“Sustainable competitive advantage of
Electronic payment providers”
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Administration
Small business and entrepreneurship
Wouter Pullen,
“Sustainable competitive advantage of
Electronic payment providers”
University of Groningen
Faculty of Business and Economics
Master thesis
MSc Business Administration
Specialization Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Author: Wouter Pullen
Student number: 1537997
Date: 10-08-2012
Abstract
The goal of this research is to develop a method with which researchers and/or decision-makers in the electronic payment provider business can determine a company’s strategic position. This method should be aimed at identifying (if present) a company’s competitive advantage and
determine on which resources this advantage is built. The result of this research is a model that can be used as a relative simple and not too time-consuming method.
The method developed here is a five-step model from which the input elements are derived from both literature research and interviews with industry experts. The industry experts are all working as decision-makers in different companies in this market and thus provide ‘real-life’ business cases to this research. The research identifies a number of basic capabilities of which to pursue, core customer benefits on which to focus and key success factors that are important in this market.
Executive Summary
It is in every company’s best interest to examine their strategic position and determine if they have or how they can obtain an advantage over competitors. Sustainability of this advantage is of course another issue. A sustainable competitive advantage can be defined as: ‘the unique position an organization develops vis-à-vis its competitors through its patterns of resource deployments that can be contained in the long-run’.
The goal of this research is to provide decision-makers in the market for electronic payment providers with a tool to assess their company’s strategic position and possible competitive advantages. This tool should lead to understanding of a company’s key resources and what to do with them. The method presented here should only take relatively little time to perform and should be able to conduct without the need of external business analysists or other third parties.
A five-step model is built based on both literature from previous researches and interviews with industry experts. The first step in this model is determining what the basic capabilities and
resources, core customer benefits and key success factors of the market are. This method provides a shortlist of groups that are important in determining these factors. Past research has shown that companies in the electronic payment provider market consciously or unconsciously put their strategic focus on one or more of the following basic capabilities; information technology, strategic flexibility, trust-building and/or risk management. These basic capabilities are founded on a
company’s dedication of critical resources. To establish a link between a company’s critical resources and its basic capabilities the company has to identify its key performances and core customer benefits. Key performances in their turn are founded on an analysis of the key success factors in a market.
The method described in this resource provides groups of elements for both key success factors and core customer benefits companies have to consider whilst determining their strategic position. The second step in this model is to list all the resources contributing to the key performances in a company. Since it is, in this phase, not yet possible to tell which resources are critical, companies should list all of them.
Step three is analyzing whether or not any of the above-defined resources can be considered critical. This can be done through a series of five tests; a competitive superiority test, an imitability test, a duration test, an appropriability test and a substitutability test. The results of these tests will determine if a resource can be considered critical or not.
In step four, the critical resources are tested for their strategic consistency; their ability to contribute to the achievement of the company’s strategic intent. This can be done by ranking the priorities of the basic capabilities and importance of key performances (1). Determining the impact of each critical resource on key performances for each capability (2). And assessing the strategic consistency of resources by combining the first two steps (3).
The fifth and final step in this model is to generate strategic options for a company. This is done by combining steps three (strategic value) and four (strategic consistency) in a matrix in order to gain insights in which resources are most important in gaining or continuing a sustainable competitive advantage.
Table of content
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Literature review ... 3
2.1 What is a sustainable competitive advantage? ... 3
2.2 How to determine a sustainable competitive advantage? ... 3
2.3 Rangone’s Resource-Based Approach to Strategy Analysis ... 4
2.3.1 Strategic intent and key performances ... 6
2.3.2 Identifying resources influencing key performances ... 6
2.3.3 Assessing the strategic value of resources ... 6
2.3.4 Assessing the strategic consistency of resources ... 7
2.3.5 Generating strategic options ... 7
2.4 Summary ... 9 3. Methodology ... 11 3.1 Research outline ... 11 3.2 Data collection ... 11 3.3 Measurements ... 12 3.3.1 Validity ... 12 3.3.2 Reliability ... 13 3.3.3 Generalizability ... 13 3.4 Summary ... 13
4. Rangone tailored to electronic payment providers ... 14
4.1 Basic capabilities and resources ... 14
4.2 Core customer benefits ... 15
4.3 Industry’s key success factors ... 15
4.4 Model tailored to electronic payment providers ... 17
4.5 Summary ... 18
5. Interview results ... 19
5.1 General findings ... 19
5.2 Capabilities of an electronic payment service provider... 19
5.3 Core customer benefits of an electronic payment service provider ... 20
5.4 Industry’s key success factors ... 21
5.5 Summary ... 22
7 Conclusion and implications ... 26
7.1 Conclusion ... 26
7.2 Implications for theory ... 28
7.3 Implications for practice ... 28
7.4 Further research ... 28
7.5 Limitations ... 28
References ... 30
1. Introduction
Consumers are slowly shifting away from physical stores and buy more and more goods online. Worldwide e-commerce sales will top 963 billion dollar by the year 2013, showing an annual growth rate of more than 19 percent. An increasing number of retailers are ‘forced’ to follow their
competitors and start online versions of their stores. Besides that, pure online shops are opening every day (Khan, 2011). With the emergence and continuous growth of e-commerce, new financial needs arise. In most cases traditional payment systems, for example, do not fulfill the needs of online shops (Sumanjeet, 2009).
The solution to this problem comes with electronic payment systems. Besides the obvious providers of these systems (banks), other firms also develop and exploit electronic payment systems. A variety of systems exist. Lee, Yu & Ku (2001), for example, identify four different types of these electronic payment systems. Online credit card payments, electronic cash, electronic checks and smart cards. With the emergence of this variety of payment systems a new market is developing.
In this market, the electronic payment system provider market, a big difference between firms and their systems exists. On the one hand, there are firms that develop systems that deal with forms of more or less direct payment. These systems enable customers to transfer money from their bank accounts to vendors electronically prior to receiving the product. On the other hand, there are firms that develop systems that deal with forms of delayed payment. In this case, customers receive their ordered product(s) prior to paying them.
Firms that develop these systems usually take on the risk of customers who are unwilling to pay for what they receive. These firms provide services to vendors that are twofold. They provide the system that enables customers to order products online, and they take care of the billing and payment (and associated risk management) of these products (Lowry, Wells, Moody & Humpherys, 2006).
