Competitiveness to Support the National Defense System

Adang Setia, Sapto J. Purwowidagdo

Abstract


The purpose of this research is to identified competitiveness Indonesian Aerospace Inc. (IAe) to support the national defense system. This research is a descriptive with qualitative interview as method and using the theory of reference are: (1) Five Forces Porter; (2) Design School Mintzberg; (3) Core Competence and Resource base strategy. IAe is currently on the process of organizational transformation, the finding also suggest competitiveness can be said to be low. But there is a potential factor that causes IAe competitive advantage in the industry to improve the future development IAe and contribute to the realization of the national defense system.


Keywords


Competitiveness, National defense system, and Organizational transformation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bogdan, R., and Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theories and methods. Boston: Pearson A & B.

Chaharbaghi, K., and Lynch, R. (1999). Sustainable competitive advantage: Towards a dynamic resource-based strategy. Management Decision,37, 45–50.

Dickson, P. R. (1992). Toward a general theory of competitive rationality. The Journal of Marketing, 56, 69–83.

Dubey, R., Singh, T., Ali, S. S., Venkatesh, V. G., and Gupta, O. K. (2014). Exploring dimensions of firm competencies and their impact on performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21, 1003–1022.

Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s five forces model. Strategic Change, 15, 213–229.

Hernández‐Espallardo, M., and Delgado‐Ballester, E. (2009). Product innovation in small manufacturers, market orientation and the industry’s five competitive forces: Empirical evidence from Spain. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12, 470–491.

Indonesian Ministry of Defence. (2010).

Jonker, J., and Pennink, B. (2010). The essence of research methodology: A concise guide for Master and PhD students in management science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Marshall, S. (2013). Evaluating the strategic and leadership challenges of MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 216.

Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 171–195.

Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 11 (2): 171-195.

Ogson, P. D., Gough, N., & Bokor, D. W. (2015). Pre-Export Planning and Start-up Export Performance for Small Electronics Manufacturers. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 7(2), 1-16.

Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57, 137–145.

Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64-88.

Porter, M. E.; (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review; Nov/Dec 74 S. 61-78

Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79–90.

PT Dirgantara Indonesia. Access on https://www.indonesian-aerospace.com

Shirawi, A., & Mohammed, T. (2015). Strategy implementation: exploring roles, perceptions, and expectations of middle managers' practices (Doctoral dissertation, Brunel University London).

Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33172/jp.v1i2.59

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 161 times
PDF - 127 times

Copyright (c) 2015 Jurnal Pertahanan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License

Jurnal Pertahanan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.