the figures look tempting enough for

any beer company in the world to get a fair share of the pie. For the purpose of this

assignment, we will be studying a Singapore based company, Asia Pacific Breweries Limited

(APB) in its strategic aspirations to gain a foothold into the European beer market.



2.0 Background

Listed on the Singapore Exchange, APB is one of the key players in the beer industry in the

South East Asia region. APB, previously known as Malayan Breweries Limited was

produced as a result of the joint venture between the Fraser and Neave Group of companies

and Heineken in 1931. The first brewery was established in Singapore and subsequently, the

award-winning Tiger beer was created. Today, APB boasts an extensive global marketing

network, spreading across 60 countries and is supported by 36 breweries in 13 different

countries (Asia Pacific Breweries, 2010).

In Singapore, APB houses a portfolio of over 40 beer brands and brand variants, including

Tiger beer, Heineken, Anchor beer, ABC Extra Stout and Baron’s Strong Brew. The

organisation corresponds with their in house Tiger beer which could be found brewing in

10 countries and offered in 60 markets worldwide. The Group also represents Heineken in

nine other markets including Singapore. Overall, APB offers a wide range and variety of

brews to various markets in various countries. Due to its parent history, it is not a surprise to

find that APB beers are brewed under the guidance of Heineken technical experts, who

possess a rich European brewing culture and experience (Asia Pacific Breweries, 2010).

Due to its heritage, it is easy to spot similarities in practice (such as the brewing techniques)

in APB as compared to Heineken. It is however important to note that since APB was

established in Singapore, we need to assume that the style of leadership and operations are

predominantly Asian. Because of its multiple products portfolio, for the rest of this

assignment, we shall only be focusing on APB’s leading brand, Tiger Beer. Tiger Beer has

been available in bottled form in the UK since the 1940s (Heineken UK, 2010) but it has

never been made available on tap. We would only be exploring and considering the

opportunities to market Tiger Beer in Europe by offering the beer on tap as a way to

participate more actively on the global platform.



3.0 Strategy

A. Price and E. Newson (2003) explored strategic management in construction with an

interesting framework of paradoxes, processes and associated concepts. In this paper, we

would be adopting a similar structure of review to the European beer industry. Many would

agree that there is no fixed, single, globally accepted definition of strategy (Mintzberg et al.,

1998). De Wit and Meyer (1998, p 3) stated that ‘‘there are strongly differing opinions on

most of the key issues within the field and the disagreements run so deep that even a common

definition of the term strategy is illusive’’.

For a better understanding of what is strategy, we examine the following definitions which

are somewhat perceived differently by different authors. De Wit and Meyer (1998, p. 68)

think that ‘‘strategy can be broadly conceived as a course of action for achieving an

organization’s purpose’’; Quinn (1980, p. 7) stated that ‘‘a strategy is the pattern or plan that

integrates an organization’s major goals, policies and action sequences into a cohesive

whole’’; while Johnson and Scholes (2002, p. 10), defined strategy as ‘‘the direction and

scope of an organization over the long term: which achieves advantage for the organization

through its configuration of resources within a changing environment, to meet the needs of

markets and to fulfill stakeholder expectations.’’

According to De Wit and Meyer (1998, p. 5), there are ‘‘three dimensions of strategy that can

be recognized in every real-life strategic problem situation.’’ The first dimension is strategy

process, it is concerned with the how, who, and when of strategy. The second is strategy

content and can be considered as the product of the strategy process. The last dimension is

strategy context and it refers to the organizational and environmental situations where the

first two dimensions are determined. All three dimensions are interlinked although each

dimension can be examined on its own. For this assignment, we will only study the strategy

process, which itself can be divided into three parts. They include strategic analysis, strategic

formation and strategic implementation.



