CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk
Provided by European Scientific Journal (European Scientific Institute)

European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION: A TOOL OF

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AND OPTIMAL
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
(A STUDY OF UNILEVER NIGERIA PLC)

Joy I. Dirisu
Dr. Oluwole Iyiola
Dr. O. S. Ibidunni
Department of Business Management, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

Abstract
In recent years the concept of competitive advantage has taken centre
stage in discussions of business strategy; that is why, one of the major
challenges organizations face today is how to have a competitive advantage.
In most cases a stand out product will do the job, since products are
perceived as both highly relevant and meaningfully, the ability for any one
product to standout in a competitive category will guarantee the success of
such organization. While there are numerous ways to differentiate brands,
identifying meaningful product-driven differentiators can be especially
fruitful in gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage.
Differentiation is when a firm or brand outperforms rival brands in the
provision of a feature(s) such that it faces reduced sensitivity for other
features (Sharp & Dawes, 2001). Even in industrial economics, a discipline
where there is more of a tradition of providing formal statements of
theoretical concepts, two eminent industrial economists felt obligated to
write an article for the Journal of Industrial Economics titled "What is
Product Differentiation, Really?" (Caves and Williamson, 1985).

Keywords: Product differentiation, competitive advantage, organizational

performance

Introduction
Business strategy development is concerned with matching customers
requirements (needs, wants, desires, preferences, buying patterns) with the
capabilities of the organization, based on the skills and resources available to
the business organization, leading to the issue of core competence (Holmes
and Hooper, 2000). This concept has been defined as 'something that the

258
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

organization does at least as well as other organizations, or preferably better

than, any other organization in the market'. According to Webster (1994),
when products are based on such core competencies, they define the
organization’s value proposition in each target market and the organization’s
business strategy; thus, the business strategy adopted by an organization
must be able to give it a competitive edge over other competitors in the
industry.
The pursuit of competitive advantage is at the root of organizational
performance and as such understanding the source of sustained competitive
advantage has become a major area of study in the field of strategic
management (Porter, 1985, 1991; Barney, 1991). The resource-based view
stipulates that the fundamental sources and drivers of competitive advantage
and superior performance are chiefly associated with the attributes of
resources and capabilities, which are valuable (Barney, 1986; 1991).
Furthermore, the resource-based view provides an avenue for organizations
to plan and execute their organizational strategy by examining the role of
their internal resources and capabilities in achieving competitive advantage.
As globalization leads to more intense competition among
manufacturing organizations, with increase in customer demands, these
organizations tend to seek competitive advantage by producing products with
more valued features, such as product quality, product flexibility or reliable
delivery (Baines and Langfield-Smith, 2003). As such, a differentiation
strategy would provide greater scope for these organizations to produce
products with more valued, desirable features as a means of coping with such
demands. This research work therefore, focused on how competitive
advantage can be achieved through product differentiation strategy and
ultimately, how it influences the performance of the organization in the
manufacturing company, using Unilever Nigeria Plc as a study.

Literature Review
In today‘s rapidly changing economic and business environments,
organizations compete for customers, revenue, market share with products
and services that meet customer’s needs. Global competition has brought
about technological changes whereby customers are demanding for superior
quality products/services with lower prices. More so, this increased rate of
global competition has brought about reduction in product life cycle. This
has led to much emphasis being placed on organizational competencies and
creation of competitive advantage which is believed would give them an
edge over other competitors. Though there are many objectives an
organization would want to achieve these days, the two major ones are: (i).
to achieve a competitive advantage position and (ii). enhance their
organization’s performance in relation to that of their competitors (Raduan,

259
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Jegak, Haslinda, and Alimin 2009). It is therefore, necessary for business

organizations to understand the relationship between the organization’s
internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as the potential effects on their
organization’s competitive advantage and performance. It is also necessary
that the organization makes a choice about the type of competitive advantage
it seeks to attain and the scope within which it will attain it.
The generic strategies as developed by Porte (1980; 1985) for
achieving a competitive advantage position by an organization are: product
differentiation and cost leadership. Product differentiation being the most
commonly used one of these two strategic typologies (Spencer, Joiner, and
Salmon, 2009). A differentiation strategy involves the firm creating a
product/service, which is considered unique in some aspect that the customer
values because the customer’s needs are satisfied. On the other hand, cost
leadership emphasizes low cost relative to that of the competitors (Porter,
1980; 1985). He argued that cost leadership and differentiation strategies are
mutually exclusive. Recent literatures and research studies have
notwithstanding, questioned this idea recognizing the fact that organizations
may pursue elements of both types of strategy (Chenhall and Langfield-
Smith, 1998b). Nevertheless, past researches have shown that a number of
the manufacturing organizations view the differentiation strategy as a more
important and distinct means to achieve competitive advantage in constrict to
a low cost strategy (Kotha and Orne, 1989; Baines and Langfield-Smith,
2003).
According to Barney (1991), when a firm is implementing a value
creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or
potential competitors, such a firm has competitive advantage. In addition,
competitive advantage is described as an advantage that one firm has relative
to competing firms. In other words, a competitive advantage exists when the
firm is able to deliver the same benefits as competitors but at a lower cost
(cost advantage), or deliver benefits that exceed those of competing products
(differentiation advantage). The source of the advantage can be something
the business does that is distinctive and difficult to replicate, also known as a
core competency (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990).
Although, competitive advantage has taken centre stage in
discussions of business strategy, a definite definition of the term is quite
elusive. However a common theme has remained ‘value creation’. According
to Porter (1985), ‘competitive advantage is at the heart of a firm’s
performance in competitive markets’ This implies that, competitive
advantage means having low costs, differentiation advantage, or a successful
focus strategy. Also, he argues that ‘competitive advantage grows
fundamentally out of value a firm is able to create for its buyers that exceeds
the firm’s cost of creating it’ (Porter, 1986). Porter’s arguments reflect the