This is a relatively new market in a fast growing environment. The rapid growth and potential of this market attracts many new players (OECD, 2006). It is therefore necessary for firms in this market to determine how they can survive in this market in the long run. ‘In order to survive firms have to implement a value creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitor’. In other words, firms have to determine if they have, or how they should obtain a sustainable competitive advantage in the market (Barney, 1991). A lot of research is done on how to determine this advantage but firms in the electronic payment system provider market are struggling to effectively use the models developed in these researches. The reason for this is that most of these researches lack to address the specific challenges that e-businesses, and more specifically electronic payment system providers, face. This leads to a gap in literature. There are models available for testing on sustainable competitive advantage, but these are not adequate for electronic payment service providers. It is therefore interesting to research what the specific elements for organizations in this market are and how these can be combined to identify a sustainable competitive advantage.
Consequently, it is the goal of this paper to develop a framework with which firms (or researchers) in the electronic payment system provider market can determine if they have, or how they should obtain a sustainable competitive advantage.
Research question: How can firms in the electronic payment system provider market determine if they have a sustainable competitive advantage?
2. Literature review
2.1 What is a sustainable competitive advantage?
A competitive advantage is, as the words say, an advantage over competitors. Competitive advantage is ‘the unique position an organization develops vis-à-vis its competitors through its patterns of resource deployments’ (Hofer and Schendel, 1978). It is said that a competitive advantage is sustainable when it can be held in the long-term. This sustainable competitive advantage comes from either doing the same thing as your competitors, but better (operational effectiveness), or by delivering a unique value to your customers by doing things differently than your competitors (strategic positioning) (Porter, 2001). Naturally, there has to be something that keeps competitors from imitating these advantages. This something is called a barrier to imitation in literature and can take many forms including economies of scale, switching costs, first mover advantages and so forth (ao. Porter, 1985; Rangone, 1999; Reed & DeFillipi, 1990).
2.2 How to determine a sustainable competitive advantage?
Many different views on strategy exist (e.g., Chaffee, 1985; Spanos & Lioukas, 2001). In the so-called ‘classic industrial’ view on strategy, it is assumed that firms cannot influence industry conditions nor can they influence their own performance. Bain (1956) is one of the most well-known researchers of this view. It is his believe that conditions to enter any given market are high enough to ensure certain stability in markets. Because of these barriers, firms are limited in their own actions (strategy) and management’s role can thus be ignored. Competitive advantages can exist in this view, but they will never be sustainable since a long-run equilibrium caused by the stability of the market will prevail. This view stems from many years ago. Electronic commerce and electronic payment systems are currently redefining everything that constitutes a market; products, industrial structures, trade and competition rules, regulations and laws (Chen, 2001). It is therefore very plausible at least to think that in current dynamic industries (for example the e-business industries) barriers, if they even exist, are high enough to ensure that no individual firm is able to influence industry conditions.
Departing from this view is, for example, Porter. With the development of his famous five-force framework (Porter, 1979; 2008), he focuses more on firms instead of industries. Besides that, Porter does not see industries as stable and acknowledges that firm actions do have some influence on industries. In Porter’s view, all industries, how different they may seem, have the same underlying drivers of profitability. Porter identifies five forces that determine whether companies in any industry can be profitable or not. The five forces Porter identifies are; threat of new entrants, bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, threat of substitute products or services and rivalry among existing competitors. If these forces are fierce, almost no company is able to earn decent returns on investment. If the forces are weak, many companies can be profitable. Firms within industries differentiate themselves from competitors by either being able to produce with a lower cost base or by being able to differentiate their products in such a way that they can charge a premium. Porter calls these two primary types of competitive advantage ‘low cost’ and
before, the market for electronic payment system providers is fairly new and currently developing so it is expected that industry forces change so rapidly that strategy based on these forces is outdated to fast to establish a competitive advantage.
Another perspective is the so-called institutional perspective. In this perspective, firms have to take into account more than ‘just’ market-driven factors (technological, informational and income limits for example). Socially constructed limits are also important in this view (Oliver, 1997). In this view, firms operate within a specific social framework with its own norms, values and assumptions and that both individuals and organizations are approval-seeking, creatures of habit and tradition and susceptible to social influence (Scott, 1995). Baum and Oliver (1991) researched if linkages between organizations and social institutions and found that conformity of organizations to social
expectations contributes to survival and organizational success. Again, e-business and the market for electronic payment service providers is still developing and thus, so are social expectations on electronic payment. Besides that, the institutional perspective is hard to use as ready-to-use model because using this perspective requires researching social expectations. This would require a large-scale, and expensive, research.
In contrast with Porter’s believe that resources are merely the means through which the activities of the firm are being supported, is the Resource Based View. The Resource Based View (RBV) is a collection of contributions in the field of strategic management. These contributions all pay interest to the firm’s resources as the foundation for firm strategy (Grant, 1991). Rumelt (1984) says that ‘the essence of strategy should be defined by the firm’s unique resources and capabilities and that it is the task of general management to ‘adjust and renew these resources as time, competition and change erode their value’. According to other research, the long-term competitiveness of a company depends on the possession and exploitation of resources that differentiate the firm from its
competitors. These resources should be durable and difficult to imitate and substitute (e.g. Grant, 1991; Rangone, 1999). Selecting and accumulating the proper resources to enable competitive advantage in the RBV is a function of both within-firm decision-making and external strategic factors (Oliver, 1997). Since the RBV considers both internal and external factors, we believe that this is the best approach to establish a competitive advantage for electronic payment system providers.
2.3 Rangone’s Resource-Based Approach to Strategy Analysis
Rangone (1999) proposes an approach to strategy analysis for SMEs based on the RBV. Rangone’s model is designed for small and medium sized organizations and is based on empirical research at twelve production-oriented and two service-oriented firms (sized 15-1200 employees and turnovers between 0.7 and 100 million pounds) in different industries.
Rangone’s model is used in this research as the basis for determining sustainable competitive advantage of electronic payment service providers because it provides a comprehensible and fairly easy-to-use five-step model based on the RBV. Besides that, the market for electronic payment service providers is highly fragmented and consists (for the main part) of small and medium organizations (Innopay, 2010) which is also a factor in favor of using Rangone’s model as a base. Rangone identified three basic capabilities on which companies consciously or unconsciously put their strategic focus on.