3.1 Strategic Analysis

Strategic analysis is the understanding of an organisation’s strategic position. It scrutinises

and examines the company’s existing situation. It could include knowing where the company

is aiming for, what they want to achieve as an organisation, being aware of their placing in

the market and understanding their competitors. This process is typically categorised into two

main actions, namely external and internal audit.

External audit is the environmental competitive analysis which includes an assessment of the

industry, the market and the rivals. By using tools such as PEST, SWOT, Porter’s five forces,

Strategic Grouping Mapping and Pricing Quantity Dynamics, an organisation can gain a clear

picture of their environment. Opportunities and threats can also be identified while strengths

and weaknesses can be spotted for actions.

Internal audit is the process of doing a health check of the organisation to recognise its core

competencies, its potential to excel, its forte and limitations. Techniques that can be used to

conduct an internal audit include the Boston Consulting Group Matrix, McKinsey 7-S model

and Porter’s value chain analysis.

3.1.1 External Audit

APB’s aim to gain a market share worldwide with Tiger beer is evident in its presence in

Denmark, Germany, Ireland and United Kingdom in Europe. Its slogan “An Award-Winning

Lager, Savoured Around the World” suggests its objective to market its product to any beer

drinking market possible. Adapting Porter’s five forces, we can identify the company’s

competitive rivalry, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of customers, threat of

new entrants and the threat of substitute products.

The European beer market has seen an increase global competition and saturation of domestic

market since the mid 90s causing threats even to the key players. To date, only a few large

breweries control the global market (Vrontis, 1998). When examining the competitors of the

European market, we consider various factors such as the increase of industry concentration,

the growth in the market and the increase in product diversification. There are top three

leaders with a variety of brands in various market segments holding 53% of the total

European market volume, making it a fairly concentrated playground (Datamonitor, 2010).



With a wide range of beer such as ales, stouts, standard and premium lager, the market has a

high level of product differentiation. The first factor for Tiger Beer to gain entry into the

market is to identify the number and size of the existing players in the market.

Supplier power in Europe is in a moderate position because raw materials such as hops and

malted grain are commonly available. At this stage, Tiger beer is only selling exported

bottled beer in the European market as it doesn’t have a brewery in this part of the world. It

would hence be in favour for the company to attempt selling beer on tap knowing that

supplier power is mediocre.

Bargaining power of customers for Tiger Beer would include retail supermarkets and

hypermarkets apart from direct sales to consumers. These retail chains usually have

considerable buyer power with their ability to mass distribute across the country. This puts

them in a highly advantageous position to negotiate a lower price. However, as Tiger Beer is

attempting to sell their product on tap, we would probably consider direct sales to consumers

through pubs and clubs. Bargaining power of customers here would seem to be moderate too

because people who choose to head out for drinks would already be prepared to pay for it but

the choices are abundant in such venues.

The threat of new entrants for the beer market is average in Europe as it depends on the

government regulations and policies. In some countries, these rules may be more stringent

than others which could cause problems on the ease of market entry. It is also important to

find out the exact growth prospects of the market if the company is keen to be more active in

the region as growth prospects would affect market entry.

Other alcoholic beverage such as spirits and wines would be considered as the main

substitutes for beer. Tiger beer is in a very vulnerable position here as switching costs are low

and wine can prove to be more popular in some European countries due to their drinking

habits and culture. Overall, the threats from substitutes are high and the company has to take

this highly into consideration before making any decisions.

The above factors would be points for consideration if Tiger Beer is keen to be more active

with either brewing their own beer or serving the beer on tap in the Europe market.



3.1.2 Internal Audit

APB is owned by Heineken although it operates and functions separately in the Asia region.

In Singapore, Heineken is brewed in the same brewery as Tiger beer although both brands are

marketed separately with different working teams. In UK, Tiger Beer is supported by

Heineken UK and marketed as a specialty brand amongst many others such as Scrumpy Jack,

Woodpecker, Amstel and so on (Heineken UK, 2010). To achieve its global objective of

offering Tiger Beer on tap in Europe, it seems advisable for APB to invest in an office locally

or to branch away from Heineken UK for better results. Some of the areas for consideration

for the Europe working team include having Tiger Beer setting up its own brewery house in

the region or working with other brewers, getting their own suppliers, managing distribution,

marketing, accounting, transportation and logistics.

