Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
Strategic responses of successful enterprises:
An analysis across ownership forms
M. R. Suresh,
Professor,
Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute
for Management Development (SDMIMD),
Mysore, India.
Email: suresh@sdmimd.ac.in
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Market environment of enterprises is dynamic due to rapid changes that take place in the
political, economic, social and technology spheres. Enterprises respond to such changes in
multiple ways and the success and growth of firms are often determined by appropriate
strategies pursued by them. In the Indian context there seems to be a relationship between the
ownership form of the enterprise such as a large independent cooperative, a widely held
private sector and their strategic responses. This paper is part of larger study by the author
that examined the issue and to understand implications for decision-makers. The paper uses
Case Research method in view of the organizational context of these enterprises. The paper
examines two enterprises, one, a very successful market oriented dairy cooperative
(GCMMF- Amul) and the other, a well-known widely held IT services firm (Infosys).
Information collected has been from published and secondary sources. While GCMMF’s
strategic responses have been in brand building, new product development, quality initiatives
and strengthening distribution network, in the case of Infosys the responses have been in
developing a global delivery model, moving up the value chain, brand building and
organizational restructuring etc. The cases of enterprises studied have been compared on
dimensions such as organization-environment fit, strategic adaptation, organizational
positioning and leadership. The research also compares the cases studied, in a limited way,
with certain other enterprises, operating in similar domains and delineates as to how
ownership forms seem to influence strategic responses. The paper suggests possible direction
the enterprises can pursue and indicates implications for other firms.
___________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: strategic responses, ownership forms
1
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
1. Introduction
Liberalization process was set in motion in India in 1991-92. Policy makers, irrespective
of political formation, have recognized the limitations of the public sector dominant approach
and have given more space to the private sector reducing the role of government in business.
Emerging countries such as India have had an unusual evolution of business sector with
multiple forms of ownership of enterprises. Each of these forms has had different doses of
support from the government and hence these ownership forms display variation in terms of
capital, infrastructure and managerial resources. While a few sectors such as defence
electronics were reserved for the public sector/ government owned firms, other sectors as
dairying were tightly controlled by the government with cooperatives often being required to
follow government diktats.
Whereas sectors such as Information Technology(IT) got
considerable fillip and enormous policy support and concessions that spurred India as a force
to reckon globally in the IT sector. Intensity of competition has also increased after India
embarked on a process of liberalization. Many firms have succeeded and have found new
avenues for business growth thorough new product launches, market development and market
penetration in other countries. Many well-known firms embarked a path of market
orientation. Even public sector firms which were known for conservatism in business have
been formulating responses in a systematic manner. However the experience has so far been
mixed. While some firms have succeeded, others have fallen by wayside despite operating in
the same business environment. The reasons for success seem to lie in the strategic responses
formulated to changes in the market environment. This in turn is influenced by the ownership
form as enterprises within the same business environment have performed differently. It is of
interest to see as to how the leadership of the successful enterprises have had the space for
strategic and managerial decision-making to formulate responses to a dynamic market
environment. It would be helpful to decision-makers to understand this issue in the current
context of ‘Make in India’ campaign to enable enterprises respond better. This paper analyses
two
Indian enterprises GCMMF (Amul) and Infosys with different ownership forms and
operating in different business environments but yet successful and also have had charismatic
founders.
2. Select literature review
Chandler (1962) in his classic study defined strategy as “the determination of the longterm goals and objectives of the enterprise and adoption of courses of action and allocation of
resources necessary for carrying out these goals”1. Mintzberg and Waters (1981) while
analyzing the history of Canadian Lady endeavoured to comprehend the formation of strategy
by examining decisions over a long periods and proposed strategies as “patterns in streams of
decisions”2. Child and Kaiser, as quoted in Nystrom and Starbuck, concluded that
2
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
environmental variables affected by the internal dynamics of the enterprise led to strategy
formulation by the enterprise3. Miles and Snow (1978) classified enterprises on the basis of
organizational typologies in relation to their adaptation to the environment4. They called these
typologies as Defender, Prospector, Analyzer and Reactor. Porter (1996) also proposed
strategy as the creation of a unique and valuable position to gain competitive advantage.5
Another thought process of research proposed the concept of strategic intent as contributing to
competitive advantage. Strategic intent “envisioned a desired leadership position” (Hamel and
Prahalad, 1989).6 Marketing strategy researchers proposed that marketing strategy involved
understanding the behaviour of enterprises and its contextual underpinnings (Varadarajan and
Jayachandran 1999)7. Derek Abell (1978) proposed the concept of strategic windows a
situation when market opportunities and firm level capabilities match.8
Murthy (1984) proposed a framework of three stages in the evolution of strategic
management of public enterprises.9 The model is based on case studies of seven public
enterprises in four countries: India, Brazil, US and Italy. It was developed using concepts
from corporate strategy and political science. As per this framework these enterprises start
