Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:J-a:Journal Of Business Research:Vol51.Issue3.2001:
Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209 ± 221
The key success factors, distinctive capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top
SMEs in Singapore
B.C. Ghosh*, Tan Wee Liang, Tan Teck Meng1, Ben Chan
School of Accountancy and Business, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Received 1 December 1998; accepted 1 December 1998
Abstract
The research tries to determine the strategy dynamics and key success factors (KSFs) for excellence in performance of the so-called
``tiger'' SMEs in Singapore. In 1995 and 1996, 50 top privately owned and successful enterprises in Singapore were identified. They
have shown that they can excel, even in the current highly competitive and high operation ± cost environment. Their performance can be
attributed to their dynamism and a few KSFs that are apparently universal to these successful companies. The strategy dynamics and
their specific components (i.e., the six top SMEs) are found to be: 1) A committed, supportive, and strong management team. 2) A
strong, visionary, and capable leadership. 3) Adopting the correct strategic approach. 4) Ability to identify and focus on market. 5)
Ability to develop and sustain capability. 6) A good customer and client relationship. Approximately 60% of the companies surveyed
were found to be of Defender type organizations (Miles and Snow typology). As a majority of the companies are from manufacturing
and servicing sectors and from OEMs supporting the MNCs, it is not surprising that the Defender type strategy is predominant.
However, such organizations may have to evolve in order to adopt a more superior strategy such as Prospector and Analyzer when
environment changes. The importance placed by organizations adopting different strategy types on their strategic posture are different
although KSFs and capabilities are generally universal. Comparing proactive with passive strategy types, the degree of emphasis given
various success factors by proactive type companies was generally found to be higher. Specifically, proactive type companies placed
higher importance on the following factors for excellent performance: (i) Satisfying customers needs, (ii) Close working relationship
between top management and employee, (iii) Regionalization, (iv) Leadership, (v) Availability of financial and technology resources and
support. Further, the research also found that the importance attached to the various strategy-related success factors changes with the
development. As it becomes more established, the ranking of KSFs changes as the organization faces different challenges when
competition becomes tougher. Enterprises need to pay attention to the following dynamics and strategic thrusts: (a) Strong market
orientation and relevant capability; (b) Effective management; (1) Strong management commitment and support (2) Strong organizational
capability and management cohesiveness; (c) Access to broad base support and resources (i.e., Networking). D 2000 Elsevier Science
Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Key success factors; Strategic thrust; SMEs
1. Introduction
Businesses have been finding it hard to operate in
Singapore owing to the high operating cost and increasingly
intense competition from the region. Coupled with the fact
of small local market size, and relying very much on export
market, the business environment has become even more
difficult to operate. However, there are companies that
excelled. The `Top 50' privately held enterprises for 1995
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-799-5656; fax: +65-791-3697.
1
As of January 1998, Prof. Tan Teck Meng has since left the School to
join the Singapore Management University.
and 1996 have shown that they can excel even under these
adverse conditions. The objective of this research is to
identify and examine the strategic key success factors
(KSFs) [key success factor is defined for our purpose as
factors which are critical for excellent performance of the
company, rather than just survival which is the function of
critical success factors (CSFs)].
The successful privately held companies are potential
candidates for public listing if they need to raise public
funds. Some of them have crossed a turnover of S$800
million and others have yet to cross the S$100 million
turnover mark. But they are all on the fast track, growing
rapidly and regionalizing their operations. Some of those
0148-2963/01/$ ± see front matter D 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 7 - 8
210
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
that appeared in the 1996 listing were already publicly listed
at the end of that year.
The `Top 50' enterprises were ranked based on their
performance over a 4-year period. Various quantitative
factors were used such as gross turnover, profits, return
per employee, return on assets, and percentage of business
from overseas operations. The evaluation team, from Andersen Consulting, The Business Times, and The Economic
Development Board, developed and applied a balanced
scorecard of these performance indicators for companies
across a wide mix of industries. A key consideration in the
scorecard is giving a balanced weight to both absolute
financial performance and growth. The aim is to capture
how fast the company is growing, not just how much it
makes. So, aside from turnover and profit levels, the team
looked at growth in turnover and profits. However, this
information is privy to the group and were not available to
the researchers.