260
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

common strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)

framework for assessing competitive advantage. Competitive advantage
stems from a firm’s ability to leverage its internal strengths to respond to
external environmental opportunities while avoiding external threats and
internal weaknesses (Mooney, 2007).
However, an alternative to this framework is the resource-based view
of a firm which argues that the source of sustained competitive advantage is
to focus on superior resources of a firm (Barney 1991). Furthermore, Barney
ties competitive advantage to performance, arguing that “a firm obtains
above-normal performance when it generates greater-than-expected value
from the resources it employs (Barney, 2002). An organization’s resources
according to Barney include all assets, capabilities, organizational processes,
firm conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency (doing
things right) and effectiveness (doing the right things). In traditional strategic
analysis language, organization’s resources are strengths that organizations
can use to conceive of and implement their strategies. These resources are
broadly categorized into
1. Physical capital resources
2. Human capital resources and
3. Organizational capital resources.
Competitive advantage results from and is associated with a long list
of contributing factors. These factors include operational efficiencies,
mergers, acquisitions, levels of diversification, types of diversification,
organizational structures, top management team composition and style,
human resource management, manipulation of the political and/or social
influences intruding upon the market, conformity to various interpretations
of socially responsible behaviors, international or cross-cultural activities of
expansion and adaptation, and various other organizational and/or industry
level phenomena (Raduan et al., 2009; Ma, 1999a;1999b).
More recently however, the process of globalization has been boosted
by the economic activities of multinational corporations (MNCs) such as
Toyota, Sony, Coca-Cola, etc. These MNCs for long period of time have
achieved and sustained their competitive advantage via various strategic
management practices and approaches (Raduan et al., 2009). Due to the
global outreach and impact of these MNCs, it is vital that they understand the
degree of relationship between their organizational resources, their
competitive advantage and the level of their performance. This is because as
far as the strategic management of organizations is concerned, the
knowledge of the significant attributes of organizational resources and how
to generate competitive advantage and performance alone are not sufficient
(Raduan et al., 2009).

261
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

According to Bani-Hani and AlHawary (2009), competitive

advantage from product-price-performance is almost short term, especially in
an era where technologies are altering the existing business boundaries.
Advantages can only be sustained through competence that is enjoyed at the
very roots of products. Notwithstanding the fact that studies have shown that
a significant relationship exist between competitive advantage and
organizational performance, competitive advantage and organizational
performance are two different constructs with an apparently complex
relationship (Ma, 2000). It has been argued that achieving a position of
competitive advantage is a precursor to the significant performance of an
organization (Barney, 1991) and that competitive advantage results from a
long list of varying factors which include operational efficiencies, mergers,
acquisitions, levels of diversification, types of diversification, organizational
structures, top management team composition and style, human resource
management, manipulation of the political and/or social influences intruding
upon the market, conformity to various interpretations of socially responsible
behaviors and so forth.
Irrespective of the source or factor from whence competitive
advantage results, Porter (1996) looks at competitive advantage as having
three variables (types), which are cost advantage, differentiation advantage
and focus advantage. Morgan, Kaleka & Katsikeas, (2004) measured
product competency (differentiation advantage) by: higher product quality,
packaging, design and style. In addition, Chenhall and Langfield-Smith
(1998) measured product differentiation strategy using five variables:
providing high quality products, providing fast deliveries, making changes in
design, introducing new products and providing unique product features.
Also, Abu-Aliqah (2012) in his study adopted the following variables to
measure product differentiation strategy: high product quality, fast delivery,
design and new products, and unique product features. Similarly, there have
been different measurement variables for organizational performance in
literatures, ranging from financial to non-financial measurement items.
However, Abu-Aliqah (2012) identified the following measurement items;
Return on Investment, Sales growth rate, Cash flow from operation,
Customer satisfaction, Product quality and Market development.
Business arenas and particularly the product markets of recent times
are experiencing the global wave of technology-driven competition,
globalization of manufacturing due to faster transitional flows of materials
and money, shortening of product life-cycles, the need for greater integration
of technologies and increasingly sophisticated customers (McGrath,
Anthony, and Shapiro, 1992). Furthermore, a lot of organizations have come
to realize that in order to provide value and win customers, there is a need to
quickly and accurately identify changes in customer needs, develop more

262
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

complex products which would satisfy those needs, provide higher levels of
customer support and service. In addition to the above mentioned issues
organizations are faced with, are the more recent important strategic
discontinuities they encounter. These discontinuities include the elimination
of industry boundaries, fewer distinctions between industrial and service
businesses, major advances in logistics, computer aided design and
communication, and opening of global markets (Hitt, Keats, and DeMarie,
1998).
In markets where capacity exceeds demand, value creation generally
requires competitive advantage. An organization with a competitive
advantage consistently outperforms competitors, that is, it earns greater
economic profits (Porter, 1985). To achieve competitive advantage, firms
seek the best match between organizational abilities and market
opportunities. Few, if any, competitive advantages can be sustained
indefinitely, so the organization must continually seek opportunities to create
the most value. Organizations tend to differ in terms of production methods,
product features, brand names, locations, and many other aspects. The
critical differences that determine success or failure are the sources of
competitive advantage. The company’s earnings are limited by its
competitive advantage. It can obtain no more than the additional value it
creates over and above that of its competitors (Porter, 1985. Therefore,
competitive strategy requires both value creation relative to competitors and
capturing a portion of that value through relationships with suppliers and
customers. To outbid competitors for customers, the organization must create
total value that is greater than or at least as great as that of its competitors.
Product differentiation strategy can be a tool of competitive
advantage which is adopted by organizations in order to provide products
that satisfies individual customer’s needs. In satisfying individual customer’s
needs, quality has become a major differentiating factor among products
(Shammot, 2011). As a result, customers are willing to pay more for
products that cater to their individual size, taste, style, need or expression.
Hence, achieving competitive advantage through product differentiation
becomes the main focus of this study.
Organizations need to make decisions with regards to many factors in
order to achieve competitive advantage. These factors can be divided into
two main theories; the resource based theory and the capability theory.
Organization’s internal resources are of great significance to the profits made
by a business organization. It also affects the maintenance of the
organization’s competitive advantage and above all the organization’s ability
to create market advantage. The resource-based theory has defined firm
resources as all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,
information, knowledge controlled by a firm (Barney, 1991). It has gone

