In their 1990 article entitled, The Core Competence of the Corporation, C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel coined the term core competencies, or the collective learning and coordination skills behind the firm's product lines. They made the case that core competencies are the source of
competitive advantage and enable the firm to introduce an array of new products and services.
According to Prahalad and Hamel, core competencies lead to the development of core products. Core products are not directly sold to end users; rather, they are used to build a larger number of end-user products. For example, motors are a core product that can be used in wide array of end products. The business units of the corporation each tap into the relatively few core products to develop a larger number of end user products based on the core product technology. This flow from core competencies to end products is shown in the following diagram:
Core Competencies to End Products
The intersection of market opportunities with core competencies forms the basis for launching new businesses. By combining a set of core competencies in different ways and matching them to market opportunities, a corporation can launch a vast array of businesses.
Without core competencies, a large corporation is just a collection of discrete businesses. Core competencies serve as the glue that bonds the business units together into a coherent portfolio.
Developing Core Competencies
According to Prahalad and Hamel, core competencies arise from the integration of multiple technologies and the coordination of diverse production skills. Some examples include Philip's expertise in optical media and Sony's ability to miniaturize electronics.
There are three tests useful for identifying a core competence. A core competence should:
- provide access to a wide variety of markets, and
- contribute significantly to the end-product benefits, and
- be difficult for competitors to imitate.
Core competencies tend to be rooted in the ability to integrate and coordinate various groups in the organization. While a company may be able to hire a team of brilliant scientists in a particular technology, in doing so it does not automatically gain a core competence in that technology. It is the effective coordination among all the groups involved in bringing a product to market that results in a core competence.
It is not necessarily an expensive undertaking to develop core competencies. The missing pieces of a core competency often can be acquired at a low cost through alliances and licensing agreements. In many cases an organizational design that facilitates sharing of competencies can result in much more effective
italicisation of those competencies for little or no additional cost.
To better understand how to develop core competencies, it is worthwhile to understand what they do not entail. According to Prahalad and Hamel, core competencies are not necessarily about:
- outspending rivals on R&D
- sharing costs among business units
- integrating vertically
While the building of core competencies may be facilitated by some of these actions, by themselves they are insufficient.
The Loss of Core Competencies
Cost-cutting moves sometimes destroy the ability to build core competencies. For example, decentralization makes it more difficult to build core competencies because autonomous groups rely on outsourcing of critical tasks, and this outsourcing prevents the firm from developing core competencies in those tasks since it no longer consolidates the know-how that is spread throughout the company.
Failure to recognize core competencies may lead to decisions that result in their loss. For example, in the 1970's many U.S. manufacturers divested themselves of their television manufacturing businesses, reasoning that the industry was mature and that high quality, low cost models were available from Far East manufacturers. In the process, they lost their core competence in video, and this loss resulted in a handicap in the newer digital television industry.
Similarly, Motorola divested itself of its semiconductor DRAM business at 256Kb level, and then was unable to enter the 1Mb market on its own. By recognizing its core competencies and understanding the time required to build them or regain them, a company can make better divestment decisions.
Core competencies manifest themselves in core products that serve as a link between the competencies and end products. Core products enable value creation in the end products. Examples of firms and some of their core products include:
3M - substrates, coatings, and adhesives
Black & Decker - small electric motors
Canon - laser printer subsystems
Matsushita - VCR subsystems, compressors
NEC - semiconductors
Honda - gasoline powered engines
The core products are used to launch a variety of end products. For example, Honda uses its engines in automobiles, motorcycles, lawn mowers, and portable generators.
Because firms may sell their core products to other firms that use them as the basis for end user products, traditional measures of brand
market share are insufficient for evaluating the success of core competencies. Prahalad and Hamel suggest that core product share is the appropriate metric. While a company may have a low brand share, it may have high core product share and it is this share that is important from a core competency standpoint.
Once a firm has successful core products, it can expand the number of uses in order to gain a cost advantage via economies of scale and economies of scope.
Implications for Corporate Management
Prahalad and Hamel suggest that a corporation should be organized into a portfolio of core competencies rather than a portfolio of independent business units. Business unit managers tend to focus on getting immediate end-products to market rapidly and usually do not feel responsible for developing company-wide core competencies. Consequently, without the incentive and direction from corporate management to do otherwise, strategic business units are inclined to
under invest in the building of core competencies.
If a business unit does manage to develop its own core competencies over time, due to its autonomy it may not share them with other business units. As a solution to this problem, Prahalad and Hamel suggest that corporate managers should have the ability to allocate not only cash but also core competencies among business units. Business units that lose key employees for the sake of a corporate core competency should be recognized for their contribution.