In the study conducted here, companies are defined
successful if they appeared in the 1995 or 1996 `Top 50'
Enterprises list compiled by Andersen Consulting, The
Business Times, and The Economic Development Board
of Singapore, a statutory board within Singapore. They form
our base group whose strategies we study.
1.1. Objectives of the study
The focus of this article is to isolate the top KSFs (not
CSFs) that are commonly practiced by these successful
privately held companies, so that they may be adopted by
any enterprise (even start-ups). The study also examines
what are the most commonly adopted strategy types by
these successful companies and to determine if the KSFs
correlate well with the strategy type adopted. We will
also argue that these factors will be positivist and
universal in nature. This will be one hypothesis. A
second hypothesis at this stage is to identify a discriminating model that will be able to predict the strategy
type from its KSFs and distinctive capabilities, such
that such a model can be used for a firm's future
strategic direction.
1.2. Significance of research
Privately held enterprises play an important role in the
growth of the Singapore economy. There are already
80,000 SMEs in Singapore employing about 40% of the
workforce and contributing around 30% of the total value
added in the economy. Their continual survival and success
is therefore critical, especially with increasing competition
from the region and uncertainties associated with multinationals. By identifying the KSFs of top successful local
enterprises, and many of them are SMEs, one will gain
insight and understand better how they remain competitive
and even excel in the harsh operating environment in
Singapore. The findings of the research are likely to be
more relevant and applicable to local companies, though
there are other generalizable aspects.
2. Some discussion of the relevant literature
There were studies done on the local SMEs to identify
CSFs for business success; a significant contribution comes
from Ghosh and Kwan (1996) who covered Singapore,
Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand, a cross-national
study. This study found that factors that contributed to the
successful SMEs were (among others): having a good
customer relationship, effective management and marketing. Constraints to success were found mainly in the high
cost of doing business and competition. Similar research
has been undertaken elsewhere. DeHayes and Haeberle
(1990) found that the most frequent reason for success
among businesses was their ability to identify and focus on
one or a few market niches. Further, they identified that
most business plateau at US$10 million and that business
is difficult to expand without change in management style
and building up human resources in terms of quantity and
quality. The finding is supported by Evans and Evans
(1986) who asserted that a firm's success in competing
in a hostile environment was directly related to human
resources development, besides top management's involvement with all phases of the operation. DeHayes and
Haeberle (1990) further identified the following CSFs:
the ability to develop and sustain technological advantage,
the ability to identify and focus on one or several market
niches, having strong leadership on top, having significant
`people bonding' mechanism in the system, strong management team, strategic alliance with customers and strategic use of information technology. Huck and McEwen
(1991) found technical knowledge and customer relations
to be the competencies most important for the success of
small business. Duncan (1991) found the ability to identify
a market niche and develop a standing in that niche market
as a CSF. The findings of Prescott (1986) and Steiner and
Solem (1988) were similar to those of DeHayes and
Haeberle (1990) and Duncan (1991). Campbell (1991)
identified 12 keys for a successful business, among which
were a clear mission statement and a corporate value
system, a customer-oriented policy, a competitive strategy,
and a personal commitment from the top management.