263
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

ahead to propose that a firm has competitive advantage when it creates a

successful strategy based on firm resources that cannot be duplicated by a
current or potential competitor. In addition, the theory states that for resource
and capability to give competitive edge, it must be rare, valuable, unable to
be imitated, with no substitute, and not transferable.
The resource based theory believes that an organization’s resources
are diverse in nature and not completely/freely movable which has led to
differences among organizations. Put differently, the heterogeneity of
resources has led to business heterogeneity. Since the resources are not
completely mobile, the heterogeneity among organizations is bound to exist
for a long time. If an organization with scarce resources is able to create
value and its resources either cannot be imitated by its competitors, or easily
replaced by other resources, then such an organization has monopoly
position and thus condition necessary for achieving sustainable competitive
advantage and the excess profits.
According to Fahy (2000) through the resource-based view (RBV) of
the firm insights into the nature of competitive advantage, it has already
made an important contribution to the field of strategic management. The
RBV, which has benefited from the rigor of its economic origins, greatly
enhances our understanding of the nature and determinants of sustainable
competitive advantage (SCA). It helps to explain why some resources are
more advantage-generating than others and also why resource asymmetries
and consequent competitive advantages persist even in conditions of open
competition. Fahy (2000) also noted however, that the vast majority of
contributions within the RBV have been of a conceptual rather than an
empirical nature, with the result that many of its fundamental tenets still
remain to be validated in the field. In addition, there were some debates
regarding both the nature and the determinants of competitive advantage and
the relevancy of the resource-based view. The most notable were the debates
in Academy of Management Review (2001) between Barney (2001a) and
Priem and Butler (2001) on the relevancy and validity of the resource-based
view of sustainable competitive advantage, following and based on Barney’s
1991 article, and also further dialogues from various scholars on the same
issue as published by Academy of Management Review (2001 and 2002) as
cited in Raduan, Jegak, Haslinda and Alimin 2009).
Organizations with similar resources often have difference in the
efficiency of resources usage brought about by the differences in capability,
which is the reason for the deep-seated competitive advantage (Liu and
Huang 2009). Prahalad and Hamel (1990) defined core capability as the
accumulated knowledge of organization, especially about how to coordinate
the different skills of production and the organic integration of a variety of
technical flow of knowledge. Core competitiveness is a mixture of many

264
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

factors; it is the combination of technology, governance mechanisms and

collective learning. Core competitiveness is the collection of a set of skills
and technology, not a single technology or skill. It is a source of competitive
advantage.
There are three main features of core capability:
1. The core capability has the full user value, able to create value
and reduce costs.
2. The core capability is unique, it is difficult to imitate by
competitors.
3. The core capability must have the ability to provide support for
the organization to access a number of markets.
The major differences between the two theories are as follows:
1. The capability theory is of the view that the core capability is the
source of organization sustainable competitive advantage, while
the resources based theory believes that the strategic resource is
the source of sustainable competitive advantage.
2. The capability theory takes the ability of resources disposition
and conformity as part of the core capability, while resource -
based theory take the organization capability as part of
organization’s resources.
3. The capability theory emphasizes that the organization develop
corporate strategy around core capability, while the resource
based theory stresses the need for resource-based competitive
strategies.
Barney (1991) concludes that resources and capabilities of firms are
keys to creating sustained competitive advantage and achieving superior
performance.
Competitive Advantage
A variety of definitions and views on competitive advantage have
been expounded by various scholars. Porter (1980) says “competitive
advantage is at the heart of a firm’s performance in competitive markets”
thus “competitive advantage grows fundamentally out of value a firm is able
to create for its buyers that exceeds the firm’s cost of creating it.” Barney
(2002) says that “a firm experiences competitive advantages when its actions
in an industry or market create economic value and when few competing
firms are engaging in similar actions.”
Besanko, Dranove, and Shanley (2000) say “when a firm earns a
higher rate of economic profit than the average rate of economic profit of
other firms competing within the same market, the firm has a competitive
advantage in that market.” Saloner, Shepard and Podolny (2001) say that
“most forms of competitive advantage mean either that a firm can produce
some service or product that its customers value than those produced by

