18
Critical Success Factors Analysis

Short Description

Identifying critical success factors (CSFs) is a valuable and necessary part of strategy development. "Critical success factors are the few things that must go well to ensure success for a manager or an organization and, therefore, they represent those managerial or firm areas that must be given special and continual attention to bring about high performance."¹ The CSF concept emphasizes the importance of ongoing industry monitoring. The CSF method helps the analyst to identify the key factors that have to be performed well in order to achieve a superior level of competitive performance in an industry.

Background

Although the CSF concept apparently stems from military psychologist John Flannagan's "Critical Incident Technique," its use in business was likely introduced by McKinsey consultant J. Ronald Daniel in his article, "Management Information Crisis," published in the Harvard Business Review in the fall of 1961.² Daniel noticed the problem of managers who were over burdened with information, with much of it distracting their attention and focus away from the most important factors affecting the firm's competitive success in the marketplace. Daniel discussed the importance of senior managers to have correct and useful information for competitive success. In particular, Daniel noted it was usually three to six factors that distinguished successful competitors in an industry from their less-successful peers.

The use of CSFs evolved in conjunction with the rapid growth in business planning efforts by firms in the late 1960s. The concept was further defined in the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s. The application of the CSF concept was boosted by John F. Rockart, who showed how the method could be used as a tool for senior executives to identify where their priorities should lie and develop measures to test how well the organization was performing. Although primarily looking at the application in the context of information technology (IT) decision-making, Rockart defined CSFs as "the limited number of areas in which satisfactory results will ensure successful competitive performance for the individual, department, or organization."³ His recommended technique involved a multi-stage interview process as a means for discovering the factors, followed by a performance monitoring process matched to the uncovered CSFs.

The technique was later refined by both Christine Bullen and John Rockart as an aid in developing computer information systems that would effectively focus and measure work effort. By the mid-1980s, Anthony Boynton and Robert Zmud gained notoriety for applying the technique primarily in the MIS planning context. Through the 1980s, the technique was expanded to the strategic planning area, focusing on key areas to achieve performance goals. Because of these developments, it essentially became a framework for senior managers and stakeholders to monitor their strategy processes and results.⁴

Some key writers⁵ outline methods for identifying differing levels of CSFs. Because this book focuses on strategy and competition of firms in the marketplace and in providing analysis that benefits the decision makers, this chapter focuses exclusively on industry-level CSFs that best explain competitive success at this level, and not at the application on the micro-level for examining the functional, product/service and unit-level, or project-focused techniques as an example.

Analysis by human nature tends to favor the known and the familiar. For those analysts who are unfamiliar with the CSF concept, we have seen a tendency for them to project firm-level CSFs onto those of the industry. If the focal firm is the industry leader or exists in a monopolistic context, there may be some validity in doing this, but if the firm is in any other position, the efficacy of extrapolating this analysis in this fashion is lessened. The extrapolation of firm-level CSFs to the industry can be misleading and is likely to be more problematic than first identifying the industry level CSFs and assessing how the firm, its strategy, and its performance compares against them.

The process of developing CSFs at the industry level will assist executives in understanding how their organization matches up against these factors. The typically inclusive process of determining CSFs enables managers from different areas and levels to partake in crafting the strategic direction of the company; consequently, they will have a greater ownership in the developed strategy. Allowing the company as a whole to understand and embrace the strategy presented by sharing in the agreement of the CSFs will enable the company to direct its efforts at succeeding in the key areas of the business that matter the most.

A benefit of identifying CSFs is to be able to view one's business in a larger industry context and to be able to assess your own firm's strengths and weaknesses in relation to the industry's CSFs. This comparison will not be properly done if you compare your firm and its CSFs against itself. We would agree that it is important to be aware of what a firm is doing well within its own purview, but that determination is better defined by specific internal analysis techniques, such as McKinsey's 7S Framework (see Chapter 12, "McKinsey 7S Analysis"), SERVO analysis (see Chapter 9, "SERVO Analysis"), or functional capabilities and resources analysis.⁶ Last, the concept, as we discuss it at the industry level, can be readily adapted for use in more micro-level applications, like requirement analysis and project management. Indeed, the original evolution of the concept as previously described occurred in just this fashion.