3.2 Strategy Formation

Strategy formation is the process of deciding the direction and appropriate courses of action

for attaining company’s objectives and purposes. The formulation should include deliberation

of the type of strategy to be adopted. According to Porter (1998), there are two main

categories of generic competitive strategies. They include cost leadership; and product

differentiation and market segmentation.

Many of the businesses from beer to fashion to automobile industries easily fall into the two

main categories. Generally, beer is considered a cheap and homogeneous product. It is

difficult for beer companies to start a price war or adopt a cost leadership strategy as the

profit margin would be minimal. Little competitive advantage occurs if beer companies take

on board this strategy. Hence, most beer companies go with the product differentiation and

market segmentation route which seems to make more sense in such a competitive

playground. Traditionally, beer brands like to be associated with their origins, for example,

Budweiser sold its image as all-American; Fosters makes a play of its Aussie heritage; and

Carlsberg was linked to advertisements to the Danes. In Europe, Tiger Beer has been

marketed more as an exotic, premium beer with its Asian heritage and all the mystique and

romance that are associated with the Orient (J. Tai, 2008).

Strategy formation can also come in the form of development strategies such as mergers,

acquisitions, and strategic alliances (A. Price and E. Newson, 2003). This is common in the



beer industry as witnessed with the merger between SABMiller and Molson Coors, and the

acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by Belgium’s InBev in 2008 (Reuters, 2010).

In the case of Tiger Beer, with the combination of both strategies, we can have APB merging

with another local brewer (preferably within the parent company’s group) to have its beer

brewed locally. The beer can then be marketed as an exotic Asian premium beer being

offered on tap. A merger with a local brewer will be a wiser move here as the financial and

physical (such as looking for a brewery house and running it) risks involved will be greatly

reduced in case the business doesn’t take off. APB might also consider marketing and

positioning the beer with the same Asian image so that existing customers are not confused

and hopefully it can entice a new target group of consumers.

3.3 Strategy Implementation

Johnson and Scholes (1999, p. 22) state that strategy implementation ‘‘is concerned with the

translation of strategy into organizational action through organizational structure and design,

resource planning and the management of strategic change.’’ Organisations need to execute

and follow through decisions and changes that will have impacts on both organisational

culture and the processes. Processes can include physical change such as organisational

structure, management systems, policies and procedures, action plans, short term

budgets/resources allocation, and information systems. Cultural changes are intangible and

usually involve behavioural changes, such as value given to quality, excellence,

communication, innovation, and employee participation (A. Price and E. Newson, 2003).

If the intention of APB is to create more presence in the European market by offering Tiger

Beer on tap or to start a brewery in the region, the company needs to make sure that they are

committed to the process by providing as much support from the home office as possible.

Senior managers from Singapore could be given the chance to relocate and start up an office

in Europe, value chain analysis has to be done in depth and market research needs to be

conducted substantially to ensure a smooth start up. It is also possible for the Heineken UK

office to assist in the change as they would be much more experienced in this market as

Europe is their home ground.



4.0 Paradoxes

Strategic analysis, strategy formation, and strategy implementation have frequently been

drawn as individual levels in a rational and continual process. However, De Wit and Meyer

(1998) have taken a different approach where they believe that imagination and judgement

should take priority over logic. These are the common diverse opinions of many theorists in

the field of strategy. Here in this case, we consider several paradoxes viewed from the beer

industry perspective. This would offer some understandings of the various complications

involving the strategic management process and recommendations as to how APB should

respond. The main paradoxes considered were logical (rational) versus creative (generative)

strategies; intended (deliberate) versus realized (emergent) strategies; and strategic fit versus

strategic stretch.