265
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

competitors or that it can produce its service or product at a lower cost than
its competitors.” Dierickx and Cool (1989) have echoed Barney (1986]) in
arguing that competitive advantage is not obtainable from freely tradeable
assets.
In view of the above, it is apparent that a firm achieves a competitive
edge over its competitors by providing a product/service perceived by the
customer to yield greater benefits and value than that of the competitors. In
addition, competitive advantage will always result in superior performance
by the organization which translates to higher profits. Hence, understanding
competitive advantage is an ongoing challenge for decision makers.
Historically, competitive advantage was thought of as a matter of position,
where firms occupied a competitive space and built and defended market
share (Stalk, Evans and Shulman, 1992). Competitive advantage depended
on where the business was located and where it chose to provide services.
Stable environments allowed this strategy to be successful, particularly for
large and dominant organizations in mature industries. The ability to develop
a sustained competitive advantage today is increasingly rare.
A competitive advantage laboriously achieved can be quickly lost.
Organizations sustain a competitive advantage only so long as the services
they deliver and the manner in which they deliver them have attributes that
correspond to the key buying criteria of a substantial number of customers.
Sustained competitive advantage is the result of an enduring value
differential between the products or services of one organization and those of
its competitors in the minds of customers. Therefore, organizations must
consider more than the fit between the external environment and their
present internal characteristics. They must anticipate what the rapidly
changing environment will be like, and change their structures, cultures, and
other relevant factors so as to reap the benefits of changing times. Sustained
competitive advantage has become more of a matter of movement and ability
to change than of location or position (Stalk, Evans and Shulman, 1992).
Competitive advantage is ultimately built and maintained by adding
value to customers (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Value is added by cost
leadership. That is, offering equal quality products or services at a lower cost
than competitors, or by differentiation, i.e., offering products or services that
are perceived to be unique relative to some important characteristic
(Markides and Williamson, 1994). Understanding how each competitively
relevant resource and capability affects costs and uniqueness is an important
aspect of understanding how, or if, each adds value to the services provided
(Duncan, Ginter and Swayne, 1998).
Competitive advantage is at the heart of firm's performance. It is
concerned with the interplay between the types of competitive advantage,
i.e., cost, and differentiation, and the scope of the firm's activities. The value

266
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

chain plays an important role in order to diagnose and enhance the

competitive advantage. A sustainable competitive advantage creates some
barriers that make imitation difficult. Without a sustainable competitive
advantage, above average performance is usually a sign of harvesting
(Porter, 1985).
Sources of competitive advantage
Competitive advantage is an advantage over competitors gained by
offering consumers greater value, either by means of lower prices or by
providing products that gives the consumer greater benefits and services that
justifies a higher price (Porter, 1985). The notion of creating value provides
insight into the sources of competitive advantage. Value creation has three
aspects: the benefits received by customers, the costs incurred by the
company and its suppliers, and the particular combination of customers and
suppliers. Since the total value created by the firm also equals customer
willingness to pay minus the costs of using the firm’s assets and the costs
incurred by suppliers, achieving a competitive advantage means that the firm
must either increase customer benefits, lower supplier costs, or discover
innovative transactions.
Accordingly, there are three sources of competitive advantage:
1. Cost efficiencies that make more efficient use of the firm’s assets
and supplier inputs or that lower supplier cost;
2. Product differentiation to raise customer benefits; and
3. Transaction innovations that lower the costs of transactions or
that create new combinations of customers and suppliers.
Porter is of the opinion that a firm being able to produce a
product/service at a lower cost compared to the competitors is one-way to
competitive advantage. This is often achieved by large scale organizations
that develop efficiency by reason of their repetitive experience of the tasks
involved or using their power to leverage lower costs. The other two sources
of competitive advantage stems from the value seen by customers who either
see specific attractive elements in the offering (differentiation) or feel that all
their needs are being met in the best way by that competitor’s offering
(focus) (Henderson, 2011). It is important that customers always perceive a
consistent difference between a firms products/services and that of its
competitors as competitive advantage is only meaningful when it relates to
an attribute valued by the market.
Competitive advantage equals the difference between the value
created by the company and the potential value created by its competitors.
When market demand outruns industry capacity, competitive advantage
increases the value added by the company and also increases its potential
profits. When industry capacity outruns market demand, competitive
advantage also ensures that the firm will survive (Porter, 1985).

267
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Product Quality
The issues of product quality have been studied by many scholars
(Ertekin and Aydin, 2010; Baker, 1995; Sumutka and Neve, 2011; Flynn,
Schroeder, and Sakakibara, 1994; Hitt and Hoskisson, 1997). In the 1970s
and early 1980s, one of the major features of an industrial economy was the
increased emphasis been placed on internal quality of execution, rather than
price, as a major competitive tool. ‘Quality’ was viewed as a key market
differentiator, resulting in many organizations defining and improving
processes, adopting and implementing total quality management systems,
and attaining quality standard accreditation. Recently however, interest has
been growing in the application of advanced process monitoring and control
strategies to improve manufacturing operations. Quality, as a competitive
advantage tool is seen as one of the fundamental ways in which individual
businesses can successfully compete in the global marketplace. The choice
of what product to purchase in most consumer markets is not majorly
determined by the lowest price, a product’s quality could be a determining
factor (Matsa, 2009). Product quality can have large effects on demand and
consumer welfare. Not only has product quality been recognized as a
strategic organizational priority, it is also an important element of
competition in a wide range of markets and industries. Strategic focus on
quality has been widely considered as a fundamental aspect of manufacturing
strategy in many firms. This is likely to result in improvements in product
demand thereby facilitating the building and maintenance of a competitive
position (Daniel and Reitsperger 1991).
Product Design and Development
Product design is defined as the totality of features that affect how a
product looks, feels, and functions. A well-designed product offers both
functional and aesthetic benefits to consumers, which could become an
important source of differentiation (Koter and Keller 2011). Thus, a
product’s design will always aid to determine a consumer’s choice of
purchase amongst products of same brands and categories. A well-designed
product can also be a point-of-difference in the marketplace aiding consumer
acceptance through its ease of use, durability, reliability, or packaging;
therefore, serve as a source of competitive advantage. Irrespective of the
design, it is important that the product meets the consumers’ definition of a
basic product. Once that is achieved, design can be a powerful marketing
asset for the organization
Porter (1985) considers innovation as a critical competitive advantage
to success. An organization can be in a secured position relative to its
competitors if it has an innovative product (Ven de Ven, 1986). Nord and
Tucker (1987) identified the routine innovation and radical innovation in
product development. Routine innovation means the introduction of

