Degree | Type | Year | Semester |
---|---|---|---|
2501572 Business Administration and Management | OT | 4 | 0 |
2501573 Economics | OT | 3 | 2 |
2501573 Economics | OT | 4 | 0 |
There are no pre-requisites.
This is a self-contained course, though a variety of concepts included in Business Economics and Strategic Management will be needed. The course clearly aims at valuing business strategic performance. To this end, the course intends to show how theoretical concepts, which may apparently seem complex in the first instance, can easily be applied to analyze business and industrial activity.
Once the course is over, a number of goals are expected to have been achieved by the student, which include acquaintance with basic concepts and instruments which are commonly used in industrial analysis, along with an understanding of their usefulness in the formulation of business competitive strategy, thus attaining a better understanding of available mechanisms which businesses have to generate profits.
More advanced goals also include assessing business competitive strategy, quantification of value creation associated with strategy, and the understanding of value sharing and appropriation mechanisms.
The course considers the firm as the basic unit of analysis, with the main purpose being to give an explanation to the observed variance in profits earned by different businesses. Accordingly, we use the concept of business models, which is increasingly being used in the field of strategic management. With the notion of business model (and/or strategy), we try to highlight the strong association between the organization and its environment, the importance of being able to correctly identify both internal and external organizational factors, eventually finding out the corresponding interrelationships. The course will not stay in the abstraction domain. It claims that it is possible to apply theoretical concepts, so that they become useful instruments for business strategy and, by extension, to the industries to which they belong to. It is because of all these reasons that we are going to develop benchmarking tools, based on economic concepts.
1. An example to help us think about productivity, technical change and social costs
2. Recovering and revisiting some theoretical concepts
3. Productivity as a central concept. How can we measure it?
4. Measures of business financial performance: An Introduction.
5. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).
6. Business benchmarking: Technology of Best Practice.
7. Business benchmarking: Cost.
8. Productivity and the financial performance of the firm.
9. How the firm creates value: (Unit) Value Creation.
10. How the firm creates value: Dynamic Value Creation.
11. An introduction to business strategy.
12. Business models and the strategy of the firm.
13 Business models: Representation.
14. Business models: The Cases of Walmart and Kmart.
Teaching will be offered on campus or in an on-campus and remote hybrid format depending on the number of students per group and the size of the rooms at 50% capacity. The course aims at analyzing business strategic decisions within an industry context, and within the rigorous framework provided by the economic theory.
This implies that we need to:
1. Discuss basic concepts and theories.
This is going to be developed through classroom sessions and additional readings.
2. Work out problems and practical exercises to reinforce the understanding of previously discussed concepts.
The proposed teaching methodology may undergo some modifications according to the restrictions imposed by the health authorities on on-campus courses.
Practice sessions will be carried out in the classroom.
3. Apply concepts to analyze specific real problems.
Case studies and examples obtained from the economic media will be provided.
The proposed teaching methodology may undergo some modifications according to the restrictions imposed by the health authorities on on-campus courses.
Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
Classroom sessions | 17 | 0.68 | |
Lectures | 32.5 | 1.3 | 3, 4, 5, 7, 14, 22, 18, 11, 19, 26, 25, 9 |
Type: Supervised | |||
Tutorials | 15 | 0.6 | 3, 4, 5, 7, 16, 19, 26, 10, 9 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
Study of theoretical concepts, solving exercises and working out of cases | 83.5 | 3.34 | 3, 4, 5, 7, 16, 19, 26, 10, 9 |
The course assessment will consist of:
A final exam (please consult the Faculty's academic calendar). In this exam the student will be assessed on the basis of all the concepts discussed throughout the course. This exam is essentially envisaged as a filtering device to pass the course, with a minimum mark of 3.5 (three point five). In case that the mark obtained in the exam is 3.5 (three point five) or more, the examination mark will count as much as 40% of the course final mark. The remaining 60% will be based on the student's performance during the course.
If the mark of the final exam is lower than 3.5 (three point five), this is the course final mark.
The course is passed when the final mark is equal or higher than 5 (five).
Student's performance during the course. A good performance throughout the course requires: i) class attendance. It may be a problem given the situation created by the Covid-19. The subject will adapt to the new and unexpected situations following the instructions of the UAB. The programmed exercises and activities consist of (ii.1) a collection of problems that covers the main topics of the subject with a maximum weight of 45%. These problem sets can be solved by a group of 2 or 3 students; (ii.2) the Activity: create your own exercise, is compulsory although its maximum weight 15%. This is an individual activity. The student shows what he has learned and how it can be used as a tool for analyzing the industry reality and the competitive advantage among firms. All these aspects (i) class attendance and (ii) the delivery of programmed exercises and activities will be supervised during the courseand result in a mark, which count for as much as 60% (45%+15%) of the coursefinal mark.
Those students not showing up in the final exam will be considered 'not-submitted' ("no-evaluable").