Strategic Rationale and Implications

Most competitive enterprise and strategic business analysts clearly recognize the growing gap created by the volume of information being generated for managers in typical firms and the level to which they can make efficient use of that information. This information explosion has, to at least some degree, adversely influenced the rate at which companies make decisions, modify strategies, take actions, and react to market forces and key players. Contemporary decision makers need mechanisms to aid strategic planning that are concentrated on those areas that are the most crucial to their firm's success. The CSF methodology described in this chapter helps identify what those factors are and which of those among a much larger set of potentially viable competitive factors are most important. Figure 18.1 represents the cyclical and ongoing nature of CSF identification and monitoring as they are used in the strategy function of a typical enterprise.

Figure 18.1 CSF identification and monitoring

By presenting CSFs to the decision makers, analysts can facilitate their understanding of the rationales for adopting particular competitive strategies. An organization-wide understanding of the competitive environment will help direct effort toward areas that are necessary for success in this limited number of critical areas. It is important for managers to communicate to their employees how the firm's strategy matches up against the industry's CSFs. The more employees understand about this, the less arbitrary will be the resulting expectations, goals, and urgency of senior managers in helping employees attain certain performance levels in the firm's most critical activity areas or processes.

It follows then, that the top-level strategies and executives' priorities will trickle down to the operational and tactical levels. It seems obvious, but has not always worked out that way in real-world business practice. For example, Robert Cooper outlines that the product development process still showed strains despite the fact that the CSF method had been regularly used in many firms. He suggested that this outcome was caused either by many businesses simply not being in tune with their customers or that they did not adopt cogent understandings of the industry's critical success factors.

One means for better employing the CSF method concept is to break it down into those process areas that help define competitive behavior in an industry. For example, CSFs can be broken down into the following segments:⁷

• Technology related—CSFs in this area can include expertise in particular research or developmental processes, innovative production processes, access to potential partners with basic and applied scientific research expertise, and/or use of alliances or partnerships with universities or research consortia. Industries that tend to demonstrate the presence of these CSFs would include, for example, pharmaceuticals, advanced materials, chemical manufacturing, semi-conductor and electronic component manufacturing, and aerospace product and parts manufacturing.
• Manufacturing related—Expertise in quality management systems, Six Sigma processes, access to low-cost production inputs, high levels of employee productivity, low-cost or fast-cycle design and engineering, and so on. Industries that would tend to demonstrate the presence of these CSFs would be electrical equipment manufacturing, motor vehicle manufacturing, instruments manufacturing, and so on.
• Distribution related—This would include how products are moved from the manufacturer to the end-user, providing local inventory, technical product support, and sales and service. As such, CSFs may be found in supply chain management expertise, well known dealer networks or wholesale distributors with the ability to secure shelf space at the retail level and with strong internal sales capabilities. Industries that would tend to demonstrate the presence of these CSFs would be those in which distribution activities account for a higher than average proportion of total costs, those involved in most vertical markets, and other aspects of distribution including but not limited to operations, accounting, sales and marketing, purchasing, inventory, and profit management.
• Marketing related—These would be related to any of the "4 Ps" of marketing (price, promotion, place, or product). As such, marketing related CSFs could include respected brand names, well received products/services, breadth or depth of product/service line, product/service consistency, penetrating marketing research and an understanding of consumer behavior, effective product/service assistance, valuable guarantees and warrantees. Mass market, customer-oriented industries, such as those specialized retailing, consumer products, and/or entertainment and media tend to be ones in which these CSFs are most commonly found.
• Skills and capability related—Historical advantages, such as location or large scale contracts, short production or delivery cycle times, effective supply chain management capabilities, uniquely skilled or experienced employees, and strong e-commerce capabilities, adaptive corporate cultures, and flexible structures.
• Other CSF types—Locational convenience, historical monopoly protection in particular regions, having patent protections, or strong balance sheets.

CSFs vary from industry to industry, as well as over time. By considering the example of a number of industries, it is easy to see how certain processes can be most significantly related to competitive success. This is demonstrated by Table 18.1.

Table 18.1
Key Processes That May Constitute CSFs in Particular Industries

For example, Table 18.2 offers a summary of CSFs for the banking industry in the wake of government de-regulation in Taiwan.⁸ We have added the CSF area from the preceding list that each factor would fit in to.