268
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

something to organization that is similar to previous ones, while radical

innovation means introducing something that is unprecedented to
organization. The impact of innovation on firm’s overall performance is
demonstrated by a substantial body of literatures. Innovation is the multi-
stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into improved products,
service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate
themselves successfully in their marketplace (Baregheh, Rowley and
Sambrool, 2009).
Attaining a position of competitive advantage and enhancing a firm's
performance relative to its competitors are two of the main objectives that
business organizations should strive to achieve. In order to attain a
competitive advantage that can not only match that of their business rivals'
but also surpass industrial performance averages, business organizations
must first comprehend the relationship between the internal strengths and
weaknesses of their organization, as well as the potential effects on their
firm's competitive advantage and performance. International businesses and
multinational corporations (MNCs) such as Sony, Toyota and Intel have
achieved and sustained their longstanding competitive advantage through
various strategic management practices. In the present era of globalization,
industries and enterprises compete and confront each other on the global
scale. As such, Malaysian business enterprises, particularly manufacturers,
have much to learn from the strategic management practices of the so-called
inter- and multinational corporate "giants" regarding sustaining a competitive
advantage.
Researchers have found that there is a significant relationship
between competitive advantage and the sales-based performance of
organizations, when sales-based performance was measured by the level of
sales revenue, profitability, return on investments, productivity, product
added value, market share and product growth (Wang & Lo, 2003). In
addition, other studies have also further illustrated a significant relationship
between competitive advantage and the organizational-based performance of
organizations, when organizational-based performance was measured by the
emphasis on efficient organizational internal processes, customer
satisfaction, employee development and job satisfaction (Wang & Lo, 2003).
Competitive advantage and organizational performance
As noted earlier by Fahy (2000), the vast majority of contributions to
competitive advantage, especially within the resource based view, have been
of a conceptual rather than an empirical in nature, with the result that many
of its fundamental tenets still remain to be validated in the field. However,
from the level of empirical research, Strandholm & Kumar (2003) insist that
there is a positive relationship between external environmental analysis style
and overall organizational performance and the ability to gain a competitive

269
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

advantage. Flatt and Kowalczyk (2008) were also of the opinion that
organizational culture is one intangible asset that can help organizations
create a competitive strategic advantage and enhance financial performance.
The work of Vorhies and Morgan (2005) suggest that the use of proper
marketing benchmark tools to benchmark marketing capabilities provides a
key learning mechanism for delivering sustainable advantage.
In addition, Chan, Shaffer and Snape (2004) brought forth and tested
a dynamic model of co-specialized resources that explained the direct effect
of HR practices, differentiation strategy and corporate culture on
organizational performance. The findings proved partial support for this type
of culture performance relationship. Siaw and Yu (2004) claim that the
internet as a commercial technology has changed the rules of competition in
the banking industry. They suggests that likely emergence of new small
banks into the market will use this capable tool to compete with existing
large international banks. They finally concluded that the internet has
strongly affected the competitive landscape of the banking industry by
creating competitive advantages, so banks can rely on such technology to
compete with their rivals.
Differentiation Strategy and Organizational Performance
Generally speaking, only a few numbers of researches have
investigated direct relationship between differentiation strategy and
organizational performance. More so, a sizeable number of those researches
were conducted in the developed countries. Nevertheless, a number of past
research studies that have investigated the relationship between the
differentiation strategy and organizational performance are as follows:
The study findings of Acquaah and Yasai-Ardekani (2008) show the
viability and profitability of implementing cost leadership, differentiation,
and the combination of the singular strategies. Nevertheless,, the incremental
performance benefits to firms implementing a combination strategy do not
significantly differ from the performance of firms implementing only the
differentiation strategy. In addition, firms that implement a coherent
competitive strategy (combination, cost-leadership, or differentiation) tend to
gain considerable incremental performance benefits.
Also, the study findings of Amoako-Gyampah and Acquaah (2008)
who examined the relationship between manufacturing strategy and
competitive strategy and their influence on firm performance indicate that
there is a positive relationship between competitive strategy and the
manufacturing strategies of cost, delivery, flexibility, and quality. In
addition, the result shows that quality is the only manufacturing strategy
component that influences performance indirectly.
Prajogo and Sohal’s (2006) results also indicate that Total Quality
Management (TQM) is positively and significantly related to differentiation

270
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

strategy, and it only partially mediates the relationship between

differentiation strategy and three performance measures.
Prajogo (2007) examined the underlying strategic intent of quality
performance and the result of his findings show that product quality is
predicted by differentiation strategy, but not cost leadership strategy. Allen
and Helms (2002) were of the opinion that different types of reward practices
more closely complement different generic strategies and are significantly
related to organizational performance. Finally, Mosakowski (1993) study’s
results generally supported the hypotheses that, when the focus and
differentiation strategies are established, performance is higher than for other
firms. In conclusion, there is a general consensus that there is a positive
relationship between differentiation and organizational performance.
In view of these, a research model was developed to show the
relationship between all research variables and organizational performance.
See Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Research Model
Product
Differentiation

Product Product Design Higher Product Unique

Innovation Quality Product

Competitive
Advantage

Sales Growth /
Higher Market
Source: Researchers.

Methodology
The survey research was adopted for this research work because of
the nature of the respondents. This entailed the administering of
questionnaires to the chosen sample. The population of the respondents was
rather large, made up of all customers/consumers of the products of Unilever
Nigeria Plc located in Ota, Ogun State. Since everyone in the population