with strategies that are more influenced by ideological and value considerations of key
decision-makers than economic aspects in Stage I. In Stage II there is a balance between the
two aspects, there is emphasis on growth and diversification. In the final stage, the enterprise
internalizes the values and aligns them with the business aspects in a manner acceptable to
external decision-makers. Stage III the strategic management is rests entirely with the
enterprise management. In the Indian context Murthy (1987) examined the corporate strategy
of public sector enterprises. He proposed that that strategic competence of the enterprises was
the ability to reduce the hiatus between the stated goals and subsequent decisions to achieve
the goals in a quick manner10. This helped in the enterprise responding to environmental
challenges. In the context of cooperative enterprises, Shah (1992) looked at the logic of
cooperative enterprises and the design issues in building energetic farmers’ organizations11.
Jain (1992) analyzed lessons from successful cooperative enterprises12. Venugopal and Dixit
(1998) looked at policy reforms and identified opportunities for research in areas such as
innovation and liberalization, inter-enterprise differences across sectors, ownership etc13.
Krishnan (1998) provided insights into Strategic Planning at TELCO.
He indicated that
customer orientation, quality and growth from within influenced their strategic thinking. 14
Shah (2000) examined cases of high performance knowledge institutions and proposed that
initial design and launch practices were critical for their later day successes.15 This has
relevance for IT service firms that are into high end consulting which have common
dimension with knowledge institutions. Public sector companies, such as NGEF, a Bangalore
based large public sector electrical engineering enterprise, turned sick despite product quality,
3
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
outstanding engineering expertise and an excellent brand reputation. An important reason for
its sickness was the mismatch between the requirements of the external market environment
and its internal business processes that were characteristic of the pre-reforms era, forced
decisions on the enterprise by the government (the ultimate owner) coupled with an inability
to respond to changes in the market environment unlike the company’s privately owned
competitors (unpublished TECS report, 1995).16 This leads one to think that ownership form
and lack of autonomy have a bearing on the ability of an enterprise to respond to market
changes. Inability to cope with the environmental changes and limitations of control of
government on a cooperative federation were examined in a management case on marketing
edible oil by a state federation (Suresh and Ramanujam, 2000).17 Maheshwari (2007)
analyzed turnaround in six cases and identified that type of ownership as as one of the causes
for organizational decline18. Sharma (2000)19 used the CINE matrix framework of
controllable and non-controllable factors, addressing internal and external factors that limit
organizations in the Indian tea industry and used it to develop action plans. The framework
classifies a factor into any of the four cells: controllable-internal, controllable-external, non
controllable-internal, non controllable-external. The model has been applied in the context of
role of leadership in strategically guiding organizations to success. (Sharma 2007) 20 and also
in understanding strategic responses of firm under different ownership forms (Suresh 200921,
Suresh 2010)22
3. Methodology
The research study presented is part of a larger initiative to understand the strategic
responses of enterprises to changes in market environment across different ownership forms
covering the public sector, private sector, producer-owned cooperative and government
controlled cooperative which vary in terms of ownership and control. This paper focuses on
two successful cases, one a producer-owned cooperative and a widely held private sector
company.
Case method is the research method followed as case research method conveys the context
effectively for the following reasons:
 Case study as a research tool enables the researcher in understanding “how” and
“why” of a situation and allows deeper investigation
 “Real business of a case study is particularization and not generalization” (Stake as
quoted in Naumes and Naumes 1999)23
Yin (1981) defines case study as an “empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real life context”24 when the phenomenon and the context are
interrelated.
Case research is advisable where the researcher has to examine the situation
4
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
deeply in unique contexts and where generalization is not easy. The case study method is
suitable for such research (Yin 1989)25.
4. Sources of information
For this research study these include
 Case research on different facets using annual reports and other reports/ write-ups of
the organizations
 Understanding of management literature particularly in strategy, marketing, business
growth in the Indian context in various growth oriented firms
 Examination of earlier cases pertaining to the chosen organizations
5. Evolution and objectives of GCMMF in brief
GCMMF evolution is aligned with the freedom movement of India. On the advice and
guidance of freedom fighters such as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Morarji Desai and
Tribuvandas Patel, in 1946 AMUL (Anand Milk Union Ltd) was started to prevent the
exploitation of milk producers at the hands of middlemen, insulate them from market
imperfections, vulnerability to large multinationals and provide market opportunities to milk
producers. It was in a producer-owned cooperative form of enterprise with focus on membercontrol for producing, procuring, processing and marketing milk. AMUL started with just two
village societies and a procurement of 247 litres of milk in a day.26 This grew to 12792
village societies (18436 in 2014-15) with a daily average of 65 lakh litres per day in 2006-07
(148.5 lakh litres per day in 2014-15).27
AMUL initially focused on Mumbai (earlier
Bombay) as a major market for liquid milk. In 1963, to meet the requirements of the Indian
defence forces further expansion in capacities to manufacture cheese and milk powder was
undertaken.
The evolution of GCMMF is based on a comprehensive model and incorporates lessons
learnt from Anand pattern of cooperative (farmer owned) dairy development. The model
involved among other things:28