- Innovation capability: the company’s ability to develop new products (or processes) and achieve superior performance relative to competitors with them;
- Market management capability: the company’s ability to efficiently and effectively market and sell its products.
Companies can focus their strategic attention on one (mono-dimensional) or more basic capabilities. The basic capabilities in turn, are founded on a company’s dedication of critical resources. Critical resources in Rangone’s research include: financial resources, physical assets, human resources, organizational resources, skills, know-how and competencies, brand and reputation.
In order to make an operational link between basic capabilities and critical resources it is necessary to consider the company’s key performances and the core customer benefits that the company wants to address. The key performances in their turn depend on the industry’s key success factors and can be divided in three categories (depending on the basic capability to which they are related): - Manufacturing performances (also known as manufacturing competitive priorities) ;
- New product development performances (both technological and managerial performance); - Marketing performances.
Only critical resources that affect key performances should be considered when linking resources to capabilities. Competitive Advantage Innovation Capability Production Capability Market Manag. Capability Key marketing
performances Key production performances
Key new product development performances
CRITICAL RESOURCES
Figure 1: Rangone’s tree of resources
Rangone’s approach consists of the following five steps that will be explained more elaborately in the following paragraphs:
1. Define the company’s strategic intent and key performances; 2. Identify the company’s resources influencing key performances;
3. Assess the strategic value of resources, i.e. their ability to create and sustain a long-term competitive advantage;
4. Assess the strategic consistency of resources in contributing to the achievement of the strategic intent;
2.3.1 Strategic intent and key performances
According to Rangone, defining the strategic intent of a company is a step that implies two strongly related choices that have to be taken by the managerial team.
- Definition of the basic capabilities on which the firms will rely.
Companies have to choose to focus on one, or more of the above-described basic capabilities. - Definition of the key performances to achieve.
Companies have to choose which key performances they want to achieve. This is based on the industry’s key success factors and the core customer benefits the company wants to ensure.
2.3.2 Identifying resources influencing key performances
In this step, all resources that can influence key performances have to be identified. It is necessary to pay attention to all relevant resources as it is not yet possible in this step to determine if a resource is critical or not. Rangone proposes a process-based approach to identify resources influencing key performances; for each key performance, the activities that are done are analyzed and the resources necessary to perform these activities are determined.
2.3.3 Assessing the strategic value of resources
The strategic value of a resource is its ability to create and sustain a long-term competitive
advantage. Rangone uses a bundle of five tests to determine whether a resource has strategic value. 1. Competitive superiority test;
Evaluation if and to what extent a certain resource differentiates the company from its competitors. 2. Imitability test;
Analysis of the actual and potential difficulty for competitors to imitate the resource. Difficulties in imitating can be caused by, for example, physical uniqueness.
3. Duration test;
Test that measures if the benefits created by the resource will also be generated in the long term. 4. Appropriability test;
Test to verify whether the company owning the resource is able to exploit its advantages itself. 5. Substitutability test;
Assessment of the difficulty for competitors to replace the resource with an alternative that provides the same advantages.
Each resource has to be scored according to these tests. Rangone’s scoring in this matter is a relatively simple linguistic approach with three scores; ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’. Rangone acknowledges that more sophisticated analytical tools can be used to arrive at more precise
assessments. If a resource scores high (medium might also be sufficient, depending on the company and environment), meaning it has a good strategic value, it can be considered critical. Critical resources are potentially able to provide long-term competitive advantage.
2.3.4 Assessing the strategic consistency of resources
According to Rangone, the resource’s ability to contribute to the achievement of the company’s strategic intent is called the resource’s strategic consistency. In order to assess this consistency with the company’s strategic objectives three steps have to be carried out:
1. Rank the priorities of the basic capabilities and the importance of key performances. 2. Determine the impact of each resource on key performances for each capability. 3. Assess the strategic consistency of resources by combining steps 1 and 2.
Again, a simple linguistic approach (‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ scores) or a more precise analytical tool for scoring can be used.
2.3.5 Generating strategic options
The final step in Rangone’s five-step model is the generating of strategic options. Rangone uses a matrix to allocate resources in one of four squares.
Table 1: Rangone’s allocation of resources
Concluding from this matrix is the following:
- Resources that are in square 1 (high consistency and high value) are coherent with the company’s strategic objectives and can generate a sustainable competitive advantage;
- Resources that are in square 2 (high consistency and low value) are in line with the company’s strategic objectives but are not able to support a long-term competitive advantage.
- Resources that are in square 3 (low consistency and high value) have the potential to be critical in a RBV perspective but are not in line with the company’s strategic objectives.
- Resources that are in square 4 (low consistency and low value) are not relevant in this analysis.
Guidelines for company strategy can be deduced from using this matrix. These guidelines can be divided into two different levels;
If most resources fall into square 1 and 2, consistency is ensured but if most resources are in square 3 (as said, square 4 is not relevant), there is significant inconsistency and a revision of the company’s strategic intent should be considered. This renewed strategic intent should be focused towards the company’s critical resources and, evidently, must consider external variables (like the industry’s key success factors) as well.
2. The most suitable strategies for different resource classes;
Resources in square 1 (high consistency and high value) should be exploited as before in order to keep supporting key performances. They should also be nurtured and kept up to date in order to avoid loss of value.
Resources in square 2 (high consistency and low value) should be developed by specific investments in order to increase the current low value.
Figure 2: Rangone’s model
2.4 Summary
Different views on competitive advantage exist in literature. Many researchers provide methods in order to determine whether or not a firm has a competitive advantage and if this advantage can be sustained in the long run. Rangone’s (1999) model is one of these models and since it covers both internal and external factors and is easy to use this model is chosen as a base for this research. This model consists of five steps. Inputs are determined in the first step. The second step involves combining the input factors. In step three, the identified relevant resources are tested on their
Definition of the basic capabilities Definition of the
company’s strategic intent and key performances
Identifying resources influencing key
performances
Identification of relevant resources for each key performance
Assessing the strategic value of
resources
Testing of each resource on it’s ability to create and sustain a long term competitive advantage
Assessing the strategic consistency of resources Assessing the
strategic consistency of
resources
Ranking priorities of basic capabilities and importance of key
performances
Determining impact of each resource on key performances for each
capability Definition of the industry’s key success
factors
Definition of the core customer benefits Definition of the key performances
Generating strategic options Generating strategic
strategic value. The fourth step is an assessment of the consistency with strategy of the resources and the final step is the generating of strategic options.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research outline
This research is aimed at developing a framework with which firms in the market for electronic payment service providers are able to determine if they have a competitive advantage. This research is of exploratory and qualitative design as it is the first attempt at such a framework specifically for electronic payment service providers. This research can be qualified as a theory-building research as the objective of the study is to contribute to the development of theory regarding sustainable competitive advantage for electronic payment service providers (Dul & Hak, 2008).
