competitive strategy

 competitive strategy

Porter (2010) defines a competitive strategy as deliberately choosing different sets of activities to deliver a unique mix of value. The activities form the basis of competitive advantage. Johnson et al. (2009) argue that business managers evaluate and choose strategies that would make their business more established. The determinant of the success of the business is based on their significance in the market, specifically, how the business faces competition. The competitive advantage is determined by cost structure, the capability through which the business is able to be differentiated from the main competitors.

Ansoff, & McDonnell, (2010) defines competitive strategy as a distinctive approach which is used by most companies as a strategy to succeed within the market. Therefore, from this explanation, Ansoff explains that for the success of a company, adaption to the business environment is critical as it could result to n growth n and n profitability through n linking n its n internal n capability n that n includes n resources, n goals, n values n and n systems n to n its n external n environment n which n relates n to n political n situation, n technology, n competition, n social n pressure n of n the n firm n as n well n as n saturations n of n the n markets. n

Agbor, n (2011) n describes n competitive n strategy as a strategic consideration fr the management that is used to position an organization to achieve effective business performance, be successful within its business arena, improve its competitive powers, and embrace customer satisfaction. n as He n continues n to n say n that n it n consists n of n competitive n moves n and n business n approaches n that n managers n employ n in n running n the n company.

Bakar n et n al. n (2011) explained competitive strategy as organization matching with the environment under which it operates. n It n thus n implies n that n organizations n need n to n adopt n strategies n that n are n suitable n for n the n environment n and n which n will n make n them n competitive. n The n environments n in n which n firms n operate n under n are n not n static, n are n characterized n by n turbulence, n they n are n chaotic n and n highly n dynamic n and n thus n not n possible n to n predict n what n will n happen n and n when n it n will n happen. n To n ensure n survival n and n success, n firms n need n to n develop n capability n to n manage n threats n and n exploit n emerging n opportunities. n This n requires n formulation n of n strategies n that n constantly n match n capabilities n to n environmental n requirements n (Collins, n 2011).

Resource n based n and n environmental n models n of n competitive n advantage n suggest n that n firms n can n obtain n sustainable n competitive n advantage n by n implementing n strategies n that n exploit n their n internal n strength n through n responding n to n environmental n opportunities, n while n neutralizing n external n threats n and n avoiding n internal n weaknesses n (Kimani, n & n Douglas, n 2014). n Strategy n has n to n do n with n how n a n firm n relates n to n its n environment. n This n has n to n take n into n account n the n internal n capabilities n of n the n firm n in n relation n to n the n external n opportunities n and n threats. n The n success n or n failure n of n a n strategy n will depend n on n skillful n formulation n and n effective n implementation. n

All n successful n strategies n have n some n common n elements. n They n are n based n on n profound n understanding n of n the n competitive n environment n and n objective n appraisal n of n available n resources. n Browning n (2011) n basically n views n strategy n as n the n essence n of n formulating n competitive n ability n of n the n firm n to n relate n to n its n environment. n He n notes n that n although n the n relevant n environment n is n very n broad, n encompassing n social n and n economic n forces n is n key n to n its n competitiveness. n He n further n explains n that n there n are n three n generic n strategies n that n firms n can n employ n which n includes n cost n leadership, n differentiation n and n focus n strategies n which n should n result n in n competitive n advantage n (Berlyne, n 2014).

The current study will center on various strategies that have positive effect on competitiveness in companies. These include the differentiation, innovation, as well as focus strategies. The effectiveness of these strategies depends on the efficiency in integrating various activities in the available functional areas that form pattern. Pearce & Robison (2012) stated that to achieve their goals and aims, it would be necessary for them to adjust to their environment. This means that organizations should constantly change their strategies in order to remain competitive (Yoo, Lemak & Choi, 2014).

1.1.2. Private Security Firms in Nairobi County

A n Private n Security n Firm n means n a n body n corporate, n including n a n partnership, n which n provides n private n security n services. n The n main n role n of n private n security n firms n is n to n fill n the n gap n left n due n to n the n inadequate n capacity n of n government n security n and n policing n agencies n (Kenya n security n Bill, n 2010). n To n achieve n this, n the n firms n provide n a n variety n of n services n from n basic n manned n guarding n to n more n sophisticated n services n such n as n Very n Important n Person n (VIP) n protection n and n cash-in-transit. n Further, n PSFs n offer n a n range n of n services n including n physical n protection n of n private n and n public n properties, n close n protection n of n VIPs, n cash-in-transit n escorts, n safeguarding n properties n of n strategic n importance n and n security n for n events n (Wairagu, n 2014). n Other n services n provided n by n PSFs n include n dog n handling, n installation n of n electronic n surveillance n systems, n alarm n systems, n firefighting, n ambulance and n paramedic n services, n training, n facilities n management, n investigations, n consulting n services n and n courier n services. n

