Intel Corporation’s semiconductor and computing technology business grows through an appropriate generic strategy and effective intensive growth strategies. A company’s generic strategy (Michael Porter’s model) determines how the business achieves and maintains competitive advantage. On the other hand, the intensive growth strategies define what the firm does to achieve growth in its target markets. Intel’s generic strategy is based on innovation that ensures cutting-edge features that differentiate products from competitors. In relation, Intel’s intensive growth strategies emphasize the cutting-edge technologies in products that shape the industry and attract target customers worldwide.
Intel’s generic strategy (Porter’s model) develops competitive advantage through rapid innovation to lead the industry. Such innovation is also critical to the effectiveness of Intel’s intensive growth strategies.
Intel’s Generic Strategy (Porter’s Model)
Intel Corporation’s generic competitive strategy is differentiation. In Porter’s model, this generic strategy builds competitive advantage based on product quality or features, customer service, and brand image management. In Intel’s case, differentiation is applied through product quality and features. For example, the company invests in rapid innovation to produce cutting-edge microprocessors and related technological products. The advanced features of these products ensure leadership in the global market, helping fulfill Intel’s mission statement and vision statement. The implementation of the differentiation generic strategy helps Intel maintain its competitive advantage despite strong competitors like AMD.
Differentiation requires key strategic objectives that make Intel an industry leader. One of these strategic objectives is to rapidly innovate to develop new or enhanced products that competitors cannot easily match. For example, developing faster and more energy-efficient processors for mobile products can strengthen Intel’s industry position, especially with regard to the mobile device market. In relation, based on the differentiation generic strategy, another strategic objective is to increase the company’s competitive advantage and aggressiveness in the mobile device market. This objective is based on the fact that Intel is a minor player in the mobile device market.
Intel’s Intensive Strategies (Intensive Growth Strategies)
Product Development (Primary). Intel Corporation keeps product development as its primary intensive growth strategy. Product development supports business growth through new products that increase revenues. For example, Intel supports its continued growth and global market dominance through the introduction of new processors that make previous processors obsolete. This intensive strategy makes the company’s new products attractive and profitable, thereby ensuring business growth. Product development and Intel’s differentiation generic strategy both support competitive advantage based on product quality and features. A strategic objective based on product development is to grow the company through rapid innovation. A related strategic objective based on this intensive growth strategy is to increase Intel’s R&D investment for new product development.
Market Penetration (Secondary). The market penetration intensive growth strategy involves selling more products to current customers. Intel implements market penetration as a secondary intensive strategy through business partnerships and aggressive deals that favor growth and a strong market presence. For example, the company has special agreements with laptop manufacturers to use Intel microprocessors in their products. The differentiation generic strategy pushes the company to develop competitive advantage based on advanced features and high quality in product development. Such features and quality support the effective implementation of the market penetration intensive strategy for Intel’s growth. A strategic objective based on market penetration is to grow the company through aggressive marketing strategies.
Market Development (Supporting). The market development intensive growth strategy serves a supporting role in Intel Corporation’s progress. In implementing this intensive strategy, growth is achieved by entering new markets or market segments, or by creating new markets for novel products. In this case, Intel applies market development when it creates entirely new product lines. For example, the introduction of Pentium mobile processors in 2011 developed the company’s presence in the mobile device market. The differentiation generic strategy creates competitive advantage that increases Intel’s potential success in new markets or market segments when implementing the market development intensive growth strategy. A strategic objective based on this intensive strategy is to grow Intel through novel products to enter new markets, such as the market for smart home systems.
Diversification (Supporting). Intel uses diversification as a supporting intensive growth strategy. This intensive strategy facilitates the company’s growth through new business. For example, the 2016 acquisition of the German company Ascending Technologies, which develops unmanned aerial vehicles, contributed to the diversification of Intel’s business. The differentiation generic strategy, when applied within the context of diversification, ensures the company’s competitive advantage through products that attract target customers. A strategic objective based on the diversification intensive strategy is to grow Intel’s business through more acquisitions in other industries.
References
- Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 467-488.
- Glazer, R. (1999). Competitive Advantage Through Information-Intensive Strategies. Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, 409.
- Intel Corporation Form 10-K.
- Merchant, H. (2014). Configurations of governance structure, generic strategy, and firm size. Global Strategy Journal, 4(4), 292-309.
- Parnell, J. A. (1997). New evidence in the generic strategy and business performance debate: A research note. British Journal of Management, 8(2), 175-181.
- Spry, A., & Lukas, B. A. (2016). Brand Portfolio Architecture and Firm Performance: The Moderating Impact of Generic Strategy. In Looking Forward, Looking Back: Drawing on the Past to Shape the Future of Marketing (pp. 866-867). Springer International Publishing.
- Varadarajan, P., & Dillon, W. R. (1982). Intensive growth strategies: A closer examination. Journal of Business Research, 10(4), 503-522.