Table 18.2
CSFs and CSF Areas for the Banking Industry in Taiwan

Source: Adapted from Chen, T. (1999). "Critical success factors for various strategies in the banking industry," International Journal of Bank Marketing, 17(2), pp. 83–91.

Note that the first three CSFs in Table 18.2 are "controllable" by the participants in the banking industry, but the fourth CSF, "Ability of financial market management," is an item that tends to defy any particular firm's influence, which is not unusual in cases involving government policies and the aggregate performance of a stock market. Our own view of CSFs would suggest that the fourth factor may not be a CSF at all since it is not a variable that management can influence through its decisions.

Correctly identifying CFSs in those areas of industry competition can provide a competitive advantage or be a distinctive competency for a firm⁹ and, therefore, should be of keen interest to analysts. The idea behind this is that a firm is likely to be successful if it is competitively better than its competitors in one or more industry-level CSFs. If it is better than its rivals in all the CSFs, it has a powerful competitive advantage and should earn higher levels of profitability than its rivals. The key facets that the analyst needs to identify are the sources of those advantages that align so well with the industry's CSFs.

The top-down nature of the CSF methodology provides a mechanism to direct the entire organization toward common goals and understand what the firm's priorities are. It is also important to align CSFs with key individuals in the organization who will have responsibility in areas determined as most important to achieving CSFs. Consistency and synergies are easier to achieve when upper- and lower-level managers alike understand the firm's priorities and are measured on the corresponding criteria. As such, the firm's information and measurement system should naturally support these CSFs as well.

An important component of CSFs that must be emphasized is that they are dynamic. Because of the changing nature of the environmental context, customer, and competition impacting a marketplace, a key factor needed for industry success in the past or the present may not be as important in the future. Constant monitoring and revision are necessary to be able to identify future CSFs and develop a strategy for building long-term competitive advantage. It is essential that analysts always be on the lookout for emerging and changing CSFs. This is particularly important for markets experiencing high growth.¹⁰

For example, as product-based industries move along the life cycle, they will often move from stressing "product technology" to "process technology." One thing this suggests that as "fast followers" enter a market and competition substantially increases, cost control becomes increasingly important, regardless of whether or not the firm is a low-cost provider. Another change is in the trend toward shareholder activism and increasing attention to governance matters. CSFs may be used increasingly in the future by financial analysts or investors assessing a firm's performance in their given industry.

Identification of CSFs is important both for big corporations competing for global domination and small businesses. Dickinson et al, makes the point that some characteristics of small businesses are scarce resources and tight cash flows, and knowing where to direct those resources can be critical to survival.¹¹ Also note that this concept has wide application in government agencies and organizations and is often linked to the establishment of their key performance indicators.¹²

Strengths and Advantages

There are a number of strengths of the CSF method that account for its acceptance and popularity. As previously discussed, senior managers are plagued by too much information. The CSF methodology is appealing to both analysts and decision makers because it forces them to identify which information is important and where to focus their planning efforts. The concept is quite easy for decision-making customers to grasp and is viewed as being relatively more trustworthy than other more complex industry level focused concepts.

Because the CSF method helps focus attention on a small number of key factors that can best leverage action in a marketplace, it helps managers to prioritize their investment and resources allocation decisions. As such, the process is likely to lead to a better return on investment in analysis, and information gathering and collection activities, and a better level of success in generating positive returns on investments supported by the keener understanding of the CSFs themselves.

Another primary appeal of the concept is the top-down structure and the focus it provides to senior managers.¹³ Because being better than competitors in one or more CSFs can be the difference in achieving competitive success, they should always be incorporated into sound strategic decision making. The method provides analysts or the firm's decision makers the focal context from which to recommend/design strategies and direct resources toward a common goal or set of goals. The method also stresses and encourages continuous monitoring of the organization's pursuit of these goals. This is a key reason why the method is intuitively understood and generally accepted by senior managers.

Another strength is that the process exposes the critical bits of information the analysts and decision makers need in order to direct strategic activity. As such, information systems can then be developed that will monitor proficiency in the areas identified as CSFs, rendering the use of these systems more accurate and comprehensive. This can lead to more tightly aligned information systems strategy processes, which should benefit all levels of decision making.