271
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

cannot be given questionnaire to fill, therefore, a sample of the population

was used as respondents for the study. This study adopted a survey research
design, whereby it focused on the customers of Unilever Nigeria Plc,
manufacturers of household/personal care products. Since product quality is
a major determinant variable in the differentiation of products, it was
therefore important to test the significance of product quality as it relates to
the customers/consumers of the products. The customers that bought or use
the product remain a key factor in determining a product’s quality and
differentiating features. They can judge and measure its quality and
effectiveness by comparing it with the competitor’s products.
Data for this study was collected from a sample of
customers/consumers of Unilever Nigeria Plc to determine the relationship
between product differentiation and organizational performance. Items
relevant under the research design are; study population, sample and
sampling technique, data collection instrument. All these items representing
the research design provides a clear view of how the data required for the
study are collected and collated, and how the analysis was performed so as to
yield a significantly reliable and valid result.
The study population included all customers of Unilever Nigeria Plc,
located in Ota, Ogun state. The study population had to meet the following
criteria:
1. They must be 18 years and above as at the time of conducting
this survey
2. They must be able to read and write English, so as to be able
them to answer the questionnaire.
3. They must have purchased/consumed any Unilever products
within the last 3 months preceding the period of this study.
The study population was taken majorly from schools, banks,
shopping malls and markets located within Ota, Ogun State. The sample size
used in this study was 323 respondents were selected based on the simple
random sampling technique, so as to enable every element of the sampling
frame have equal chances of participating in the study.
Hypotheses
It should be noted however, that although all these variables exist in
literatures, this study adopts the following variables to measure product
differentiation: higher product quality, product design, unique product
features and new product innovation. Organizational performance was
considered along the dimensions of sales growth and customer satisfaction.
As such data analysis was designed to answer the following research
questions which ultimately were used to determine the impact product
differentiation as a tool of competitive advantage on the organizational

272
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

performance of Unilever Nigeria Plc. The following research questions and

hypothesis were formulated:
(a). Research Question To what extent does higher product quality relate
with the sales growth of an organization?; thus this hypothesis was
formulated:
H01 – There is no relationship between higher product quality of an
organization and its sales growth
(b). What relationship exists between new product innovation and the
customer satisfaction of an organization?
H02 - There is no relationship between new product innovation of an
organization and its customer satisfaction.
(c). What relationship exists between the product design of an organization
and its sales growth?
H03 - There is no relationship between the product design of an organization
and its sales growth; and
(d). To what extent does unique product features influence customer
satisfaction of an organization?
H04 - There is no relationship between unique product features of an
organization and its customer satisfaction.

Analysis
All hypotheses were tested and analyzed using simple linear
regression analysis.
H01 – There is no relationship between higher product quality of an
organization and its sales growth.
Hypothesis one shows how much of the variance in the dependent
variable (sales growth) is explained by the model, which is higher product
quality. The values 0.21 and 0.39 in the R squared column are expressed in
percentage. This means that the model (higher product quality) explains
between 21% and 39% variations in the dependent variable (sales growth).
With an F value of 6.623 and a significance level 0.02, there is a significant
relationship between higher product quality and the sales growth of an
organization, therefore, the null hypothesis (H01) rejected.
H02 - There is no relationship between new product innovation of an
organization and its customer satisfaction.
The analysis shows how much of the variance in the dependent
variable is explained by the model. R2 was 0.078; F value is 25.698 and a p=
0.00. This indicates that there is a significant relationship between new
product innovation of an organization and its customer satisfaction.
Therefore, the null hypothesis (H02) rejected and the alternate hypothesis
(Ha2) accepted.

273
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

H03 - There is no relationship between the product design and style of

an organization and its sales growth.
R2= 0.060, F value was 19.364 with a p value of .000; show that there
is a significant relationship between product design and the sales growth of
an organization. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H03) rejected and the
alternate hypothesis (Ha3) accepted.
H04 - There is no relationship between unique product features of an
organization and its customer satisfaction.
The result shows how much of the variance in the dependent variable
is explained by the model, which is unique product features. R2 = 0.147, F =
52.087, and p=0.00; indicate that there is a significant relationship between
unique product features of an organization and its customer satisfaction. This
relationship is also positive. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H04) was rejected
and the alternate hypothesis (Ha4) accepted.
Table 1
HYPOTHESES TOOLS F- Std. Error df P- Decision
value R of the value
Square Estimate
H01 - There is no Regression 6.623 .078 .963 1 .011 H01 rejected
relationship between Analysis Ha1
higher product accepted
quality of an
organization and its
sales growth.
H02 - There is no Regression 25.698 .078 .974 1 .000 H02srejected
relationship between Analysis Ha2
new product accepted
innovation of an
organization and its
customer
satisfaction.
H03 - There is no Regression 19.364 .060 .864 1 .000 H03 rejected
relationship between Analysis Ha3
the product design accepted
and style of an
organization and its
sales growth.
H04 -There is no Regression 52.087 .147 .855 1 .000 H04 rejected
relationship between Analysis Ha1
unique product accepted
features of an
organization and its
customer
satisfaction.

274
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

We also carried out a correlation analysis between price; design and

appearance; brand; product uniqueness; and product quality. The correlation
output is shown below.

Correlations

1 2 3 4 5
PRICE Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Sum of Squares 575.632
Covariance 1.900

DESIGN AND APPEARANCE Pearson Correlation .382** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Sum of Squares 197.421 463.947
Covariance .652 1.531

BRAND Pearson Correlation .144* .415** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .012 .000
Sum of Squares 65.434 169.039 356.970
Covariance .216 .558 1.178

UNIQUE PRODUCT Pearson Correlation .202** .380** .444** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
Sum of Squares 100.382 169.671 173.747 429.944
Covariance .331 .560 .573 1.419

PRODUCT QUALITY Pearson Correlation .274** .285** .409** .399** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 133.829 124.803 157.398 168.516 414.760
Covariance .442 .412 .519 .556 1.369
N 304 304 304 304 304

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Discussion Of Results
The analysis carried out in this chapter proves that there is an
existence of positive significant relationship between higher product quality
and the sales growth of an organization. The same also applies to the
relationship between new product innovation and customer satisfaction of an
organization. In the same light, the analysis reveals a positive significant
relationship between product design and sales growth of an organization, as
well as a significant positive relationship between unique product features
and customer satisfaction of an organization. From the foregoing, it can be

275
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

inferred that there is a significant positive relationship between product

differentiation and organizational performance.
It is therefore necessary that manufacturing organizations, especially
the organization under study (Unilever Nigeria Plc) sees the organization’s
product(s) as a potential tool of creating and maintaining a competitive edge
over other competitors in the industry. In other words, organizations should
not see product differentiation as though it only helps in increasing sales or
profit, but also as a tool that is capable of putting the organization into
limelight thereby achieving a competitive advantage position. Product
differentiation will thus enhance the overall capability of the organization in
terms of improving on its products, which will in turn attract more customers
and consumers.