Gaskill and Hyland (1989) identified six keys to a successful business, which included people power, a business
plan, a study of the competition, performance measurement, and avoiding complacence. Mraz (1989) found that
thorough planning was vital to start a successful business
while Schilit (1986) found that critical success included:
having a formal business plan, continual monitoring of the
business environment, retaining a market orientation, developing a common value system, ensuring adequate
capitalization, and encouraging entrepreneurial thinking
through all levels of the company. Foley (1987) reported
211
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
Table 1
Profile of the companies surveyed
History of companies (years)
Industry type
No. of returns
Manufacturing
Services
Retail
Engineering
Others
Total
15
7
4
3
6
35
(43%)
(20%)
(11%)
(9%)
(17%)
(100%)
15
500
10
5
2
2
4
22
5
1
1
1
1
9
100
5
2
1
4
12
Wikin and Sons, reported by The Economist (1991),
emphasized successful market positioning and trend identification well ahead of the rivals, and an obsession with
quality; McCormack (1989) agreed that one of the most
important factors to a successful business was a commitment to quality. Profit Building Strategies for Business
Table 2
Summary statistics
Question
Key content
Count
Mean
Standard
deviation
D1
D2
D3
D4
P1
P2
P3
P4
A1
A2
A3
R1
R2
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
K9
K10
K11
K12
K13
Total
Products and services focused
Ability to identify niche
Efficiency emphasis
Low price and good products
Periodic re-definitions
``Early in'' in new product and market
Production flexibility rather than efficiency
Rapid response to opportunity
Stable and limited line of products and services
Not ``first in'' but with cost-efficient products or services
Monitoring the ``first in'' leader
Limited risk taking
Forced by environmental pressure to respond
Always identify the market well
Frequently satisfy customers' needs
Constantly developing new ideas and capability
Ability to identify niche
Always ahead of competitors
Employees always get the resources and support
Close relationship between top management and employees
Customer relationship is more important than good product/service
Regionalization is necessary for company's survival
Government plays an important role in the company's success
Easy to access to capital to achieve company's goal
Luck is important in the success of a business
Ability to identify and focus on market
Ability to develop and sustain capability
Committed, supportive and strong management system
Good and responsive organization system
Leadership
Good HR management practice
Good customer and client relationship
Availability of financial and technology resources
Government support
Good product/service feature
Good networking
Regionalization
Adopting the correct strategy
35
35
35
35
34
35
34
35
35
35
35
34
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
1327
1.84
1.53
2.39
2.21
2.72
2.59
2.90
2.20
2.24
2.73
2.13
3.22
2.87
2.00
1.81
2.01
2.07
2.63
2.47
2.19
2.33
1.83
2.46
2.79
3.14
1.50
1.59
1.41
1.79
1.43
2.20
1.71
1.99
2.63
1.87
2.01
2.09
1.49
2.18
0.77
0.67
0.84
1.11
0.77
0.73
0.98
1.15
0.88
0.98
1.01
1.02
1.09
0.76
0.71
0.71
0.73
1.00
0.87
0.92
1.15
1.22
1.30
1.11
1.10
0.68
0.62
0.59
0.64
0.65
0.77
0.68
0.61
1.01
0.56
0.75
1.02
0.62
0.99
Remarks
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
Defenders type
Defenders type
Defenders type
Defenders type
Prospectors type
Prospectors type
Prospectors type
Prospectors type
Analyzers type
Analyzers type
Analyzers type
Reactors type
Reactors type
212
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Table 3
The strategy type of the surveyed companies
Sector
Defenders (D)
Prospectors (P)
Analyzer (A)
Manufacturing
Service
Retail
Engineering
Others
Total
7
5
4
1
4
21
3
2
1
3
Reactors (R)
1
1
4
1
Owners (1989, 1990, 1991) identified that one of the
factors in building a successful business was the ability
to deal effectively with customer complaints. Kofi and
Cho (1989) emphasized the importance of governmentrelated and foreign markets for businesses seeking expansion. Mraz (1989) states that thorough planning was vital
to starting a successful business; finding customers, vendors, employees and financial resources should be thought
out in advance.
Louis et al. (1996) investigated SMEs from the manufacturing sector and found that there is no `one best'
D or R
1
1
D or A
D or P
A or P
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
7
4
3
6
35
1
3
strategy of technology change; however, for SMEs, he
advocated flexibility.