Weaknesses and Limitations

At a philosophical level, the CSF concept in strategy formulation has been criticized by some strategists. Pankaj Ghemawat has said that ". . . the whole idea of identifying a success factor and chasing it seems to have something in common with the ill-considered medieval hunt for the philosopher's stone, a substance that would transmute everything it touched into gold."¹⁴ The biggest weakness here is that either the CSFs will be so obvious that they will not necessarily provide any informational advantage to the firm or that they will be so elusive that they will defy any decision making or action being taken to exploit them in the marketplace.

The CSF concept has a limitation at a tactical level as well. CSFs must be developed by individuals who have unique and specific training in this area. The level of the analyst's knowledge, skills, industry experience, and prior applications of the technique will likely influence the quality of their CSF understandings. Some of the concept's biggest advocates note that it is difficult for the layman to use, thereby rendering it inappropriate for firms that do not have access to qualified analysts. Also the ability to think creatively in the identification and development of CSFs may be a limitation for some analysts.

There is also the problem of staying focused at a particular level of analysis. Identification of brand, product/service, functional, firm, or firm-specific CSFs are often confused with industry-level CSFs, which we know are not necessarily the same and are amenable to added layers of analytic complexity. The broader outlook of identifying CSFs for an entire industry is a harder view to conceptualize for those not adept at using the techniques.

Even in the event of an experienced analyst using the technique, it has also been criticized for potentially being subjective. By definition, this is an inherent risk in any process that requires the communication and interpretation of outside information. Where interview processes are used to uncover CSFs, this weakness can be minimized by having skilled interviewers who can isolate and circumvent prevalent informational biases.

Process for Applying the Technique

There is a basic two-step process for performing the CSF methodology.

• First, the analyst must creatively, comprehensively, and accurately identify the set of CSFs in the industry, emphasizing the generation of proactive and forward-looking CSFs created by driving forces in the industry.¹⁵ Some studies have identified as many as 25 CSFs, but typically the number that will be identified will be somewhere between three and eight, with five being the most frequently occurring number in our experience and a general rule of thumb we suggest initially.
• Once the CSFs are identified, it helps to determine which two or three of the larger set are the most important.¹⁶ Remember that the whole purpose of identifying CSFs is to help focus the allocation of the firm's resources and to direct its strategy efforts, so it is important to choose the ones that are as close as possible to the center, not periphery, of success in the industry.

There are varying depths to which one can go to identify CSFs. One helpful starting point is outlined by Thompson, Gamble, and Strickland. They suggest that the analyst proceeds by asking a series of three questions, as follows:

• On what basis (attributes, characteristics) do buyers of the industry's product or service choose between sellers' competing brands?
• Given the nature of competitive forces and rivalry, what capabilities and resources does a firm require in order to be a competitive success?
• What limitations or shortcomings among product/service attributes, competencies, capabilities, or historical market achievements are almost certain to put a firm at a significant competitive disadvantage?

An effective viewpoint for the analyst is to examine the industry from the customer's, rather than the competitor's, stance. Using market research and customer-derived data, the analyst tries to answer the following:

• Why does the industry exist?
• For what purpose and to serve whom?
• What do those customers desire/demand?
• What don't customers know they want/need?

Leidecker and Bruno suggest a variety of different methods for identifying CSFs. They note that individually, they may not be sufficient to identify a CSF, but by combining two or more methods, the risk is lowered that the analyst will miss a CSF or the relative importance of one. A triangulated approach may verify the authenticity of the CSF because several different applications support its existence and priority.

Leidecker and Bruno outline eight CSF identification techniques that span three levels of analysis. Those three levels are as follows:

1. Environment or socio-political
2. Industry
3. The firm-level

In the "Background" section of this chapter, we presented our reasons for focusing exclusively on the industry level of CSF identification. As industry level analysis ordinarily follows from analysis of the environment, a look at environmental identification techniques will commonly act as a prerequisite for industry analysis. Figure 18.2 is our adaptation of Leidecker and Bruno's identification techniques and subsequent explanation of their eight techniques. It is useful to recognize that five techniques are oriented from macro to more micro levels of analytics for identifying CSFs at the industry level.

Figure 18.2 Popular industry level CSF identification techniques
Source: Adapted from "Identifying and Using Critical Success Factors," by Joel. K. Leidecker and Albert V. Bruno, 1984, pp. 25–29.