Building a nation-wide marketing and distribution network.

Creating and building a strong brand.

Deployment of high technology for milk processing (including IT).

Mobilisation of financial resources.

Milk collection systems with technical support at the village level.

Farmer-owned set up at the grassroots with emphasis on member education and
involvement.

Milk production enhancement, animal health services.
A few lessons helped GCMMF formulation of its strategic responses right from its inception.
These lessons included stemming from Anand pattern of dairy development were:
5
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558

Market as a necessity for post subsistence production in dairying.

Marketing is an essential first step to build successful producer enterprises a point
repeatedly emphasized by Dr. Kurien. (unlike government controlled setups that focused
on supply enhancement)

Member-control of organizations with professional management;
To avoid unhealthy competition among successful milk unions in Gujarat,
Dr. Kurien, in a
wise and strategic move formed, in 1973, the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation
(GCMMF) with headquarters at Anand. GCMMF is the apex marketing federation of 17 milk
unions of Gujarat and owning brands AMUL and Sagar. (The popularly known AMUL brand
was earlier owned by Anand Milk Union Limited, the precursor to the present Kaira District
Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd, constituent unions under the GCMMF umbrella.
This is often confused with GCMMF and NDDB).
The major objective of GCMMF is:

To operate, own, marketing and distribution network across India and outside India.
GCMMF also identified the following mission statement:29
“We, at GCMMF, endeavour to satisfy the taste and nutritional requirements of the
customers of the world, through excellence in marketing by our committed team.
Through cooperative networking, we are committed to offering quality products that provide
best value for money.”
To achieve this mission, GCMMF, formulated a two pronged business strategy that governs
its activities, as below:

To serve the interests of milk producers

To provide quality products to consumers and value for money
GCMMF at present has 17 constituent district milk unions. It has 50 plants across the
country with a processing capacity of 240 lakh litres per day. It should be noted the business
environment of the dairy sector is tightly controlled by the government in India. So it is a
herculean challenge to synchronise both business objectives and social responsibility.
Awareness of consumers as to what constitutes a good quality dairy product is low. In
addition, subsequent to liberalization, many private companies, big and small, have entered
the arena. None of these investor-owned firms have the responsibility to focus of liquid milk
and concentrate only value-added dairy products. GCMMF however has to blend business
and social responsibility. MNCs have also entered the market as India is big market for dairy
products with emerging consumer needs and rising incomes. It also faces non-tariff
restrictions in the global market imposed on dairy products of Indian origin.
5.1 Achievements of GCMMF
It is useful to summarize the achievements of GCMMF.
6
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558