Summary And Recommendations

This research study was designed to examine the influence of product
differentiation as a tool of competitive advantage on the organizational
performance of manufacturing companies, using Unilever Nigeria Plc as a
case study. To investigate this relationship, 323 customers/consumers of the
organization were surveyed. For clear analysis, the study centers on two
broad variables; the dependent variable and the independent variable. The
dependent variable is taken as organizational performance which was further
broken into sub-variables to include customer satisfaction and sales growth.
The independent variable was product differentiation which was
operationalized in terms of higher product quality, new product innovation,
product design and unique product features.
The hypotheses were tested using the Regression Analysis with
interpretation provided. The result of the Regression analysis indicated that
product differentiation as a tool of competitive advantage has a positive and
significant influence organizational performance of manufacturing
companies in Nigeria. The result supports some previous research results (for
example, Mosakowski 1993; Allen and Helms 2002), which indicated a
positive and significant relationship between product differentiation strategy
and organizational performance.
First, in response to the dynamic nature of the business environment
and the ever changing needs of customers, it is safe to suggest that executive
management needs to make sure that they provide adequate satisfaction to
their customers. In other words, executive management should pay more
attention to customer satisfaction, since their survival in this dynamic
environment is highly dependent on their ability to retain a larger customer
base compared to their competitors. In addition, executive management
should put additional emphasis and pay more attention to product
differentiation as it is an important instrument for achieving competitive

276
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

advantage which leads to greater organizational performance. Furthermore,

product differentiation appears as a critical driver for organizational
performance, which could perform the role of a bridge that links the positive
influence of customer satisfaction to organizational performance.
Therefore, executive management ought to focus and invest more on
product differentiation as it could be used as a major competitive advantage
tool against competitors in the industry and it is capable of guaranteeing the
long term survival of the organization.

Conclusion
In conclusion, from the research study, it can be established that
however little the significance product differentiation holds in relation with
organizational performance, the fact remains that there is a positive
relationship between the variables. This means that manufacturing
organizations must pay greater attention to the products the manufacture in
terms of quality design, innovations and unique features.
Finally, firms in the manufacturing sector face domestic and
international competition in addition to rapid shifts in customer demands
whereby many manufacturing firms have come to realize that to remain
viable, a strategy of product differentiation may be a more viable option than
strategies based on efficiency and price (Spencer, Joiner and Salmon 2009).
This research study further demonstrates that product differentiation could be
used as a tool for achieving competitive advantage and enhancing greater
organizational performance.

References:
Abu Aliqah, K. M. (2012). Differentiation and Organizational Performance:
Empirical Evidence from Jordanian Companies. Journal of Economics,
(Vol. 3, no.1), p ???
Acquaah, M. and Yasai-Ardekani, M. (2008). Does the implementation of a
combination competitive strategy yield incremental performance benefits?
A new perspective from a transition economy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Journal of Business Research, vol. 61.
Allen, R.S. and Helms, M.M. (2002). Employee perceptions of the
relationship between strategy, rewards and organizational performance.
Journal of Business Strategies, vol. 19
Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Acquaah, M. (2008). Manufacturing strategy,
competitive strategy and firm performance: An empirical study in a
developing economy environment. International Journal of Production
Economics, vol.111

277
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Baines, A. & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). "Antecedents to management

accounting change: a structural equation approach", Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 28: 675-98.
Baker, M. J. (1995). “Companion Encyclopedia of Marketing”, Routledge,
London.
Bani-Han,i J. S. and AlHawary, F. A. (2009). The Impact of Core
Competencies on Competitive Advantage: Strategic Challenge; International
Bulletin of Business Administration, Iss.6
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., and Sambrool, S. (2009). Towards a
multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Journal of Management Decision,
vol. 47, Issue 8. PP. 1323-1339
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and
business strategy. Journal of Management Science, vol. 32, Issue 10.PP
1231–1241.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, Science, vol.17, Issue 1.PP. 99–120.
Barney, J, B. (2001a). Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for
strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, vol.
26. PP. 41–56.
Barney, J. B. (2001b). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A
ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management
Science, vol. 27. PP. 643–650.
Barney, J. B. (2002). Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 2nd ed.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Besanko, D., Dranove, D., and Shanley, M. (2000). Economics of Strategy.
2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Caves, R. E. & Williamson, P. J. (1985). "What is Product Differentiation,
Really?"; Journal of Industrial Economics, 34 (2): 113-132
Chan, L. M., Shaffer, M. A., and Snape, E. D. (2004). In search of sustained
competitive advantage: The impact of organizational culture, competitive
strategy and human resource management practices on firm performance.
International Journal of HumanResource Management. Vol. 15 Issue 1
Chenhall, R. H., and Langfield-Smith, K. M. (1998b).“The relationship
between strategic priorities, management techniques and management
accounting: An empirical investigation using a systems approach”.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23 (3).
Daniel, S. J. and Reitsperger W. D. (1991). Linking Quality Strategy with
Management Control Systems: Empirical Evidence from Japanese Industry.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 16, No. 7.
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989). “Asset stock accumulation and
sustainability of competitive advantage”. Journal of Management Science,
vol. 35. pp. 1504-11.