We will take a brief look at each of the five identification techniques and examine some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with them.¹⁷ It is important to reiterate that any of these steps on their own is not sufficient to identify a CSF—at least two or more need to be used.

Leidecker and Bruno's Identification Techniques

Socio-Political/Environmental Analysis

This technique is often called PEST or STEEP analysis.¹⁸ In the context of understanding its relationship to identifying CSF, we'll stress again that doing a PEST/STEEP analysis is ordinarily a prerequisite to understanding the industry, as it forces the analyst to thoroughly examine the environment within which the industry operates. Industries that are heavily regulated or whose survival depends on forces over which it has little or no control will be particularly affected by environmental factors. Some of these include inflation, exchange rates, government regulation, or de-regulation and politics. Some sources for macro-environmental forces identification include environmental scanning, econometric modeling, census and other government statistical information, and independent consultants who specialize in providing this sort of information, among others. The advantage to this outlook is that it is broad and can provide a comprehensive understanding of the industry's context. The disadvantage is that it is not usually sufficient to identify more micro-level industry CSFs. Looking at environment and socio-political factors merely presents a starting point. Environmental analysis will reveal forces affecting all companies in a particular industry, but it does not distinguish between how individual companies deal with these forces through their unique strategies, nor does it focus on the performance aspects of these firm's competitive efforts.

Porter's Five Forces Model

Porter's Five Forces model¹⁹ is widely known as a tool for performing industry structure analysis. Viewed together, all five forces provide an excellent lens through which to consider the intensity of industry competition, as well as the pressures being applied to industry participants by buyers, suppliers, new entrants, and substitutes. Being able to understand how the five forces relate to one another is another asset of this framework, and gives the analyst a tool to gauge the potential for growth and profitability in the industry. Porter's Five Forces model is best used by analysts at several points in time (for example, 2004, 2006, and 2008) in order to facilitate the detection of movement and trends in an industry's attractiveness and its profitability profile.

The key to using Porter's Five Forces model and related industry analysis for CSF identification is to target those forces and underlying factors that are creating the greatest pressures on industry profitability. Once they are identified, it will enable the analyst to identify those product/service characteristics, competencies, resources, or processes that can most significantly lessen the impact of these pressures. It is within these areas that CSFs usually can be identified.

Industry/Business Experts

The analyst needs to compile the views, experiences, and insights of individuals or experts with in-depth knowledge of the industry. Some good places to locate industry experts include industry, trade or professional organizations, consultants to the industry, financial analysts, and industry veterans. They are often a good sounding board to either verify CSFs or play the "devil's advocate" role to the traditional wisdom or beliefs about competition in the industry. Industry experts can also expose nuances of an industry that only experience can provide. The obvious weakness of this technique, apart from the fact that it may cost the firm more in funds or time to acquire the expert's advice, is that it is more subjective than other methods, depending on the unique positioning and analytical prisms applied by the experts themselves; therefore, on its own application, using experts is precarious as a means to identify CSFs. Having said that, the method can be helpful when used in conjunction with more objective techniques, including some of the others described in this section (for example, Porter's Five Forces and competitive analysis).

Analyze Competition

Analyzing competition focuses solely on the "how firms compete" facet of industry dynamics. Using competition as an identifier of CSFs isolates it from the other four of Porter's industry structure components (that is, bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, threat of new entrants, and threat of substitutes). Some sources to understanding industry competition are industry consultants and line or department managers. Some tools we discuss that aid the analyst in performing competition analysis are weighted competitive strength assessment charts and strategic group maps.²⁰

An advantage to taking a detailed look at the competitive nature of an industry is that it stresses the importance of competition in it, rather than diffusing its influence among other forces. The ability to quickly focus in on players in an industry and identify their relative positions and strengths is frequently beneficial. However, this technique can cause analysts to be myopic if it is not used in conjunction with other methods, primarily because it doesn't take any of the other forces, whether competitive or driving ones, into consideration. It also leaves out the possibility that CSFs have changed at the margins of an industry in which disruption is occurring, changing the scope and boundaries of the industry itself.

