The Fit-Concept in Strategic Management an Inappropriate Idea for Companies in the 21st Century?
Executive Summary
The aim of this paper is confronted with the question of how the fit concept in strategic management is an appropriate idea or not for companies in the 21st century. After a short introduction about strategy which is defined by Michael E. Porter (1980), we will describe some basic concepts. Cited by Porter (1985, 1996) and Thomson/Strickland (1998), we find out that operational effectiveness is a helpful tool, but not enough for gaining competitive advantage. Strategies must be developed and it must match the organization in order to become effective. This is a task which is often fulfilled by the management.
Then we will go deeper into the concept of fit. Some additional discussions of different perspectives follow and a briefly overview about the research of the six types of fit can be found. After clarifying the meaning of fit, we come to the McKinsey 7-S framework, because this is an important management tool which is still up-to-date and relevant to our assignment. Inspired by the authors we analyze the Japanese ' Keiretsu Concept. We find out that they are effective and successful on the one hand, but on the other hand, symptom appears where the changing environment also influences their business because of globalization. Therefore the concept of fit is important for them too. After this section we compare the business situation between the 20th and the 21st century in the sense of fit.
Information and capital movements as well as a spread portfolio for investors are addressed in the last chapter. At the end this paper closed with the result that the fit concept is necessary in the 21st century, because the competition on operational effectiveness alone can only lead to a situation, where the only differentiating factor is prize and this leads to diminishing profits. Michael E. Porter 's view of the fit concept seems to be a good option for gaining the competitive advantage until nowadays.
1 Introduction
The world
The aim of this paper is confronted with the question of how the fit concept in strategic management is an appropriate idea or not for companies in the 21st century. After a short introduction about strategy which is defined by Michael E. Porter (1980), we will describe some basic concepts. Cited by Porter (1985, 1996) and Thomson/Strickland (1998), we find out that operational effectiveness is a helpful tool, but not enough for gaining competitive advantage. Strategies must be developed and it must match the organization in order to become effective. This is a task which is often fulfilled by the management.
Then we will go deeper into the concept of fit. Some additional discussions of different perspectives follow and a briefly overview about the research of the six types of fit can be found. After clarifying the meaning of fit, we come to the McKinsey 7-S framework, because this is an important management tool which is still up-to-date and relevant to our assignment. Inspired by the authors we analyze the Japanese ' Keiretsu Concept. We find out that they are effective and successful on the one hand, but on the other hand, symptom appears where the changing environment also influences their business because of globalization. Therefore the concept of fit is important for them too. After this section we compare the business situation between the 20th and the 21st century in the sense of fit.
Information and capital movements as well as a spread portfolio for investors are addressed in the last chapter. At the end this paper closed with the result that the fit concept is necessary in the 21st century, because the competition on operational effectiveness alone can only lead to a situation, where the only differentiating factor is prize and this leads to diminishing profits. Michael E. Porter 's view of the fit concept seems to be a good option for gaining the competitive advantage until nowadays.
1 Introduction
The world
References: Miller and Friesen (1984) Hambrick (1984) Van de Ven & Drazin (1985) Venkatraman & Prescott (in press) Venkatraman (1986) Venkatraman & Walker (1989) *Required for model identification purposes.