It has created a comprehensive model for dairy business in India. The model is being
replicated in other states of India, and with modifications in other countries, but also,
provides an approach for other agribusinesses. The GCMMF model has the following
features summarized as below:
 Milk collection systems at the grass root village level.
 Pooling and processing of milk collected and its conversion to products on a large
scale, thus achieving economies of scale (though not obvious, many agribusinesses
suffer from this lacuna).
 Access to latest technology from the village level to the customer point. For instance,
usage of automatic testing machines at village collection point, usage of IT from the
village level to the sales depot and deployment of modern technology for processing.
 Creating a countrywide marketing and distribution network.
 Involving producers in managing the organization at all levels.

An examination of development programmes initiated in India in the 20th century
indicated the only one that has sustained is the Amul/Anand experiment by virtue of its
marketing orientation.30

From a miniscule collection of 247 litres per day in 1946, the organization has grown
rapidly. Its current reach, expansion and professionalism in marketing, in a market with a
strong presence of MNCs, can be linked to the formation of GCMMF in 1973.31

GCMMF’s current turnover is around Rs 20733 crores. It has emerged as India’s largest
food products marketing organization and has emerged as India’s largest exporter of dairy
products with major markets in the West Asia, SAARC countries, USA and Singapore

GCMMF also pioneered the concept of IT applications in the cooperative sector as also in
the marketing field.

GCMMF’s product portfolio is very diversified and has often defined the product-market
category by its offerings as can be inferred from the earlier discussions and is a market
leader in most product categories with significant market share
5.2 Strategic responses
The strategic responses of GCMMF in relation to changes in the market environment
particularly, after 1992 have been as below:

Quality interventions as an instrument of change.

Investment in information technology.

Strengthening of Amul brand.

Launch of new products and diversification.

Strengthening the distribution network.

Strengthening human resources.
7
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558

Investment in marketing research.

Advocacy to influence policy changes.
6. Evolution and objectives of Infosys in brief
On the occasion of Infosys completing 25 years in 2006, N. R. Narayanamurthy, its
founder stated “A great corporation must live on. Hence, we are all babies. Even these initial
baby–years have taught us several lessons. These lessons are valuable not for just our future
journey but for other corporations in the country and, perhaps the world………Finally I
would urge Infosys to choose a worthy dream, to go after it confidently, and to play a role that
would make us proud in the years to come.”32
Infosys was born out of the vision of one individual, N. R. Narayanamurthy, who inspired
his colleagues working with the software firm Patni Computers Limited in Pune to join him in
the entrepreneurial venture. A major reason as to why
N. R. Narayanamurthy decided to
start Infosys was to take advantage of the differential tariffs paid for professional software
services in India and those in USA. Infosys was started with a capital of Rs.10000 in 1981.
Its revenue in 2014-15 was
Rs 47300 crores. Earlier in 1993 the company went public.
Evolution of Infosys has at its core a business model driven by professional entrepreneurs.
The other co-founders were Nandan Nilekani, Nadathur. S. Raghavan, Kris Gopalakrishnan
and Shibulal. In contrast to most other enterprises in India, the promoters were not born in
business families. They also did not have investment capabilities derived from profits from
modern agriculture as in the case of entrepreneurs from land-owning families or got support
from family-run enterprises since none of them belonged to traditional trading communities
noted for business acumen in India. They had their origins in middle class families with only
professional education as their strength.
The growth of Infosys in many ways symbolizes the liberalization initiatives of India and
its search for a status in global business commensurate with its potential. From a modest
turnover of around Rs.11.63 lakh in 1991, the turnover of Infosys grew to around Rs.13149
crore in 2006-07 (Rs 47300 crores in 2014-15). The number of employees grew from a
modest 162 in 1991 to 72241 in 2006-07 (176000 in 2014-15). Infosys also improved its
position steadily in the export front since its inception. On December 9, 2006, Infosys became
the first ever Indian firm to be included in the prestigious NASDAQ-100 index which is well
known and “is one of the world’s most recognized benchmarks that owes the distinction to its
…. companies that are leaders in a diverse range of industries” according to the Deccan
Herald.33 Its officials perceived that this recognition, in the silver jubilee year of Infosys’
inception, was for the firm as well as for India.
The vision of Infosys according its founding Chairman, emphasized in his various
speeches, was and is to become the world’s most respected software corporation that offered
8
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
top class software solutions for business organizations. As indicated earlier Infosys’s pattern
of enterprise building was influenced by some early learnings and had an influence on its
strategies. These learnings in a nutshell were:

Market success is an extremely relevant for building a successful enterprise.

In addition, as N R Narayanamurthy indicated in various newspaper interviews that
globalization ought to be welcomed as India did not have adequate demand for IT
services initially. Thus Infosys was a ‘born- global’ company

Decision-makers have to take a strategic view of business with forethought for
accomplishment.

As Narayana Murthy, in various fora, emphasized that resources have to be sourced at the
most economical place, conversion of the same where the product/service is cost-effective
and marketing ought to be at places where it is most profitable without being hampered or
limited by national boundaries.

Minimisation of risk by not over-focusing on any single client, technology or as far as
practically possible geography.34 Human resources are critical for success in business.
6.1 Industry and marketing environment of Infosys
In the light of increasing control on the IT industry in the late 1970 by restricting the
extent of ownership by foreign firms, many MNCs decided to exit the country. The gap that
was created by these companies was filled by Indian firms and operated in areas such as basic
data-processing, software development and maintenance. Taking advantage of low-cost
skilled engineers with good communications skills in English, companies such as Tata
Consultancy Services (TCS), Tata Unisys Limited (Tata Burroughs) recruited many Indian
professionals to develop software at customer sites in the USA. Taking advantage of
favourable Indian government policies many new firms entered the software industry. High
quality infrastructure is another important aspect of this industry. Development of campuses
with continuous expansion in seating space requirement and top class telecommunication
infrastructure were important.
A comparative study of a few IT and Biotechnology firms indicated some interesting
features of the IT sector in India.35 Having clear client focus, cheap cost of technical
manpower, large pool of scientific manpower and ability to work with high end technologies
were sources of competitive advantage. Establishing strategic alliances, increasing R&D
spending, clear definition of the target market were important approaches to coping with the
challenges of globalization.
Entering new markets and product innovation were also
considered important. Institutional branding i.e. marketing of the IT firm was relevant in the
IT industry. Favourable market conditions were more important than government support.
Dependence, right from inception, on foreign markets for growth was high in the IT industry.
9
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
The IT industry also enjoyed favourable government policies as there was a perception among
policymakers across all political hues that IT was symbol of nation’s progress. This was the
business environment in which Infosys operated in India
6.2 Strategic responses of Infosys
The strategic responses formulated by Infosys to deal with the business environment could be
summarized as below:

Conscious and continuous development of infrastructural facilities.

Initiatives to move up the value chain and brand building.

Designing of Employee Stock Option Plan.

Developing a broad banded human resources management.

Listing in NASDAQ.

Acquisitions and strategic investments.

Redesigning the organizational structure.

Formulating a Global Delivery Model.

Conceiving Profitability, Predictability, Sustainability, De-risking model.

Investment in quality processes.

Networking with industry.