4.1 Logical (Rational) versus Creative (Generative) Strategies

There are various perspectives on how executive teams should make key strategic decisions

from the rational approach. It assumes that top management can agree on the priorities of

company’s objectives, explore thoroughly for all options that are available, and then integrate

the optimal choice into existing strategy (Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984). Chandler (1962)

and Ansoff (1979) agree that it was crucial to build long-term goals and objectives. Planning

is the key to decision making and organisation should make plans to conjoin its aims, policies

and behaviour into a strong, consistent unit (Quinn, 1980). Janis (1982) argues that extensive

consideration of goals and a wide range of alternatives is a prerequisite to sound decision

making. According to Andrews (1987), decision making can be logical even if other options

carry emotional attachments.

Ansoff (1979) offered a constructive systematic approach of framework which focused on a

dissection of the environment to help organisations screen their options, calculate the risks

associated, narrowing it down and choosing the ones that best suit their situation. Allison

(1971) implies that strategic success depends on in depth analysis and planning before action

in the Rational Actor model. Kotler and Cox (1988) argued that strategic management is a

framework within which decisions are made concerning the nature and direction of an

organization.



The role and portrayal of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is another point for discussion.

It’s been questioned if the CEO should dictate strategy like a commander; get the

participation of the management team to build consensus in making strategic decisions; or act

as a premise-setter who takes a back seat after outlining the key points, and allowing the top

management team to decide (Bourgeois and Brodwin 1984; Mintzberg and McHugh 1985;

Mintzberg 1987). It is often suggested that decisions should be the outcome of management

team participation and agreement (Bourgeois 1980).

Logical or rational strategies associate the process of strategy with formal planning systems

that are usually based on impartial and unbiased analysis, that are derived by a consistent

employment of logic. They are thought to be a scientific style of management as they depend

a lot on the availability and use of statistics, records, data, information and facts (A. Price and

E. Newson, 2003). In contrast, De Wit and Meyer (1999, p. 60) believe that ‘‘heavy emphasis

placed on rationality can actually stifle creativity, while creativity is essential for generating

novel insights, new ways of defining problems and innovative solutions’’.

Mintzberg (1987, p. 66) suggested that the image of crafting better captures the process of

strategy development than the image of planning. He believed that planning was associated

with ‘‘rational control, the systematic analysis of competitors and markets, of company

strengths and weaknesses,’’ whereas crafting implied ‘‘not so much thinking and reasoning

as involvement, a feeling of intimacy with the materials at hand, developed through long

experience and commitment.’’ In addition, Mintzberg (1994) differentiated strategic planning

and strategic thinking. He associated the former as analytical, formal, and concerned with

programming; while affiliating the latter as creative, intuitive, and characterized by synthesis.

He believes that strategic thinking is crucial to successful strategy and is convinced that the

strategy process requires fresh ideas and mindset; by operating beyond traditional

compulsions and supporting informal learning.

De Wit and Meyer (1998, pp. 72, 74), stated that ‘‘Advocates of the rational thinking

perspective argue that strategic thinking should not be based on emotions, habit or pure

intuition, but on explicit logical reasoning just like science;’’ but ‘‘Advocates of the

generative perspective argue that the essence of strategic thinking is the ability to creatively



challenge the (status quo) and to generate new and unique ways of doing things. As such,

strategic thinking closely resembles the frame-breaking behaviour common in the arts.’’

The need for beer brands in the industry to stand out from each other increased the need for

creativity through branding and marketing in any market, especially so in Europe because of

the concentration. In this case, we need a more relaxed approach to achieve its objective. The

increased use of internet with mobile phone applications and social networking sites have

encouraged many beer companies to go with a more flexible and imaginative approach over

logic when it comes to decision making. This allows radical and rapid changes to handle the

high velocity of society today. The ability to stand out and be different is highly crucial to

remain competitive and beer companies need to think outside the box to achieve this.