Both primary and secondary data is used. Secondary data is used in the literature research used to adapt the basic model to electronic payment service providers. Primary data is used through executing interviews with industry experts in order to tailor the framework with information gained first hand. Because of this practical input, we consider this research to be a case study as
information is (at least partially) gathered from cases in their real life contest and is then analyzed in a qualitative manner (Dul & Hak, 2008). In line with Dul and Hak’s advice of an appropriate research strategy for a theory-building case study as this, a comparative case study is performed. This is a relatively simple and time-efficient way of researching.
This research starts with a short description of the market for electronic payment service providers. After introducing the research question, the main items in this question are defined, and the model, which is used as base for developing the framework, is introduced. Following this introduction is a literature research concerning the input factors of the framework. Different theories are evaluated and choices for the final model are made. Next to the literature research, interviews with industry experts are held in order to gain insights from a practical view.
Both theoretical and practical views are combined in order to arrive at the final model.
3.2 Data collection
Data collection in this research is twofold. In the first part of the research, data was collected mainly through desk research. Scientific articles and research reports on the topic were analyzed and compared in order to arrive at definitions for key variables. Next to definitions, a base model was chosen, also after reviewing different theories on the topic.
Secondary sources were used again in order to adapt the base model to theory concerning electronic payment providers.
The interviews were mainly conducted by telephone (with the exception of the first interview) and were all taped in order to be able to summarize the interviews afterwards. The questionnaire
(displayed in appendix A) used was completely based on the input factors found and described in the literature research part of this research. The questionnaire contains three open questions, which relate with the input factors and one open question to cover anything that was missed or needed to be added to the first three questions.
The five interviewees were all involved in strategy making at their respective companies. They are a manager/director of a single payment method provider, a director of a webshop, an e-commerce manager at a large bank, a manager at a leading (Dutch) branch- and Trustmark organization and a country-manager at an international operating payment service provider. Names of the interviewees and their business names will, in accordance with the interviewees, not be named in this research. Before the actual interviews, the interviewees received the questions and got a short description of the goal of this research and the way this goal was to be obtained.
The interviews were held in accordance with the ‘standardized open-ended interview’ (Patton, 1990). This is an approach in which a set of questions is ‘carefully worded and arranged with the intention of taking each respondent through the same sequence and asking each respondent the same questions with essentially the same words.’ Although the questions and order of questions were the same for each interviewee the interviewees were free to add elements to their answers that were not directly related to the questions, therefore the interviews can be seen as semi structured (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). Interviewees got the chance to answer in any way they liked at first (unaided answering) but were confronted with a list of possible answers after their initial own answer (aided answering). Interviewees were then asked if they thought the proposed answers could be of influence in the light of this research.
3.3 Measurements
The variables in this research can be broadly divided in three groups of elements. These groups all come from the model of Rangone that is used as a starting point. The three groups are; basic capabilities and resources, key success factors of the market, and core customer benefits. The elements in these groups are first identified through literature research concerning electronic payment service providers. The identified elements are presented and used as background
information during the interview phase of this research. Finally, equalities and differences between literature and interviews are measured and a final list of elements is presented.
3.3.1 Validity
In the literature part of this research a large number of scientific articles is used to identify the elements needed. The articles cover more or less the same topic, but from multiple authors and different angles resulting in a valid method. This research is not dependent on the input of only one source, but uses many sources instead.
Although the questionnaire is ‘only’ four questions in size, the use of both aided an unaided answering and the interviewing of five different interviewees from different parts of the market should also enhance the validity of this research. Interpretation on the questions can have a
3.3.2 Reliability
The reliability of this research is warranted through the use of multiple primary and secondary data sources. Literature was selected to fit within the scope of this research so that no important differences in scope of used articles should be present. The interviews conducted were all taped to ensure that processing the interviews could be done in detail. Although the number of interviews performed is low, the similarity in answers between respondents suggests a high reliability.
3.3.3 Generalizability
The model developed in this research is designed for electronic payment service providers specifically and thus contains elements that are seen in the corresponding market. Because this model is based on previous research however, the method used can be expected to function in other markets as well. Especially in other parts of the e-commerce field, this model can be used without many changes as there are many similarities between companies in broad field of e-commerce.
The generalizability of the model is however not proven in this research and when trying to do so (in further research) one should take into account that the elements used in the model were specifically for electronic payment service providers and so, their value may not be high when evaluating other businesses or markets.
3.4 Summary
4. Rangone tailored to electronic payment providers
Since online shopping only recently has begun to really rise in popularity Rangone’s research did not include firms making their money through either selling online or supporting sellers online.
For this reason, we propose an adapted version of Rangone’s approach, tailored to electronic payment system providers.
In determining competitive advantage from a resource-based view for electronic payment service providers a couple of issues should be addressed. These issues are: the company’s basic capabilities and resources, the definition of core customer benefits the company wants to address and the industry’s key success factors. These three factors are the main input in Rangone’s original model. Starting with these three factors the question arises which elements should be addressed
concerning electronic payment service providers.
4.1 Basic capabilities and resources
A number of authors consider capabilities and resources of a company as interchangeable terms meaning the same thing (e.g. Ray, Barney & Muhanna, 2004; Barney, 1991). Others argue that capabilities are what a company can do, and resources are the underlying ‘building blocks’ of these capabilities (e.g. Collins & Montgomery, 1995; Rangone, 1999; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Grant (1991) argues that there is a key distinction between resources and capabilities. Resources are the inputs into the production process. Examples of resources are; skills of employees, brand names, capital equipment and so on.