Social responsibility.
7. GCMMF and Infosys – some commonalities
There are interesting commonalties in the context of both GCMMF and Infosys. As can be
seen GCMMF is an institutional response to prevailing market conditions. Infosys was also
started as a market response to the emerging need for software services globally. Both were
started by charismatic founders Dr Kurien, in the case of GCMMF and Mr Narayana Murthy
in the case of Infosys. Both the leaders were visionaries and designed their respective firms to
achieve market dominance. Right from the inception there was emphasis on market
orientation and brand building. Despite having different levels of government controls in the
respective sectors both firms had strong market emphasis and emerged as market leaders.
There has been strong focus on achieving business leadership, value creation for customers
and investment in technology. Both the firms are focusing on global expansion entering new
geographies. Organizational structure incorporated professionalism at all levels with high
emphasis on quality recruitment at the entry levels. Interestingly both the organizations
bowing to stakeholder demands have moved to being headed by professional CEOs in the last
few years and are no longer headed by their charismatic founders. Both GCMMF and Infosys
have been able to combine market leadership with social responsibility and have been seen as
jewels in Indian business arena. Their continued success is symbol of Indian entrepreneurship
and is relevant for current ‘Make in India’ campaign.
10
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
8. Analysis and conclusions
A few relevant dimensions need to be examined in the context of ownership form of these
successful enterprises and whether their strategic decisions were in any way influenced by
their ownership. These have to be answered by examining from different managerial
perspectives with regard to the following issues:

Whether the responses of GCMMF and Infosys have been market driven

Whether GCMMF and Infosys have been able to blend their social/ founder’s
priorities and their business goals

