Taking Johnson and Scholes (1993) strategy directions, we classified them in three
types according to the attitude of the firm towards change in the environment: passive
(consolidation of the market position), active (growth in the present market,
diversification) and innovative (product development, market development).
The analysis of Table 2 shows two ‘composite groups’: 57% of the firms have invested
in their modernisation; 31% of the firms develop an innovative strategy and/or show an
offensive investment policy. The remaining firms (12%) are in the middle of these two
groups - they pursue an active strategy based on a dynamic modernisation.
Table 2
|
Strategy |
Clusters |
TOTAL | ||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 | |||
|
Consolidation |
Count % within Strategy Direction % within Clusters |
1 2,3% |
17 38,6% 43,6% |
24 54,5% 40,0% |
2 4,5% 40,0% |
44 |
|
Market growth |
Count % within Strategy Direction % within Clusters |
11 34,4% 28,2% |
18 56,3% 30,0% |
3 9,4% 60,0% |
32 | |
|
Product |
Count % within Strategy Direction % within Clusters |
1 5,9% |
3 17,6% 7,7% |
13 76,5% 21,7% |
17 100,0% 16,0% | |
|
Market |
Count % within Strategy Direction % within Clusters |
6 |
4 40,0% 6,7% |
10 100,0% 9,4% | ||
|
Diversification |
Count % within Strategy Direction % within Clusters |
2 66,7% 5,1% |
1 33,3% 1,7% |
3 | ||
|
TOTAL |
Count % within Strategy Direction % within Clusters |
2 1,9% |
39 36,8% 100,0% |
60 56,6% 100,0% |
5 4,7% |
106 100,0% 100,0% |
Figure 1 presents the percentage of firms in each cluster investing in four different types
of innovation. In general terms, a large majority of firms in each cluster invested in
modernisation of management and, by contrast, a few firms invested in new services to
clients, which is a more sophisticated factor of competitiveness. As expected, product
innovation dominate in Cluster 1 which is associated predominantly to R&D
investment, and greater incidence of process innovation in Cluster 3 is associated with
the preference of firms in that cluster for productive equipment.