These individual resources however, are typically not productive on their own. Resources become productive as they are combined into teams of resources. ‘A capability is the capacity for a team of resources to perform some task or activity’. In other words, there has to be some cooperation and coordination between individual resources in order to become productive. Resources are therefore the source of capabilities and capabilities are the source of competitiveness and competitive advantage.
Saini & Johnson (2005) conceptualize a set of capabilities based on their assessment of e-commerce. These capabilities are information technology (IT) capability, strategic flexibility and trust-building capability. Saini & Johnson share their definition of IT-capability with other researchers (e.g.
Bharadwaj,2000; Grewal, Corner & Mehta, 2001); ‘the firms’ ability to mobilize and deploy IT-based resources’. Besides the physical IT infrastructure, the authors also take a firm’s intangible IT-enabled resources, such as knowledge assets and synergy into account. They claim that ‘IT-capability is integral for transforming an enterprise to suit the exigencies of the electronic economy. The second capability Saini & Johnson identify is strategic flexibility. Strategic flexibility is the capability ‘that enables a firm to respond to and generate environmental change’. This definition is again shared with numerous researchers (e.g. Johnson, Lee, Saini & Grohmann, 2003). Strategic flexibility is of utmost importance in markets with high levels of technological changes and with a high degree of uncertainty.
The third and final capability Saini & Johnson identify is trust-building capacity. In the areas of both financial services as in internet and e-commerce exchanges trust plays a very important role (Richard & Perrien, 1999, Urban, Sultan & Qualls, 2000). Saini & Johnson state that ‘building and maintain customer trust in the product or service provider is the capstone of strategy implementation on the Internet.’
4.2 Core customer benefits
Since Rangone’s framework does not provide a clear direction of customer benefits we believe that it is necessary to identify a couple of benefits payment service providers could address.
According to Anderson, Narus & van Rossum (2006) most managers believe that, when it comes to communicating benefits of their product to customers, more is better. These researchers however acknowledge that it is better to focus on the few elements (benefits) of a product that matter most to target customers.
A number of authors identify benefits for companies that are, in one way or another, involved in e-commerce. Timmers (1998) identifies increased demand, a low-cost route to global presence and cost-reduction of promotion and sales as key benefits for e-businesses. Sumanjeet (2009) who’s research focusses on electronic payment providers states that payment products ‘must be low margin to compete, high volume to build critical mass and be profitable, receive favorable press treatment, be well branded to gain customer confidence, achieve rapid uptake, and be
differentiated from check and credit card so that consumers and merchants find reason to prefer and use them’.
Finally, Chen (2001) says that e-business value is based on four pillars: service, price, quality and fulfillment time. His first pillar, service, entails issues as customer communications, customer-driven business model and instantaneous customer communication. ‘Price’ as e-business value contains issues as reduced pricing and pay-per-use payment models. Third, quality, has providing better information on products and services and enabling customers to form communities that provide useful feedback on quality of service as main issues. Finally, ‘fulfillment time’ is the pillar that entails issues as automated order-to-payment, just-in-time production and networked and/or outsources shipping.
4.3 Industry’s key success factors
The terms ‘key success factors’ and ‘critical success factors’ are used as interchangeable in business literature. Critical success factors (CSFs) are ‘the limited number of areas in which satisfactory results will ensure successful competitive performance for the individual, department or organization’ (Bullen & Rockart, 1981). Bullen & Rockart identify five major sources from which CSFs arise. One of them is important for this research. It is the industry. According to these researchers, ‘each industry has a set of critical success factors that are determined by the characteristics of the industry itself’. According to them, in order to be successful, each company in the industry must pay attention to the industry’s CSFs.
Leidecker & Bruno (1984) use a slightly more elaborated definition. They define CSFs as ‘those characteristics, conditions or variables that when properly sustained, maintained, or managed can have a significant impact on the success of a firm competing in a particular industry’.
Although both definitions are written a significant amount of years back, business researchers today still use and apply the concepts.
Downes and Mui (2000) claim that due to decreased costs in digital technology tremendous new pressure on the competitive environment of firms exists. They therefore propose that three additional forces need to be added to Porter’s five forces model.
Figure 3: Downes and Mui’s 8-forces model
These new forces supersede the old forces as the focus of planning for firms. The new forces are: - Globalization
According to the authors ‘the world can be thought of as a very large network’ (Downes and Mui, 2000). It is already common in most production companies to outsource parts of assembly to a global network of partners and suppliers in order to be able to benefit from worldwide competition. Even in more time-sensitive industries companies are more and more engaging in 24-hour operation by passing work around the entire world to partners, or own offices.
Consumers are getting used to borderless commerce as well. ‘Given the chance, they are more than willing to shop on an international basis for everything from entertainment to software to cars and electronics, and even for many goods and services traditionally considered national or even local’.
- Digitization
Nowadays everything that has to do with computers and information technology is becoming cheap enough for companies to treat as disposable (Downes and Mui, 2000). Due to this decreasing of costs, companies in any given market move their information-intensive activities to computer systems and to more public networks as open databases. Here the information multiplies in value due to its usefulness for in other practices.
- Deregulation
preventing new entrants and reduced competition. Because of this unwanted effect, a move for deregulation has started. According to Downes and Mui (2000) there is a ‘widespread belief of buyers and sellers that the cure has become worse than the disease, a recognition that the free market, thanks to plunging transaction costs, is now the better regulator of an industry than the government’.
These new forces interact with each other closely in a way that affects every company in every market. With increased digitization, it is possible to create and manage a large variety of
relationships with suppliers and buyers both national as international. This supports globalization of an industry. In global industries, local regulations tend to hold back competition. When this is acknowledged, the velocity of deregulation is increased. Deregulation in its turn opens markets for new entrants and existing competitors that were closed before. This starts the cycle over again. Through an intensive literature study and empirical research (Sung, 2006), identified 16 critical success factors for e-commerce of which stability, security, and speed of the payment process are considered to have significant explanatory power of success in the market. Sumanjeet (2009) states that ‘the factors which are critical for the success of e-commerce payment systems are
multifaceted’. The following factors are considered by him to be critical: integrity, non-repudiation, authentication, authorization, confidentiality and reliability. In other words, an e-commerce payment system has to ensure that data is transmitted and received unchanged and as intended (integrity), transactions have the quality of non-deniable proof (non-repudiation), identities of parties are established at some level of risk (authentication), individuals are established and recognized as entitled to handle transactions (authorization), transactions can be protected from viewers who are not authorized (confidentiality) and that the probability of failure in the transaction process is kept to a minimum.