Bhaskar and Jamaluddin (1993) examined the production
flexibility model and similarly found flexibility is the key
that allows small firms to survive and compete with larger
firms. Colin et al. (1993) examined diversification as one of
the survival strategies. Brazell (1991) stated that lack of
management skills, competence, and experience were the
great contributing factors to failure. Haswell and Holmes
(1989) attributed the main causes of business failures to
management incompetence and inexperience. Wood (1989)
Table 4
Multiple range tests on Q1 ± Q12 (companies, capabilities)
Method: 95.0% LSD
Q2
Q9
Q1
Q3
Q4
Q7
Q8
Q10
Q6
Q5
Q11
Q12
Frequently satisfy customer needs
Regionalization
Always identify the market well
Developing new ideas and capability
Ability to identify niches
Good relationship between top management and employees
Customer relationship is more important
Government plays an important role in the company's success
Employees always get the resources and support
Always ahead of competitors
Easy access to capital
Luck is important in the company's success
Count
Mean
Homogeneous groups
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.81
1.83
2.00
2.01
2.07
2.19
2.33
2.46
2.47
2.63
2.79
3.14
X
X
XX
XXX
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXX
XX
XX
X
Table 5
Multiple range tests on K1 ± K13 (perceived KSFs)
Method: 95.0% LSD
K3
K5
K13
K1
K2
K7
K4
K10
K8
K11
K12
K6
K9
Committed, supportive and strong management system
Leadership
Adopting the correct strategy
Ability to identify and focus on market
Ability to develop and sustain capability
Good customer and client relationship
Good and responsive organization system
Good product/service feature
Availability of financial and technology resources
Good networking
Regionalization
A good human resource management
Government support
Count
Mean
Homogeneous groups
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
1.41
1.43
1.49
1.50
1.59
1.71
1.79
1.87
1.99
2.01
2.09
2.20
2.63
X
X
XX
XX
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXX
XX
X
X
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
213
Fig. 1. Tabulation of capabilities along with types of strategy. The shaded region in each column indicates no significant difference in mean within the
respective groups. The numbers in the bracket show the ranking. * and + indicate significant difference between means at p < 0.1.
also confirmed that lack of experience was one of the causes
of business failures. Smallbone (1990) concluded that a lack
of capital and the lack of revenue-generating ability were the
main reasons for business failures.
Ibielski (1996) found that interfirm co-operation is an
important attribute for future survival. Japan's Osaka
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in their visit to
Singapore in July 1995, called for tie-ups between smalland medium-sized companies from Singapore and Japan,
and operate in third countries. The joint effort is to reduce
costs and maximize complementary strength (The Business
Times, 1995).
Gunter et al. (1995) found that the secret of success for
the mid-sized German companies is the emphasis of simplicity in their operations. These leading firms produce a
narrower range of products, sell to few customers, and have
fewer suppliers. They have decentralized organizational
structures, simpler and faster processes, and a more concentrated focused nature of R&D investment, logistics, and
location structure.
Conant et al. (1990) suggest that strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies, and organizational effectiveness determine how a business performs. They found
marketing competencies associated with prospector type
organizations superior to those of analyzer, defender, and
reactor type organizations. Briefly, organizations having the
trait of a Defender attempt to locate and maintain a secure
niche in a relatively stable product or service area. The
Prospector type of organization typically operates within a
broad product ± market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition. The organization tries to be `early in' in new
product and market areas even if not all of these efforts
Fig. 2. Tabulation or perceived KSFs along with types of strategy. The shaded region in each column indicates no significant difference in mean within the
respective groups. The numbers in the bracket show the ranking. * and + indicate significant difference between means at p < 0.1.
214
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Fig. 3. Comparison of capabilities of Defender type and Proactive type strategies. The shaded cells show no significant between means of factors in the
respective column. Significant difference between factors from different columns at p < 0.1 is indicated by +. D = D + R, P = P + A; six mid-pointers pro-rated.
prove to be highly profitable. An Analyzer attempts to
maintain a stable, limited line of products or services, while
at the same time, moving out quickly to follow a carefully
selected set of more promising new developments in the
industry. The organization is seldom `first in' with new
product or services. The reactor type of organization does
not appear to have a consistent product ± market orientation.