The n number n of n firms n operating n in n Nairobi n County n is n 533 n (Nairobi n County, n 2019). n The n companies n range n from n multinational n companies n capable n of n offering n integrated n security n solutions n with n clear n management n structures n and n operational n systems. n The n industry n is n characterized n by n high n levels n of n competition n especially n in n manned n guarding n which n does n not n require n high n startup n capital. n Charges n on n customers n for n a n single n security n guard n range n from n Kenya n Shillings n 11,000 n to n upwards n of n Kenya n Shillings n 50,000 n for n a n single n guard n (KSIA, n 2012). n Operational n issues n in n the n industry n include n work n force n scheduling, n deployment n of n guards, n inventory n management, n procurement n of n human n resource n facilities n and n high n operating n overheads. n

The nestablished ncompanies noperate nin nmore nthan none nlocation nand nthe nchallenge nfaced nis nthe nlayout nof nfacilities nand ndistribution nlogistics. nFlexibility nand nresponsiveness nis ncritical nin ncrime ndeterrence nand nthe nlayout nand noperations nshould nbe nspecifically ngeared nto nensuring nthat ncustomer nresponse ntime nis nkept nto nthe nminimum. nQuality nmanagement nand nassurance nof nstandards nin nprivate nsecurity nfirms nhas nhitherto, nbeen nmore nrestricted nto ninternal nmanagement nprocesses, nalthough nmany nof nthe nfirms nare nnow nincreasingly nsubscribing nto nthe nInternational nOrganization nfor nStandardization n(ISO) nas na nbenchmark nfor nquality nin nservices. nThe nGovernment nof nKenya, nhas nalso ncome nin nto nregulate nand foster nquality nin nPSFs nthrough nthe nPrivate nSecurity nRegulatory nAuthority n(PSRA), nwhich nwas ncreated nin n2016. nThe nAuthority nhas na nChief nExecutive nOfficer n(CEO) nand na nBoard nof nDirectors. nKenya nSecurity nIndustry nAssociation n(KSIA) nand nProtective nSecurity nIndustry nAssociation n(PSIA) nwhich nare nassociations nof nprivate nsecurity nfirms ndo nnot nexercise ncontrol nover noperations nand nstandards nrelating nto ncustomer nservice nand nmanagement n(Sabala, n2007).

1.2 Research Problem

The past decade has seen new crime and violence inclines in Kenya; terrorist, volunteer army and posse exercises and the clear disappointment of state security specialists against criminals is an indication of poor key administration of crime and violence (Ekwenye, Theuri and Mwenda, 2018). The trio further includes that reasons for crime are frequently connected to institutional shortcomings of society. Crime increments where the social control that works through conventional establishments (military, police, equity, family, schools and others) and informal foundations (common society associations, solidarity systems and others) is broken or debilitated (Stavrou, 2012). The wake of persistent development of crime in Nairobi County has carried with it uncommon difficulties for private security firms in the ongoing past. Because of the fact that settling the hidden reasons for crime not being an area of private security firms, their reality is in security arrangement for the contracting customers. To accomplish the objective of sufficient and solid security arrangement, they depend upon suitable use of competitive procedures that they plan.

Pimtong et al. (2012) explored the impact of competitive systems on private security execution. The investigation found that cost leadership system directly affects private security generally speaking execution. Akingbade (2015) examined the impact of advancement methodology and execution private security organizations. The examination set up the significance of every one of the competitive systems on the urgent variables influencing the private security execution records in spite of nearby and worldwide difficulties confronting the modern business condition. Gunasekaran and Mavondo (2013) did an investigation on connection between center technique, competitive favorable position and authoritative execution of security firms. The investigation set up that there were huge contrasts in the setup of factors by security firms receiving center procedures.

Locally, n Muchira n (2005) n researched n on n differentiation n strategies n used n by n the n formal n private n security n industry n in n Kenya n and n found n out n that n the n most n extensively n used n strategies n are n product n differentiation n followed n by n personnel n differentiation n respectively. n Okinda n (2008) n researched n on n the n strategic n planning n practices n of n PSFs. n The n study n explored n the n application n of n strategic n planning n and n the n challenges n faced. n Lekolool n (2010) n examined the competitive strategies n adopted by PSFs operating in Mombasa while Jelagat n (2012) studied the competitive n strategies n adopted n by n PSFs n in n Kisumu n Municipality. n Local n researches n that n have n been n done n on n the private security sector have not addressed factors affecting adoption of competitive n strategies among n private n security n firms n but n instead n focused n on n general n peripheral n business n facets n aimed n at n gaining n competitive n advantage n over n rivals n for n profit n maximization. n A n gap n therefore n exists n in n knowledge n of n the n factors n influencing n adoption n of n strategies n and n among n PSFs. n To n fill n the n gap, n the n current n study n will n examine n the n adoption n of n competitive n strategies n and n competitiveness n of n private n security n firms n in n Nairobi n County, n Kenya.