It is our believe that all of the above forces and success factors should be taken into consideration when determining a competitive advantage.
4.4 Model tailored to electronic payment providers
Definition of the company’s strategic
intent and key performances
Definition of the basic capabilities:
- Information technology capability - Strategic flexibility
- Trust-building capability
Definition of the key performances Definition of the industry’s key success factors:
- Threat of new entrants - Threat of substitutes - Bargaining power of suppliers - Bargaining power of buyers - Rivalry among existing competitors - Globalization - Digitization - Deregulation - Integrity - Non-repudiation - Authentication - Authorization - Confidentiality - Reliability
Definition of the core customer benefits:
- Increased demand,
- Low-cost route to global presence - Cost-reduction of promotion and sales - Low margin
- High volume - Favorable press treatment - Well branded - Achieve rapid uptake
- Differentiated from check and credit card - Service (f.e. customer communications, customer-driven business model)
- Price (f.e. reduced pricing, pay-per-use payment models)
- Quality (f.e. providing better information on products and services)
- Fulfillment time (f.e. automated order-to-payment, just-in-time production)
Identification of relevant resources for each key performance
Testing of each resource on it’s ability to create and sustain a long term competitive advantage Identifying resources influencing key performances Assessing the strategic value of resources
Generating strategic options Assessing the
strategic consistency of
resources
Assessing the strategic consistency of resources Ranking priorities of
basic capabilities and importance of key
performances
Determining impact of each resource on key performances for each
capability
Generating strategic options
Figure 4: Model tailored to literature
4.5 Summary
5. Interview results
In order to enhance the theoretical part of this study with qualitative data, interviews with industry experts are held. These industry experts are from different companies involved in different activities in the electronic payment provider market. Because of their expertise in this business, they will provide the necessary practical input and are able to confirm or decline the conclusions made in the theoretical part of this study.
The framework established in the theoretical part of this research is used as a base for the
interviews. As in the theory section, this chapter will be formed around the three input factors of the model; basic capabilities, key success factors and core customer benefits. The most important factors will be discussed at the hand of quotes from the interviewees.
5.1 General findings
Before discussing the three input factors, it is necessary to mention a remark made by all
interviewees. The market of electronic payment service providers can be split in two fundamentally different types of businesses according to the interviewees.
On one side, are the so-called ‘distributing PSPs’. These PSPs are not handling consumer money themselves but simply provide webshops with a technical platform that processes money
transactions. In most cases, webshops have to handle their own administration and contracts with individual payment methods themselves.
On the other side, there are ‘collecting PSPs’. These PSPs collect consumer money before they pass it on to webshops. These PSPs not only provide a technical platform but in most cases, they also take care of administrative issues and contracts with banks and other payment method providers for the webshops.
5.2 Capabilities of an electronic payment service provider
IT capabilities are a necessity for all companies in this market. Although not a differentiating factor, companies have to be able to connect their payment service(s) to as many different types of webshops as possible. Webshops are generally built on a so-called platform. These platforms come in many different varieties and it is therefore necessary for electronic payment service providers to be able to link these platforms to their payment method(s).
Next to being technically able to connect to webshops, strategic flexibility plays a huge role in this market. It is generally acknowledged that monitoring the market and being able to both react to changes, and create changes are of utmost importance.
A combination between IT and strategic capabilities is the capability to provide webshops with different kinds of payment methods. Although not unanimously, most managers agree that this is another capability organizations in this market should possess.
The last important capability that was mentioned is risk management. Especially for payment providers who take over the risk of non-paying consumers this is an important capability.
Director of a single method electronic payment provider Director of a webshop Product manager E-commerce at a large bank Manager at leading branch-organization Country Manager at international operating PSP - Risk management is essential for risk-taking PSPs. -IT-driven
- Being innovative, looking for innovations and trends in your own industry sector and in others.
- Monitor markets and determining what the impacts are of new developments. - Although production is important, it is not essential in this market. - The base of PSP is providing and maintaining a technical platform. - Providing multiple payment methods, both local and international. - In a strong developing market as this, reacting on developments and being innovative is necessary. - Possessing knowledge of the market, both in online and offline payment methods in order to answer consumers’ needs - Providing international accepted payment methods. - Possessing knowledge of the rules for safety protocols and technical certificates. - Having the power of being innovative and responsive on market changes.
- Especially when in competition with banks (as a collecting PSP), trust-building capacity can be important. - Being innovative concerning new payment methods. - Being able to develop new products. - Not just react to market changes but also be proactive. - Being able to maintain a ‘safe’ image and look trustworthy to consumers. - Being able to provide technical support for multiple platforms. - Being able to provide webshops with multiple payment methods. - Be up-to-date concerning risk- and fraud management. - Not only provide technical support, but also providing advice to webshops. - Being highly flexible and innovative, adapt to market changes.
5.3 Core customer benefits of an electronic payment service provider
Increasing the visitor/buyer conversion rate is the most important customer benefit. An easy to use and consumer friendly payment method reduces the barrier for consumers to buy online. If this barrier is reduced, more visitors of a webshop will actually buy something and thus the visitor/buyer conversion rate will be more positive.
Next to providing a consumer friendly method, taking over the administrative process of dealing with billing, payments and bookkeeping is another benefit that is generally addressed. Most webshops do not want the hassle of having to deal with these issues and just want to be able to concentrate on selling products or services.
As mentioned before, another customer benefit of a payment service is a variety of payment methods. Especially larger webshops want to have both local and international payment methods available for their shop.
The last two often mentioned customer benefits are brand power and route to internationalization. A strong brand in this market is a recognizable name that customers associate with safety.
Customers want to have the feeling that their money transactions over the web will get to the webshop in a proper manner.
Director of a single method electronic payment provider Director of a webshop Product manager E-commerce at a large bank Manager at leading branch-organization Country Manager at international operating PSP - Act as a barrier lowering method to online buying. - Increase visitors/buyers conversion rate. - Provide added value for webshops, not only in the payment method, but also in other ‘soft’ attributes. - Enhance the image of the providing company.
