Walmart Case Study

1028 Words3 Pages

Wal-mart Stores Inc. and Procter & Gamble’s adopted the notion of continuous replenishment to implement an IT-dependent strategic initiative which features real-time scanner data transferring between Wal-mart and Procter & Gamble through its satellite-based network infrastructure. As a result, Wal-mart will be able to provide low cost products to its customers. Do you think Wal-mart can sustain this competitive advantage? Why do you think Wal-mart can or cannot sustain its competitive advantage? Which barriers to erosion can or cannot prevent the imitation and how?
I personally think Wal-mart can sustain this competitive advantage. The ability of a firm to protect its competitive advantage is not whether the advantage is theoretically replicable that matters in practice, but the difficulty that competitors face in matching the leader’s offer. In this day and age, Satellite-based infrastructure is still rare. It is a huge investment. This technology is scarce and not readily available for acquisition by competitors. This infrastructure is valuable to Walmart, and could not easily imitated. The infrastructure is un-substitutable. Moreover, the collaboration relationship between Wal-mart and P&G cannot be duplicated or substituted. The supply chain management expertise of Wal-mart is also unique and valuable.
Wal-mart controls some specific and difficult to imitate IT resources which could create IT Resources Barrier. Wal-mart already had the network infrastructure to do so. Competitors who wanted to replicate this initiative had to first deploy the same (or a comparable) infrastructure. Wal-mart’s ownership of this unique prerequisite IT asset asset translated into a response-lag driver (IT infrastructure) that contributed to incre...

... middle of paper ...

...rs’ radar screens also because of its peculiar characteristics that run the risk of leaving it underfunded, unless general and functional managers get directly involved in the threat assessment and mitigation process. Because security is the type of investment that is difficult to gain funding for, particularly when competing for limited resources with projects that promise big results-efficiency improvements, revenue enhancements, and the like-it is all the more critical that it is not left to the IT group to make the case. General and functional managers must get involved in the security discussion, understand the threats, and assess the degree of risk that the firm should be allowed to take. Actually, as a general or functional manager should responsible for weigh in on the difficult trade-off decision between purchasing more security and accepting higher risks.

More about Walmart Case Study

Open Document