Whether form of ownership enabled them to take crucial strategic decisions
An analysis of the strategic responses (when examined in detail) would indicate that
GCMMF’s responses quite a few of them have been in controllable- external domain of the
organization. These include shift in brand strategy through
‘Amul-the Taste of India’
campaign, quality management process as a change management approach covering even
dealers and retailers, expansion of distribution network and investment in cold chain,
formation of distribution highways for its products, continuous investment in market research.
In the non-controllable external domain GCMMF lobbied with government for favourable
policies along with other cooperative federations. Infosys also right from the start has focused
on brand awareness campaign and increasingly has been moving towards creating a ‘brand
identity’ which is essential in the IT services known for strong competition on the basis of
prices. It focused on giving value. Infosys also formulated the Global Delivery Model to
combat limitations of operational restrictions in the context of sending professionals to USA
and to cope up with entry of MNCs in India. Both GCMMF and Infosys capitalized on
‘strategic windows’ which were open with favourable market conditions and matching
organizational capabilities. For instance, GCMMF launched ice-creams, branded curds and
various other value-added dairy products and entered new geographical markets. Similarly
Infosys, entered new segments to reduced its dependence on a few markets. It also set up a
division to focus on high-end consulting. It also launched Finacle, a product for banking
software. On the non-controllable external domain Infosys networked with state governments
for creation of infrastructure and availability of land for IT parks. It collaborated on this front
with industry bodies such as NASSCOM. Both GCMMF and Infosys initially focused on
ideological / founders' priorities and moved into Stage II where business objectives of growth
and diversification were balanced with social responsibility (Infosys formed an exclusive
Foundation to pursue social objectives). Both these firms are in Stage III with founders
having exited the scene; the strategic management is entirely in the hand of professional
managers and they have emerged as highly valued institutions. In terms of organizational
positioning till recently, both GCMMF and Infosys, focused on cost leadership and are
11
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
increasingly moving in the direction of offering value-added products in their respective
businesses and leveraging on their multiple competencies. GCMMF and Infosys are
diversifying into new markets in other countries.
GCMMF has initiated manufacturing
operations in USA while Infosys has looked at China and Australia. They have established
strategic alliances. A major reason as to why such sagacious strategies have been formulated
is due to the visionary leadership and continuance of leadership without too many changes
ensuring continued strategic direction. Right from its inception GCMMF in 1946 has seen
only 4 Chief Executive Officers, while Infosys has again seen only 5 Chief Executive
Officers. This is in contrast to large government controlled cooperatives and public sector
technology firms where the CEO has a limited tenure of a few years before superannuation
affecting strategy formulation. In the case of government controlled cooperatives and public
sector technology firms focus has mainly been on meeting social objectives and less of
business objectives. This has been due to limited autonomy for the decision-makers. In the
case of certain competing firms (government controlled dairy cooperatives in the case of
GCMMF, high technology public sector firms) focus has been on internal aspects such as
quality improvement etc., and missed many ‘strategic windows’ of market opportunities. In
fact one public sector firm that was the first to setup a software export cell (around the same
time Infosys Technologies started its operations) did not capitalize on the revolution in the IT
and telecom sector and missed golden opportunities for growth. They have been ‘Reactors’ or
‘Defenders’ in the market. In contrast in the case of GCMMF which is a genuinely producerowned cooperative with no government control and Infosys Technologies which is a widely
held private sector their forms of ownership has given the leaders freedom to formulate
strategies to make the respective firms market oriented. GCMMF helped in creating IRMA
Anand, a leading management institute while Infosys created Infosys Leadership Institute at
Mysore to meet emerging professional manpower needs for sustained growth. The
organizational structures of the companies are designed to respond to market requirements.
GCMMF has been coping with global competition.36 It is also leveraging its product and
brand management capabilities37. All these have been possible due to the ownership form.
Increasingly, both GCMMF and Infosys Technologies, have multiple competencies and have
embraced the forces of globalization, are on a path strengthening their market orientation, by
launching new products and services gearing up for a phase of further business growth.
Therefore the lesson from this research study, for policy makers, is to provide greater
autonomy to achieve business objectives without compromising on social objectives. While
leadership does play a crucial role in formulating strategic responses, developing capabilities
in the enterprise to meet market changes, the ownership form also enables the leader to set the
direction, aligning the resources, motivating employees and bring about change.
12
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
(The paper has been written using secondary sources of information for academic purposes.
This paper also draws from the author’s doctoral research).
Acknowledgement: The author acknowledges the nuances of the business provided by dairy
industry experts from GCMMF, NDDB, and KMF in various industry interactions in IRMA