- Provide webshops with an easy way of expanding internationally through the network of the PSP. - Provide a time efficient method of money transferring and administration of orders. - Provide a customer friendly and customer adapted landing page for consumers. - Increase visitor/buyer conversion rate mainly through speed and easy-to-use applications. - Provide webshops with a fast method of connection their shop with the payment method. - Take over administration process of webshops. - Arrange contracts with individual payment methods instead of leaving that to webshops. - Provide a consumer friendly dashboard for payment transactions. - Provide a variety of payment methods. - Provide a route to internationalization through the network of the PSP. - Be well known to webshops as a strong brand. - Provide advantages of mass-approach (f.e. cost reduction per order). - Provide a variety of payment methods causing visitor/buyer conversion rate to rise.
- Look safe and reliable (f.e. by showing webshop name in bills. - Provide a strong brand to consumers and low-cost to webshops. - Take over administration process of webshops. - Provide a smooth process of connecting webshops to payment methods. - Provide a variety of payment methods. - Provide an adequate and safe risk check. - Increase visitor/buyer conversion rate. - In the case of an international acting PSP, provide a low-cost route to internationalization.
5.4 Industry’s key success factors
It is generally accepted that one of the biggest influences in this market comes from the threat of new substitutes. The most mentioned substitutes for online shopping are mobile payment solutions. This is potentially a substitute that can take over a large number of transactions from ‘regular’ online payments. This is, however, also a chance for PSPs if they manage to provide webshops with a payment method for mobile phones and/or tablets themselves. Practically the same goes for substitutes in the form of payments through social network websites or applications as Facebook. Although this can also be called a threat, the fact that the payments done through these websites and applications are mostly micro-payments, the threat is significantly lower than with mobile payments. Both substitutes can also be seen in the form of new entrants, or increased rivalry amongst existing competitors. This depends on the organizations involved.
Globalization is another often-heard threat and chance in one. Keeping up with international competition can be difficult, especially for smaller PSPs, and therefore internationalization can be a threat. However, expanding globally is a big chance for PSPs as well.
The last important factor that PSPs have to take in account is regulation or deregulation. In the electronic payment service provider market, organizations are bound to some laws. Laws on how to deal with personal information like payment and banking information (privacy laws) but also laws on more technical issues as website ‘cookies’ (small bits of visitor information that are stored on visitors’ computers in order to recognize what they are doing online). Changes in these laws
can get a Trustmark label when they comply with these rules. Some of the larger Trustmarks are considered essential in order to get consumers to trust a certain payment method or webshop.
Director of a single method electronic payment provider Director of a webshop Product manager E-commerce at a large bank Manager at leading branch-organization Country Manager at international operating PSP - Multichannel development, shopping from phone/tablet/pc or interactive tv. - Globalization and hypercompetition. - Producers that distribute their own products without PSPs involved. - Melting of physical en online markets in one market (f.e. pickup your online ordered products in a physical store). - Entrance of 1 maybe 2 new large players, most likely from existing companies that broaden their offerings. - Cooperation between banks and the market-winning PSPs
- Monopolies or similar market positions are nearly impossible due to the transparency of the market - Regulations play a very important role in this market. Especially changes in privacy laws can be of influence - Development in new payment methods with mobile payments as current trend. - Payment methods based on e-wallet will continue to grow, especially in already large companies. - Globalization and international competition will be even stronger in the future. - Trustmarks are important in this market. The most valued Trustmark s can create certain obligations that have to be met. - Law changes can be of influence in two ways. Laws on technical issues (fi. cookie law) and laws on privacy.
- New entrants in the form of banks that will take on the role as PSP.
- New payment methods on f.e. social network websites and applications as Facebook.
- Changes in protocols and law (privacy law and ‘safe payment’ regulations can have their influence. - New developments as Mybank (European payment method developed by banks) can have a big influence on the market, - Mobile payments as new payment method. - Privacy and cookie laws have big consequences for PSPs. - Webshop owners are often entrepreneurs with a strong determination in their own ideas; therefore, they are not likely to group together in order to gain power as buyers of PSP products. - Law and Trustmark foundations provide rules with which webshops and PSPs have to comply.
- Low-cost PSPs are of influence on the short run, but will not survive in the long run. - Mobile payments will increase in volume - Globalization has a big influence. It is both a tread as a chance for PSPs.
5.5 Summary
6. Discussion
After researching both theory and practice, we can now combine results and get to the final model. This research started with the choice for Rangone’s model as a base for developing a framework specifically for electronic payment service providers. It was clear from the beginning that this model, although in essence a very strong tool, was not suited for ecommerce and thus for PSPs.
Literature research and interviews showed that PSPs are different from the traditional (production) companies on which Rangone’s model was based. Therefore, alterations and specifications to the original model were made.
It became clear that IT has an important role in the business of PSPs. Both literature and interviews showed that providing a strong technical base with good and fast connections to platforms and a variety of payment methods is important in this market.
Although found in literature, cost aspects of the product are not considered important amongst the interviewed managers and directors. It is their believe that because of the openness and
transparency of this market, it is easy for all companies to get more or less the same cost in their businesses. It is for the same reason that most managers believe that low margins cannot be profitable in the long run.
High volume is said in literature to be a benefit to customers of PSPs. Although the interviewees do not necessarily confirm this statement, they do acknowledge that high volume is needed to grow their businesses.
Considered very important by the interviewees but not found in literature is the administrative process that PSPs should consider taking out of the hands of their customers. The whole process of billing and bookkeeping can be done by PSPs and this greatly enhances the benefit for webshops doing business with PSPs. This of course, provided that PSPs are capable of quick and correct payments and customer-friendliness in communication.
Moving to the ‘softer’ aspects, literature research identified cost reduction of promotion and sales as a customer benefit. None of the interviewees agreed with this and even stated that, in some cases, the opposite was true. Some payment methods come with additional costs and thus increasing cost of sales instead of decreasing it.
A strong brand and favorable press treatment however, is acknowledged as important by both literature and interviewees. Press treatment and branding should be focused on a safe and reliable image for the PSP.
Literature further identified the customer benefit of a low-cost route to internationalization. Concluding from interviews this is not entirely correct. It is true that PSPs can form a route to internationalization for a webshop, but it is not the low-cost that is provided as customer benefit. Interviewees agreed that through the business network of the PSP, local market knowledge and entrance points in foreign countries are easier to get. It is therefore the relationship aspect instead of the cost-aspect that is important in this topic.
person, they also have to be able to foresee the amount of non-payers amongst a webshops’ customers when they do take over this risk.