However, it is also important for companies to have logical long term plans where they can

forecast and project long term goals. It is therefore important to strike a balance between

logic and creativity for successful strategy business plans. The dilemma for both approaches

have been accepted by theorists such as Ansoff (1988) who later stated that “paralysis by

analysis” could occur and Mintzberg (1994) claiming that both logical and creative thinkers

are necessary for the success of an organisation.

4.2 Intended (Deliberate) versus Realised (Emergent) Strategies

Mintzberg and Waters (1985) distinguished intended strategies to be patterns of decisions and

realized strategies as patterns of actions to avoid any complications that could occur due to

the various definitions of strategy. While intended strategies are acts that focus on thinking

before acting, realised strategy is a set of action that develops over time in a company in the

absence of specific objectives and visions. De Wit and Meyer (1998, p. 151) also commented

that ‘‘intended strategies are the patterns of decisions that organizations plan to execute,

while realized strategies are the patterns of actions that have been accomplished.’’

Andrews and Ansoff are the representations of the design school and the planning school

respectively. However, the design school does recognize that some revisions to the original

strategy may be required due to and guided by operational feedback (Andrews, 1987).

Ansoff’s notion of strategy is broadly based on proper planning and supported by analytical

techniques.



Mintzberg is a subscriber to the theory of the learning school. He sees strategy formulation as

an emergent process of trial and error that takes place during implementation (Mintzberg,

1990). He argues that the above schools misrepresented the concept of strategy formulation;

and it also suffered from three fallacies including that events can be predicted, that strategic

thinking is separable from operational management, and that hard data, analysis and

techniques are capable of producing innovative strategies. He believes that in practice,

strategy making was both deliberate and emergent: purely emergent strategies preclude any

planning and control; and purely deliberate strategies preclude learning. He also compares

learning and planning to “two feet walking”, one following the other, along the path to an

emerging strategy (Mintzberg, 1991).

In the other extreme, Quinn (1978, 1980) introduced the concept of “logical incrementalism”

arguing that strategic management practice had little similarities to the rational, analytical,

planned approach. His theory is based on the belief that it is ‘‘literally impossible to predict

all the events and forces that will shape the future of the company’’ (Quinn 1980, p. 53).

Instead, these changes in strategy processes used were usually fragmented, evolutionary, and

largely intuitive. He found out that organisations practise deliberate strategies to increase

central control but in return, creativity suffers. He thinks that the process is ‘‘pulsing,

dynamic and organic’’ and can only be managed incrementally (Quinn, 1980, p. 138). Huff

(1990) implies that different people possess different schemata. Individual leaders have

different mental models that will affect their decisions hence causing different impact on the

strategies of the organisation.

Intended strategies emerge during the strategic planning process, and realized strategies

emerge over a period of time. APB moving into a different market might take many years to

establish their foothold. The beer market is also highly volatile as competitors are always

coming up with novel ideas and promotions. Effective strategic planning processes must

therefore have an in-built flexibility that monitors current and emerging situations with a

view to updating the strategic direction of an organization. It is an intended strategy for APB

to offer Tiger Beer on tap for its European consumers but the response for the offer would

trigger a series of realised strategies for the company and hence adequate anticipations.



If APB were to go with pure intended strategy, the company would be drawing up perhaps a

five year plan and setting up procedures and marketing plans of penetrating the European

market for Tiger Beer. This strategy would adhere whether the company makes a profit or

loss. The emergent strategy suggests that the company should test the market by offering the

product on tap in a small market and depending on the response, form new ways of running

the business. This seems pretty much like what APB is currently doing under the Heineken

UK organisation. Again in this scenario, it seems like a combination of both strategies would

prove most effective. APB should set up a long term plan and drawing its current data from

the parent company, it should work out the best way to bring the product to the next level.