and other fora. Similarly for the nuances and insights of Information Technology sector in
various industry interfaces at IBS, Bangalore, IBA Bangalore and at SDMIMD, Mysore and
other fora)
References
1
Chandler, Alfred (1962): quoted in S. Shivaramu (1999), Strategy Formation, New Delhi: Wheeler
Publishing, p. 93.
2
Mintzberg, Henry and Waters J.A. (1984), “Researching the Formation of Strategies: the History of
Canadian Lady 1939-1976”, in Competitive Strategic Management, R B Lamb (Ed), Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp.62-93.
3
Childs, John and Keiser in Paul Nystrom and William Starbuck (1981), Handbook of
Organizational Design, New York: OUP.
4
Miles, Raymond E, Charles C. Snow, Alan D. Meyer, Henry J. Coleman, Jr. (1978), Organizational
Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw -Hill Kogakusha, pp.3-30.
5
Porter, Michael. E. (1996) “What is Strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, pp.61-78.
6
Hamel, Gary and C. K. Prahalad (1989), “Strategic Intent”, Harvard Business Review, May-June,
pp.63-76.
7
Varadarajan, Rajan P. and Satish Jayachandran (1999), “Marketing Strategy: an Assessment of the
State of the Field and Outlook”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27, Issue: 2,
pp.120-143.
8
Abell, Derek (1978), “Strategic Windows”, Journal of Marketing, July, pp.21-26.
9
Murthy, K. R. S. (1984), Strategic Management of Public Sector Enterprise – Framework of
Analysis, BP 178, Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management, pp.1-33.
10
Murthy K. R. S. (1987), “Do Public Enterprise Need a Corporate Strategy”, Vikalpa-the Journal for
Decision makers, Vol. 12, No 2, April-June, pp.9-17.
11
Shah, Tushar (1993), Building Energetic Farmers' Organizations, Design and Performance:
Synthesis and Evidence, Workshop Summary, Symposium on Cooperatives, Anand: Institute of
Rural Management, pp.1-10.
12
Jain, Pankaj (1993), Excellence in Cooperatives: Lessons from Successful Cooperatives, Workshop
Summary, Symposium on Cooperatives, Anand: Institute of Rural Management, pp.1-10.
13
Venugopal R. and M. R. Dixit (1999), “Enterprise Response to Public Policy Reforms: a Scan of
Extant Literature and an Agenda for Future Research”, Vikalpa-the Journal for Decision makers,
Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management, April-June, pp.11-22.
14
Krishnan, V.S. (1998), Strategic Planning at TELCO, in Corporate Strategy and Policy
Perspectives, Madhavan, Ravichandar and J. Saha (Eds), Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of
Management, pp.31-34.
15
Shah, Tushar (2000), “Building and Managing High Performance Knowledge Institutions: Lessons
of Indian Experiences in Designing and Managing Rural Development Organizations”, in K.
Prathap Reddy and Katar Singh (Eds), New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company, Ltd.
pp.31-64.
16
TECS (1994), Study of NGEF, unpublished study, Bangalore: Tata Economic Consultancy Services
(mimeograph), pp.1-95.
13
www.globalbizresearch.org
Proceedings of the Third Middle East Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking
(ME15Dubai October Conference) ISBN - 978-1-63102-286-9
16-18 October, 2015. Paper ID: DF558
17
Suresh, Maruthi. R. and A.S.Ramanujam (2001), “Marketing Edible Oil by Deshfed” (teaching
case-company name disguised), Written with special permission from NDDB, Anand: Institute of
Rural Management (mimeograph), July, pp.1-12.
18
Maheshwari, Sunil K.(2007), Organizational Decline and Turnaround, New Delhi: Sage Publications
pp.1-37.
19
Sharma, Subhash. C. (2000), “Forward Engineering for Strategic Gearing: the Indian Tea Industry”,
Management Review, Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management, June, pp.57-65.
20
Sharma, Subhash. C. (2007), CINE Matrix: a Model of Strategic Scanning in New Mantras, in
Corporate Corridors-from Ancient Routes to Global Routes, Bangalore: New Age International,
pp.315-326.
21
Suresh, M. R. (2009), Strategic responses of enterprises to changes in market environment: an
examination across ownership form: case study of Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), Paper presented at
ICOMBS, IBS, Hyderabad, 2009.
22
Suresh, M. R. (2010), Strategic Responses of Enterprises to Changes in Market Environment - an
Examination Across Ownership Form: Case Study of a Regional Cooperative Milk Producers’
Federation Ltd (RCMPF), 3D... IBA Journal of Management & Leadership, Vol:2 ,Issue:1 ,JulyDecember 2010, Special Issue on Consciousness and Leadership, (Ed) , Sangeetha Menon and
Subhash Sharma, IBA, Bangalore, pp.97-107.
23
Stake R E, as quoted in William Naumes and Margeret Naumes (1999), Case study research,
London: Sage Publications, p.60.
24
Yin, Robert K. (1984), Case study research: design and methods, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
p17.
25
Yin, Robert K. as quoted in William Naumes and Margeret Naumes (1999), Case study research,
London: Sage Publications, p.59
26
GCMMF (2004), Amul India Story, p.4.
27
GCMMF (2004), Amul India Story, p.6. Also see
http://www.amul.com/chairmanspeech_annual08.html
28
GCMMF (2004), Amul India Story, GCMMF, p.14.
29
GCMMF (2001), A Tryst with Quality-the GCMMF experience, 1994-2001, p.51.
30
Suresh, Maruthi R., and Veena Joshi (1988), Institutional Analysis of Renewable Energy
Programmes, New Delhi: Tata Energy Research Institute, pp.5-15.
31
http://www.amul.com/chairmanspeech_annual06.html ,accessed on 22.11.2007.
32
Narayanamurthy, N.R. (2006), Infosys Annual Report 2005-06, pp.21-22.
33
Jacobs (2006), Deccan Herald, Bangalore Edition, 10.12.2006, p.1.
34
Infosys (2003), Annual Report 2002-03, pp.111-112.
35
Vasudev, Arjun (2004), A Study of IT and BT Firms PGD-ABPM Special Focus Area report,
Bangalore: Indian Institute of Plantation Management, pp.1-125.
36
Chairman’s speech, 41st Annual General Body Meeting held on 14th May, 2015
Sodhi, R S (2015), “We are focusing on branded products to maximise Amul's profits”, reported by
Anto Joseph, 4 February, DNA, Mumbai edition
37
(Also see www.infosys.com and www.amul.com for basic information on the enterprises)
14
www.globalbizresearch.org