278
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Duncan, W. J., Ginter, P. M., and Swayne, L. E. (1998). Competitive

Advantage and Internal Organizational Assessment. Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 12 Issue 3: pp. 6 -16
Ertekin, M. and Aydin, B. (2010). The Impact of National Identity and
Culture on Customer Perception of Product Quality; ‘The case of mobile
phones in Sweden and Turkey’. Mälardalen University Västerås, Sweden
Fahy, J. (2000). The resource-based view of the firm: Some stumbling-
blocks on the road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage.
Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 24. Pp. 94–104.
Flatt, S. J. and Kowalczyk, S. J. (2008). Creating a competitive advantage
through intangible assets: The direct and indirect effects of corporate culture
and reputation. Academy of Consumer Research, Vol.16.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder R. G., and Sakakibara, S. (1994). A Framework for
Quality Management Research and an Associated Measurement Instrument.
Journal of Operations Management, vol. 11, No. 4
Henderson, S. (2011). The development of competitive advantage through
sustainable event management; Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism
Themes 3.3: 245-257.
Hitt, M. A. & Hoskisson, R. E. (1997). International Diversification: Effects
of Innovation and Firm Performance in Product-Diversified Firms. Academy
of Management Journal,
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (Nov 1998). Navigating in the
new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive
advantage in the 21st century; The Academy of Management Executive 12.4 :
22-42.
Holmes, G. and Hooper, N. (2000). Core competence and education. Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Kotha, S. & Orne, D. (May/Jun 1989). Generic manufacturing strategies: A
conceptual synthesis Strategic Management Journal (1986-1989). 10.3: 211.
Koter, P. & Keller, K. (2011). A Framework for Marketing Management, 4th
edition, Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
Ma, H. (1999a). Anatomy of competitive advantage: a SELECT framework.
Management Decision, Vol. 37 Issue 9
Ma, H. (1999b). Creation and preemption for competitive advantage.
Management Decision, Vol. 37 Issue 3
Ma, H. (2000). Competitive advantage and firm performance.
Competitiveness Review, Vol. 10 Issue 2
Markides, C. and Williamson. P. J (1994). ‘Related diversification, core
competencies, and corporate performance’. Strategic Management Journal.
Vol. 15. Pp. 149-165.

279
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Matsa, D. A. (2009). Competition and Product Quality in the Supermarket

Industry. http://are.berkeley.edu/documents/seminar/matsa-competition-
090706.pdf
McGrath, M. E., Anthony, M.T., & Shapiro, A. R. (1992). Product
Development: Success through product and Cycle-Time Excellence,
Stoneham, MA. Butterworth-Heienhmann
Mooney, A. (2007). Core Competence, Distinctive Competence, and
Competitive Advantage: What Is the Difference? Journal of Education
Business, vol. 83 Issue 2
Morgan, N.A., Kaleka, A. and Katsikeas, C.S. (2004). Antecedents of export
venture performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 68
Mosakowski, E. (1993). A resource-based perspective on the dynamic
strategy-performance relationship: An empirical examination of the focus
and differentiation strategies. Journal of Management, vol. 19
Nord, W. R. and Tucker, S. (1987). Implementing routine and radical
innovations. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy, The Free Press,
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance Free Press, New York.
Porter, M. E. (1986). Competition in global industries. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.
Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol.12
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G.(1990). The core competence of the
corporation. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 3. P. 82
Prajogo, D.I.(2007). The relationship between competitive strategies and
product. Quality Industrial Management and Data Systems, vol. 107
Prajogo, D. I. and Sohal, A. S. (2006). The relationship between organization
strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance-
the mediating role of TQM. European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol.168
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Tautology in the resource-based view
and the implicatons of externally determined resource value: Further
comment; Academy of Management. The Academy of Management
Review 26.1 : 57-66.
Raduan, C .R., Jegak, U., Haslinda, A. and Alimin, I. I. (2009). A
Conceptual Framework of the Relationship between Organizational
Resources, Capabilities, Systems, Competitive Advantage and Performance.
Journal of International Studies - Issue 12
Saloner, G., Shepard, A. and Podolny, J. (2001). Strategic Management.
John Wiley & Sons, New York

280
 European Scientific Journal December 2013 edition vol.9, No.34 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Shammot, M. M. (2011). Quality Management Practices and Their Impact on

Organizational Performance, and Customer Behavior. European Journal of
Economics, Finance andAdministrative Sciences, Issue 34
Sharp, B., & Dawes, J. (2001). What is Differentiation and How Does it
work? Journal of Marketing Management,(17): 739-759.
Siaw, I. and Yu, A. (2004). An analysis of the impact of the Internet on
competition in the banking industry, using Porter's Five Forces Model.
International Journal of Management, vol.21, No.4.
Spencer, X. S.,Joiner, A. T., and Salmon, S. (2009). Differentiation
Strategy, Performance Measurement Systems and Organizational
Performance: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of Business,
Vol. 14(1)
Stalk, G., Evans, P. & Shulman, L. (1992). Competing on capabilities: The
new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review. 70 Issue 2. Pp.
57-69
Strandholm, K. and Kumar, K. (2003). Differences in Environmental
Scanning Activities between large and small organizations: The advantage
of size. Journal of American Academy of Business, No.1
Sumutka A. and Neve B. (2011). Quality as a Competitive Advantage
Van de Ven, A.H. (1986) Central problems in the management of
innovation. Journal of Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5. pp. 590-607.
Vorhies, D.W. and Morgan, N.A.(2005). Benchmarking marketing
capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing,
Vol.69.
Wang, Y. and Lo, H. (2003). Customer-focused performance and the
dynamic model for competence building and leveraging: A resource-based
view. Journal of Management Development, vol. 22.pp. 483–526.
Webster, F.L. (1994). 'Marketing management: providing value to
customers', in Collins, E.G.C. and Devanna, M.A. (eds), The New Portable
MBA. New York: Wile

281