4.3 Strategic Fit versus Strategic Stretch

This paradox scrutinises the relationship of organisation and its competitive environment

with regards to the definition of strategy that is adopted. Ansoff (1984, p. 94) defined strategy

as a management responsibility ‘‘to position and relate the firm to its environment in a way

which will assure its continued success and make it secure from surprises.’’ Strategic fit

could be seen as having companies configuring a fit between its resources and the

opportunities it pursues (Hamel and Prahalad, 1993). On the other end of the stick, strategic

stretch focus on identifying a few core competencies, creating strategic alliances with

suppliers and exploiting these advantages to gain competitive edge and favourable

opportunities for the organization.

The elements of strategy fit include finding a fit between market opportunities to

organisation’s resources; gaining competitive advantage through correct positioning by

market need; find and defend niche; and reduce risk through the portfolio of products. On the

other hand, strategy stretch is identified with leveraging of organisation’s resources to

improve its value for money; differentiate based on competencies to gain competitive

advantage; survive by changing the rules of the game in the industry; and reduce risk through

portfolio of competencies (Johnson and Scholes, 1999).

Traditionally, beer breweries have their own pubs serving locally brewed beer to consumers

walking in to the pubs, hence their core competencies lay in the quality of the beer they

produced. Today, most beer brands offered on tap are owned by international groups

(Brandwood, 2006) with strong emphasis on branding and marketing (Medcalf, 2008). In this



paradox, it is again the marriage of both environmentally led fit and resource-led stretch

strategies that were going to prove most favourable for APB to adapt. APB identified the

market opportunities of offering exotic and authentic Asian beer as their positioning in the

European region. This is niche as it might appeal to a different group of drinkers since the

older generation tend to be quite loyal to their home brands. In this scenario, the organisation

has adopted a strategy fit concept. However, the strategy stretch concept suggests APB could

also ride on Heineken UK’s successful establishment to achieve its objectives by exploiting

their contacts and infrastructure resources.



5.0 Conclusion

This assignment has looked at the various considerations of strategic management for a

company such as APB to participate more actively in the global market with its core brand of

Tiger Beer. We have looked at the brief history of the company and made suggestions on

strategic decisions based on the strategy paradoxes raised by leading strategists.

In order for APB to bring Tiger Beer on tap to Europe, we suggest that the company should

have a more relaxed approach when it comes to decision making. If the company decides to

set up an office in Europe, (divorce from Heineken UK) managers in the Europe office

should be given the authority to take charge and make business decisions instead of reporting

to head office in Singapore all the time. However, depending on the gravity of the situation,

head office should also be able to have a say in any major final decisions made. A balance

should be achieved here. Likewise, a combination of using intended and emergent strategies

as part of the business plan is important as long term objectives and goals need to be set. On

the other hand, managers should have the flexibility of changing such objectives or aims

depending on the market responses and needs. In order for APB to succeed in the European

market, it has to find its niche to appeal to the market but at the same time, it could also make

use of its parent company’s resources to leverage its position.

More importantly, APB needs to do both an internal and external audit to find its strengths

and weaknesses and overcome them to achieve its global aspirations. We suggest that APB

should work or merge with another brewer at this stage to provide its beer on tap. They

should also continue with its market positioning as a premium Asian beer to appeal for the

younger target consumers. Although we have also pointed out the various challenges and

obstacles in the European market competition, we also believe that with accurate analysis,

proper planning and an open to changes attitude approach, this move is highly possible to be

successful.



6.0 References

Books:

1. Andrews, K. R., 1987. The concept of corporate strategy, 3rd Ed., Irwin, Homewood.

2. Ansoff, H. I., 1979. Strategic management, Macmillan, London.

3. Ansoff, H. I., 1984. Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, London.

4. Ansoff, H. I., 1988. Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion, Penguin, London.

5. Ansoff, H. I. & McDonnell, E. J., 1990. Implanting strategic management, Prentice-Hall, London.

6. Chandler, A. D., 1962 Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

7. DeWit, B. & Meyer, R., 1998. Strategy: process, content, context—An International Perspective, West Publishing Co., Minneapolis.