Industry Leader Analysis

By definition, dominant firms in an industry are likely to be skillful in at least one industry CSF and possibly more. Identifying why and where they succeed and how they achieve these superior performance levels can be a useful gauge to assess one's own firm's strengths and weaknesses—this is a form of reverse CSF analysis.

This technique is the narrowest of those we present and is by no means sufficient to use on its own. It may suggest a causal relationship that is overly simplified or invalid and prevent the discovery of CSFs not related to a particular firm. It can also be complex because many firms are parts of larger organizations (for example, corporate ones), and trying to isolate a particular set of CSFs attached to a firm in a particular industry may mean disaggregating a large number of other factors that may contribute to the existence of the industry-level CSF. Although some studies have attempted to link the success of one generic strategy (for example, low cost, differentiation, niche focus) and industry CSFs, it is commonly recognized that there is room for more than one successful generic strategy in an industry, and attempting to relate dominant firm success factors with CSFs can be fallacious in some circumstances.

Table 18.3 summarizes the five techniques discussed previously and highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with each technique.

Table 18.3
Summary of Identification Technique Advantages and Disadvantages

Source: Adapted from "Identifying and Using Critical Success Factors" by Joel. K. Leidecker and Albert V. Bruno, 1984, p. 26.

Determining Critical Success Factor Importance

Once CSFs have been identified and narrowed down to a handful of factors (for example, between three to eight factors), the next step is to identify which, relatively, are the most important ones. There are three characteristics that will help identify which sample of CSFs of a larger population are the most crucial. The three criteria outlined by Leidecker and Bruno are helpful in this regard. They stress that profit impact analysis is a key to identifying relative factor importance. They go on to note that the three characteristics to consider when determining the relative importance of potential CSF candidates include the following:

Major Business Activity

Typically, a CSF exists in an area or activity that is central to the business and its success, rather than being peripheral. For example, in the auto parts or steel production industries, manufacturing and operations are central business activities and will frequently have a CSF associated with it, but CSFs will generally not be associated with marketing processes or capabilities. For luxury hotels or prestige brands industries, on the other hand, marketing resources and capabilities probably are a good place to look for a CSF.

Involvement of Heavy Monetary Resources

An important CSF will probably have a substantial amount of financial resources attached to it. For example, inventory is a major cost for most retailers. It stands to reason that the ability of a retailer to quickly and efficiently acquire popular goods at a reasonable cost might be a CSF, as it should improve profit margins. Major air carriers or airlines, because of the high fixed-cost nature of the business, will have a CSF around their load factors (that is, an indicator that measures the percentage of available seating capacity that is filled with passengers—the higher, the better).

Major Profit Impact

This speaks to the sensitivity of certain business activities to related forces. CSF-related activities tend to be particularly sensitive to major change. For example, a change in the price of raw materials will have a major profit impact in a manufacturing-based industry like housing construction, whereas a significant change in the price of advertising services will not be likely to have a significant impact on a housing developer's profit.

Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to demonstrate the value and use of CSF analysis in strategy development and decision making. CSFs remain a popular and easily communicated method by which analysts and decision makers can work with others in the firm on focusing attention on a limited set of factors that can help achieve success. Properly performed, CSF analysis can assist decision-making clients in allocating resources to those places that require their greatest attention.

FAROUT Summary

Figure 18.3 Critical success factors analysis FAROUT summary

Future orientation—Medium. The emphasis on continued monitoring and strategic planning infer a future orientation, but CSF analysis is often done in a static manner in actual practice.

Accuracy—Medium to high. Used correctly, with more than one supporting/complementary technique being applied, a skilled analyst as the executor, the potential for accuracy improves, but a subjective element will remain.

Resource efficiency—Medium. This depends on the form of data gathered and the manner in which it is collected. If experts are used, the interview process can be time consuming. If the industry is heavily populated by privately owned firms, performance metrics may not be easily accessible.

Objectivity—Low to medium. The degree of objectivity will depend on which discovery methods have been used. If an analyst has relied primarily on secondary sources or non-proprietary expertise, the objectivity will be lower.

Usefulness—High. The notion of a critical success factor links performance measurement and strategic planning with an emphasis on directing resources to the most important areas of the organization. The holistic and structured nature of the concept is highly organized and usable.

Timeliness—Medium. The initial process of identifying and determining the importance of critical success factors can be time-consuming, but once they are identified, they are quick and easy to use unless the industry environment undergoes a drastic change.