When taking the industry as a whole it is clear that there is a very low chance of bargaining power from both suppliers and/or buyers. The market for PSPs is so open and transparent that market power is hard to obtain (in the near future at least).
New entrants and substitutes are likely to arise in this market. Some are already identified (mobile payments) but others are likely to be seen in the near future. These entrants or substitutes can pose a serious threat to existing products and services for PSPs. It is likely that the company that manages to implement a successful new payment method (as mobile payments) in their product array before any competitors will gain a significant share of the market.
Globalization can be considered as a threat to this market as well. Already increased competition from worldwide operating companies is seen in the market and this is likely to continue. Some interviewees believe that in the future, only a handful worldwide operating PSPs will be able to survive. Others see globalization as a chance, rather than as a threat to the market.
Literature identifies digitization as a success factor in markets but since this market is in essence a digital one, this factor is not considered to be important for PSPs. Since electronic payment service providers are fundamentally born as digital service providers, they have issues as ‘cost of
digitization’ as a standard in their way of doing business.
Finally, deregulation (or regulation) is considered to be very important by both literature and interviewees. Companies will have to continuously adapt to regulations and laws concerning technical issues, safety of money transfer issues and privacy laws. Changes in these laws can have a big influence on, for example, the cost of complying with regulations or gaining a Trustmark
certificate.
Concluding from the above some factors that seemed important and obvious beforehand were surprisingly not considered to be important at all by the industry experts. The best example of this is the cost aspect. As the market at hand is still developing, it is expected that, at some point, low-cost competitors enter and obtain a share of the market. Industry experts however, do not consider this to be a threat at all.
Another interesting finding (mentioned before in chapter 5) is the fact that literature did not show a difference in PSPs as mentioned by the industry experts. The difference between so called
‘collecting‘ and ‘distributing’ PSPs is an important difference in practice. For this research on sustainable competitive advantage however, this difference is not a significant issue. Although the core task of a ‘collecting’ PSP differs somewhat from a ‘distributing’ PSP, they face the same strategic issues.
7 Conclusion and implications
7.1 Conclusion
This research set out to find a way for electronic payment service providers to determine if they have a sustainable competitive advantage. The research question that started this research was formulated as follows: “How can firms in the electronic payment system provider market determine if they have a sustainable competitive advantage?”
Desk research showed that although models existed to determine a sustainable competitive advantage, these models were not fit to electronic payment service providers. By conducting literature research and gathering primary data from interviewing industry experts a five-step model based on three input factors was made. This model answers the research question in that it provides a method for firms in the electronic payment system provider market to determine if they have a sustainable competitive advantage.
Following this model makes it possible to analyze whether or not a certain company in the electronic payment service provider market has a sustainable competitive advantage, or where its focus should be to gain such an advantage. This analysis can be done in a relatively short period of time and without the need for highly skilled business analysts or expensive research methods.
The first and most important step in this framework is gathering the necessary input for the rest of the steps. This step is also where the focus of this research was one, gathering the necessary input categories from which a sustainable competitive advantage can be determined.
7.2 Implications for theory
This research is an addition to the literature on sustainable competitive advantage. It is amongst the first to create a model for measuring competitive advantage specifically for electronic payment service providers. This addition to literature was necessary because current literature was not sufficient for the specific challenges firms in e-commerce, and especially PSPs face.
This research gathered information from both primary and secondary resources and thus can provide a good view on practice from a theoretical viewpoint.
7.3 Implications for practice
Since this research was exploratory and the result was a framework, the most logical follow up for this research is using the framework in a real business situation. Because this framework is based on an existing framework however, it is not expected to contain functional problems.
The model developed in this research is capable of creating an easy method for business owners, managers or other decision makers in the electronic payment service provider market to
systematically analyze their business and business environment and determine if they have a sustainable competitive advantage or which resources they should commit to in order to possibly obtain an advantage. Since the method developed is relatively easy to use, most decision makers should be well able to perform the analysis by themselves without the help of external business consultants.
7.4 Further research
This research focusses on electronic payment service providers but much of the factors used might also be relevant in other e-commerce business (f.e. webshops themselves). Researching whether this framework can also be applied to other business in the e-commerce field would therefore be an interesting subject for further research.
In order to accurately test the model developed here it has to be put into practice. When testing the model data has to be gathered on as many electronic payment providers as possible in order to be able to analyze the model in a scientifically correct manner. Doing so would enhance the power of the model by providing trust and real-life references by businesses.
7.5 Limitations
This research is based on both primary and secondary data. Although the secondary data used mostly comes from previous research on the topic at hand, it can never be said that every aspect is included. There is always more literature that could have been consulted. The literature used in this research was however carefully selected and should provide for a good input in this model.
References
Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A. & van Rossum, W. (2006). Customer value propositions in business markets. Harvard Business Review, march. 1-10.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1). 99-120
Baum, J.A.C. & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative
science quarterly, 36(2). 187-218
Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000). A Resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1). 169-196
Bain, J. (1956) Barriers to new competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bullen, C.V., Rockart, J.F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors. Cambridge: Center for information systems research, MIT.
Chaffee, E.E. (1985).Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1). 89-98 Chen, J. (2001). Strategic Management of e-Business. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Collins, D.J. & Montgomery, C.A. (1995). Competing on resources. Harvard Business Review,
July-August. 118-128
Cooper, D. & Schindler, P.S. (2006). Business research methods. Singapore: McGrawHill
Downes, L. & Mui, C. (2000). Unleashing the killer app: Digital strategies for market dominance. Harvard Business Review Press.
Grant, R.M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3). 114-135
Grewal, R., Corner, J.M. & Mehta, R. (2001). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational participation in business-to-business electronic markets. The Journal Of Marketing, 65(3). 17-33 Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology in business research. Oxford: Elsevier.
Hofer, C.W., Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul: West Pub. Co. Innopay. (2010). Online payments 2010: increasingly a global game.
Johnson, J.L., Lee, R.P., Saini, A. & Grohmann, B. (2003). Market-focused strategic flexibility: conceptual advances and an integrative model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 31(1). 74-89 Khan, I. (2011). Nothing but net: 2011 investment guide. Global Equity Research.