At the end of the course the final mark will be disclosed. The student final mark is the result of weighting the three aspects object of evaluation: the final exam (minimum mark of 3.5); the collection of problem sets and the compulsory activity (create your own exercise). The weight of the exam is 40% and the weight of the collection of problems and the activity is the remaining 60%.
A re-evaluation will be held for those students who, having not passed the course, have obtained a course final mark between 3.5 and 4.9.
The re-evaluation will consist of doing another final exam, comprising all the concepts developed during the course. The student's performance during the course will not be re-evaluated. The final mark of the re-evaluation process is only given by the re-evaluation exam.
As a result of the re-evaluation the maximum course mark will be 5 (five).
Calendar of evaluation activities
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Activity (create your own exercise). | 15% | 0.3 | 0.01 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 21, 18, 11, 19, 20, 24, 23, 26, 27, 25, 6, 10, 8, 9 |
Final Exam | 40% | 0.8 | 0.03 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 21, 18, 11, 19, 20, 24, 23, 26, 27, 25, 6, 10, 8, 9 |
collection problem sets | 45% | 0.9 | 0.04 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 21, 18, 11, 19, 20, 24, 23, 26, 27, 25, 6, 10, 8, 9 |
Books:
Grifell-Tatjé, E. and C.A.K. Lovell (2015), Productivity Accounting. The Economics of Business Performance. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Besanko, D., D. Dranove, M. Shanley and S. Schaefer (2017), Economics of Strategy, John Wiley and Sons. 6ª Ed.
Bogetoft, P. (2011), Performance Benchmarking. Measuring and Managing Performance. Springer: New York. 5.ª Ed.
They are the latest editions available.
Articles:
Brandenburger, A.M. and H.W. Stuart (1996), "Value-Based Business Strategy". Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 5(1): 5-24.
Brea-Solís, H., R. and E. Grifell-Tatjé (2019), "A Business Model Analysis of Kmart's Downfall," International Journalof Retail & Distribution Management 47(2): 111-128.
Brea-Solís, H., R. Casadesus-Masanell & E. Grifell-Tatjé (2015), ”Business Model Evaluation: Quantifying Walmart’s Sources of Advantage,” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 9(1), 12-33.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Larson, T. (2009). “Competing through business models (D).” Harvard Business School, Case 710-410.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2008). “Competing through business models (A).” Harvard Business School, Case 708-452.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & J. E. Ricart (2010),”From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics,” Long range Planning 43: 195-215.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & J. E.Ricart (2011). “How to Design a Winning Business Model.” Harvard Business Review 89(1-2), 100-107.
Chesbrough, H. & R.S. Rosenbloom (2002), “The role of Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s Technology Spin-Off Companies,” Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3):529-555.
Estache, A. & E. Grifell-Tatjé (2013), “How (un) even was the distribution of the impacts of Mali’s water privatization across stakeholders?” Journal of Development Studies 49(4), April: 483 – 499.
Garcia-Castro, R. & R.V. Aguilera (2015), "Incremental Value Creation and Appropiation in a World with Multiple Stakeholders," Strategic Management Journal 36: 137-147.
Garcia-Castro, R., J.E. Ricart, M.B. Lieberman and N. Balasubramanian (2018), "Business Model Innovation and Replication: Implications for the Measurement of Productivity" in E. Grifell-Tatjé, C.A.K. Lovell and R. Sickles, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Productivity Analysis, Oxford University Press: New York.
Grifell-Tatjé, E. & C.A.K. Lovell (1999), "Profits and Productivity”. Management Science. 45(9), September: 1177 – 1193.
Grifell-Tatjé, E. & C.A.K. Lovell (2013), “Advances in Cost Frontier Analysis of the Firm,” in C.R. Thomas and W. Shughart II (ed.), Oxford Handbook in Managerial Economics. Oxford University Press: Oxford: p 66 – 88.
Grifell-Tatjé, E., and C.A.K. Lovell (2018), “The Business Foundations of Social Economic Progress,” Business Research Quarterly, 21(4). 278-292 .(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2340943618303244)
Grifell-Tatjé, E., C.A.K. Lovell and R. Sickles (2018), "Chapter 1. Overview of Productivity Analysis: History, Issues and Perspectives,” in E. Grifell-Tatjé, C.A.K. Lovell and R. Sickles, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Productivity Analysis, Oxford University Press: New York.
Lefebvre, M., S. Perelman & P. Pestieu (2018), "Productivity and Performance in the Public Sector," in E. Grifell-Tatjé, C.A.K. Lovell and R. Sickles (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Productivity Analysis. Oxford University Press: New York.
Williamson, P.J. (2010), “Cost Innovation: Preparing for a ‘Value-for-Money” Revolution,” Long Range Planning 43: 343-353.
Winter, S.G. & G. Szulanski (2001), "Replication as Strategy," Organization Science 12(6), Nov/Dec: 730-743.
The subject will provide the solfware if needed.