Related Tools and Techniques

• Balanced scorecard
• Benchmarking
• Cluster analysis
• Functional capability and resource analysis
• Porter's Five Forces analysis
• Product line analysis
• Strategic group mapping
• Weighted competitive strength analysis

References

Aaker, D.A. (2001). Strategic Market Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Anthony, R.N., Dearden, J., and R.F. Vancil (1972). Management Control Systems, Text Cases, and Readings. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Boynton, A.C., and R.W. Zmud (1984). "An assessment of critical success factors," Sloan Management Review, 26(4), Summer, pp. 17–27.

Bullen, C., and J.F. Rockart (1981). A Primer on Critical Success Factors. Boston, MA: Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Byers, C.R., and D. Blume (1994). "Tying critical success factors to systems development," Information & Management, 26(1), pp. 51–61.

Chen, T. (1999). "Critical success factors for various strategies in the banking industry," International Journal of Bank Marketing, 17(2), pp. 83–91.

Cooper, R.G. (1999). "From experience: The invisible success factors in product innovation," Journal of Product Innovation and Management, 16, pp. 115–133.

Daniel, D.R. (1961). "Management information crisis," Harvard Business Review, 39(5), September–October, p. 111.

Dobbins, J.H., and R.G. Donnelly (1998). "Summary research report on critical success factors in federal government program management," Acquisition Review Quarterly, Winter, pp. 61–81.

Fleisher, C.S., and B. Bensoussan (2003). Strategic and Competitive Analysis: Methods and Techniques for Analyzing Business Competition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Garner, L. (1986). "Critical success factors in social services management," New England Journal of Human Services, VI(1), pp. 27–31.

Grant, R.M. (1999). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Jenster, P.V. (1987). "Using critical success factors in planning," Long Range Planning, 20(4), pp. 102–109.

Leidecker, J.K., and A.V. Bruno (1984). "Identifying and using critical success factors," Long Range Planning, 17(1), pp. 23–32.

Leidecker, J.K., and A.V. Bruno (1987). "Critical success factor analysis and the strategy development process," pp. 333–351 in King, W.R., and D. Cleland (eds.), Strategic Planning and Management Handbook. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Lester, D.H. (1998). "Critical success factors for new product development," Research Technology Management, 41(1), pp. 36–43.

Lilley, W. (May 27, 2005). "We're not gonna take it," The Globe and Mail, retrieved June 29, 2005 from http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050527.RO6TAKEIT/PPVStory/?DENIED=1.

Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York, NY: The Free Press, MacMillan Inc.

Rockart, J.F. (1979). "Chief executives define their own data needs," Harvard Business Review, March–April, p. 85.

Thompson, A.A., Gamble, J.E., and A.J. Strickland (2006). Strategy: Winning in the Marketplace, 2^nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Westerveld, E. (2003). "The Project Excellence Model: linking success criteria and critical success factors," International Journal of Project Management, 21, pp. 411–418.

Endnotes

¹ Boynton and Zmud, 1984:17.

² Daniel, 1961; Anthony et al., 1972.

³ Rockart, 1979: 85.

⁴ Boynton and Zmud, 1984.

⁵ Leidecker in particular—see Leidecker and Bruno, 1984.

⁶ See Fleisher and Bensoussan (2003), Chapter 14.

⁷ Thompson, Gamble, and Strickland, 2006: 76.

⁸ Adapted from Chen, 1999: 88.

⁹ Thompson, Gamble, and Strickland, 2006.

¹⁰ Aaker, 2001: 91.

¹¹ Leidecker and Bruno, 1987: 347.

¹² See Dobbins and Donnelly, 1998; Garner, 1986.

¹³ Boynton and Zmud, 1984: 18.

¹⁴ Grant, 1999: 79.

¹⁵ Leidecker and Bruno, 1987.

¹⁶ Strickland, page 72.

¹⁷ Leidecker & Bruno, 1984.

¹⁸ We describe this technique as PEST/STEEP analysis in Chapter 17 of our previous book and provide a detailed explanation of its background and how to perform this technique.

¹⁹ The Porter's Five Forces model is covered thoroughly in Chapter 6 of our previous book.

²⁰ See Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2003, Chapter 7.