8. De Wit, B. & Meyer, R., 1999. Strategy Synthesis, International Thomas Business Press, London.

9. Hofer, C. W. & Schendel, D., 1978. Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts. West Publishing Co., St Paul.

10. Huff, A. S., 1990. Mapping Strategic Thought, Somerset, NJ: Wiley.

11. Janis, I. L., 1982. Victims of Groupthink, Rev. ed., Houston Mifflin, Boston.

12. Johnson, G. & Scholes, K., 1999. Exploring corporate strategy: Text and cases, 5th Ed., Prentice-Hall, London.

13. Johnson, G. & Scholes, K., 2002. Exploring corporate strategy, 6th Ed., Prentice-Hall, London.

14. Kotler, P. & Cox, K., 1988. Marketing management and strategy, 4th Ed., Prentice-Hall, London.

15. Mintzberg, H., 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.

16. Mintzberg, H., Lampel, L., and Ahlstrand, B., 1998. The strategy safari, Jossey–Bass, San Francisco.

17. Porter, M. E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: Free Press.



18. Porter, M. E., 1998. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance, Free Press, New York.

19. Porter, M. E., 1998. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors, Simon and Schuster, New York.

20. Quinn, J. B., 1980. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Homewood, IL: Irwin.

21. Tai, J., 2008. Great Asian Brands: Tiger Beer. Marshall Cavendish Corp/Ccb.

22. Thompson, J. L., 1997. Strategic management: Awareness and change, International Thomas Business Press, London

Journals:

23. Ansoff, H. I., 1987. The Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Behavior. Strategic Management Journal 8, pp. 501-51 5.

24. Ansoff, H. I., 1991. Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s ‘The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management’. Strategic Management Journal 12, pp. 449-461.

25. Benson-Armer, R., Leibowitz, J. & Ramachandran D., 1999. Global Beer: What’s on Tap? The McKinsey Quarterly 1, pp. 111-121.

26. Bourgeois, L. J., 1980. Performance and Consensus. Strategic Management Journal 1(3), pp. 227-248.

27. Bourgeois, L. J., 1985. Strategic Goals, Perceived Uncertainty, and Economic Performance in Volatile Environments. Academy of Management Journal 28(3), pp. 548-573.

28. Bourgeois, L. J., McAllister D. W. & Mitchell, T. R., 1978. The Effects of Different Organizational Environments Upon Decisions About Organization Structure. Academy of Management Journal 21(3), pp. 508-514.

29. Bourgeois, L. J. & Brodwin, D. R., 1984. Strategy Implementation: Five Approaches to an Elusive Phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal 5(3), pp. 241-264.

30. Bourgeois, L. J. & Eisenhardt, K. M., 1988. Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science 34(7).

31. Bourgeois, L. J. & Eisenhardt, K. M., 1988. Strategic decision processes in Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of a ‘Living Dead’. California Management Review 30(1), pp. 143-159.



32. Frederickson, J. W. & Mitchell, T. R., 1984. Strategic Decision Processes: Comprehensiveness and Performance in an Industry with an Unstable Environment. Academic Management Journal 27(2), pp. 399-42.

33. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K., 1993. Strategy as Stretch and Leverage. Harvard Business Review 71(2), pp 75-84.

34. Harrington, R. J., Lemak, D. J., Reed, R. & Kendall, K. W. 2004. A Question of Fit: The Links among Environment, Strategy Formulation, and Performance. Journal of Business and Management 10(1), pp. 15-38.

35. Isenberg, D. J., 2008. The Global Entrepreneur. Harvard Business Rev, pp. 107-111.

36. Mintzberg, H., 1978. Patterns In Strategy Formation. Harvard Business Rev, pp. 66-75.

37. Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. A., 1985. Of Strategies Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal 6, pp. 257-272.

38. Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A., 1985. Strategy Formation in an Adhocracy. Admin. Science Quarter, 30, pp. 160-197.

39. Mintzberg, H., 1987. Crafting Strategy. Harvard Business Review 65(4), pp 66-75.

40. Mintzberg, H., 1987. The strategy concept, part I: Five p’s for strategy. California Management Review 30(1), pp. 11–25.

41. Mintzberg, H., 1987. The strategy concept, part II: Another look at why organizations. California Management Review 30(1), pp. 25–33.

42. Mintzberg, H., 1990. The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 11, pp. 171-195.

43. Mintzberg, H., 1991. Learning 1, Planning 0: Reply to Igor Ansoff. Strategic Management Journal 12, pp. 463-466.

44. Nutt, P. C., Backoff, R. W. & Michael, F. 2000. Managing the Paradoxes of Strategic Change. Journal of Applied Management Studies 9(1), pp. 5-31.

45. Porter, M. E., 1979. The structure within industries and companies’ performance. Review of Economics and Statistics 61(2), pp. 214–27.

46. Porter, M. E., 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 74(6), pp. 61-79.

47. Price, A. D. F. & Newson, E., 2003. Strategic Management: Consideration of Paradoxes, Processes, and Associated Concepts as Applied to Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, pp. 183-192.

48. Quinn, J. B., 1978. Strategic change: ‘Logical incrementalism’. Sloan Management Review 20(1), pp. 7–21.


http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713428018


49. Robertson, D. A., 2003. Agent-Based Models of a Banking Network as an Example of a Turbulent Environment: The Deliberate vs. Emergent Strategy Debate Revisited. Emergence 5(2), pp 56-71.

50. Roger, J. N., 1996. An Analysis of Deliberate and Emergent Strategies Relative to Porter’s Generic Differentiator and Cost Leader: A Bias and Variance Modeling Approach. Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises 23.

51. Selley, C., 2007. Imported beer: the price is right. Maclean’s 120(42), pp. 44.

52. Stoney, C., 2001. Strategic management or strategic Taylorism? A case study into change within a UK Local Authority. International Journal of Public Sector Management 14(1), pp. 27–42.

53. Vrontis, D., 1998. Strategic assessment: the importance of branding in the European beer market. British Food Journal 100(2), pp. 76-84.

Internet:

54. Anon, 2010. Case Study Brand Watch: Tiger Beer. Event Magazine, pp. 26-27. Available through: EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].

55. Anon, 2010. Top four brewers account for over half world's beer. Reuters, [online] Available at: <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61723K20100208> [Accessed 1 Dec 2010].

56. Asia Pacific Breweries, 2010. Corporate Profile. [online] Available at: <http://www.apb.com.sg/corporate-profile.html> [Accessed 27 November 2010].

57. Brandwood, G., 2006. The vanishing faces of the traditional pub. [online] Brewery History. Available at: <http://breweryhistory.com/journal/archive/123/Pub.pdf> [Accessed 27 November 2010].

58. Datamonitor, 2010. Beer Industry Profile: Europe. [online] Available through EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].

59. Heineken UK, 2010. Specialty Brands. [online] Available at: <http://www.heineken.co.uk/specbrand_tiger.php> [Accessed 27 November 2010].

60. Medcalf, G., 2008. Good On You, Mate. New Zealand Marketing Magazine, pp. 17-22. Available through: EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].

61. Theodore, S., 2009. Beer defies the odds. Beverage Industry 100(4), pp. 22-25. Available through: EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].


http://www.heineken.co.uk/specbrand_tiger.php

http://breweryhistory.com/journal/archive/123/Pub.pdf

http://www.apb.com.sg/corporate-profile.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61723K20100208

Documents

Strategic Management Assignment final