The organization is usually not as aggressive in maintaining
established products and markets as some of its competitors
nor is it willing to take as many risks as other competitors.
Rather, the organization responds in those areas where it is
forced to by environmental pressures.
Recent research studies carried out by Ghosh and Schoch
(1996b) and Ghosh et al. (1996), on the empirical study on
marketing effectiveness Ð comparing Singapore with Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan give a further insight into
marketing effectiveness as a success factor that contributes
to better performance. Singapore's companies that have
better performance claimed a much stronger marketing than
product or selling orientation. And these better-performing
Fig. 4. Comparison of perceived KSFs of Defender type and Proactive type strategies. The shaded cells show no significant difference between means of factors
in the respective column. Significant difference between factors from different columns at p < 0.1 is indicated by +.
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
companies have adopted a stronger marketing role in
identifying and meeting customer needs with a role played
by the chief executive officer himself. Ghosh and Schoch
(1996a) confirmed this again in a later study which compared local SMEs, large companies, and MNCs. The three
types of organization are dominantly marketing oriented
with no significant difference between MNCs and the local
companies. Euromoney (1996) suggested that Asia's excellent companies succeeded due to good management, technology adaptation, and appropriate international orientation.
Ghosh et al. found that success factors are generally
positive in nature (that is, those who are self-driven rather
than circumstances-driven tend to succeed more as an
entrepreneur) and these success factors tend to be more
universal in character. In preparing a list of success/strategic
factors, we however included such other matters as regionalization. We also included a list of distinctive marketing
competencies, based on Conant et al. (1990), to see how
215
competencies complement the KSFs. But more on research
methodology a little later.
2.1. The sample
The target population of the survey are the `Top 50'
enterprises in 1995 and 1996, however, several companies
appeared in the list for consecutive years and therefore, the
total number of companies from the two lists is 66. A
questionnaire was sent to all 66 of them.
The questionnaire is based on the prior work of Conant
et al. (1990) and Ghosh et al. (1996). Four main sections can
be identified in the questionnaire; the first section (questions
1 to 4) captured the general profile of the organization,
while the second section determined the strategic type of the
organization. The third section (Q1 ± Q12) was designed to
determine the competencies of the company that contribute
to excellent performance and the fourth section (K1 ±K13)
Fig. 5. (a and b) Pearson correlation matrix of key success factors (K) and Capabilities (Q) for p 0.05.
216
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Fig. 6. Factor analysis of companies' abilities in achieving factors Q1 to Q12. Factor loading matrix after varimax rotation.
was designed to identify the perceived KSFs of the company. A Likert type of scale was used, 1 to 5, with 1 being
most significant and 5 the least.
the organization was performed through clustering. Software used was Statgraphic.
2.2. Method of data analysis
3. Results and analysis
Descriptive analysis was performed on the data and a
cluster analysis was also performed to determine if the
postulated KSFs are widely perceived and practiced by the
respondents as their strategic mode of operation. Top KSFs
were identified through the application of multi-range test.
The relationships between KSFs and capabilities were
analyzed by employing the Pearson correlation technique.
Correlation between strategy types, KSFs and capabilities of
We were able to get 35 usable responses (out of 38
actually returned) out of the 66 targeted companies, hence,
the effective response rate was 53%. Further, the majority
(i.e., 60% >) of respondents responded within 3 weeks
after the surveys were mailed, indicating that in general,
participants were willing enough to participate in the
survey. In view of these two factors, the data collected
are deemed representative of the population. As such,
Fig. 7. Factor analysis of perceived KSFs (K1 to K13). Factor loading matrix after varimax rotation.
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
217
Fig. 8. Pearson correlation between the top six KSFs and capabilities.
some of the statistical analyses carried later are assumed to
be representative (and hence conceptually valid) although
they may not meet the required normal minimum sample
size (e.g., factor analysis), specified in literature (see
Tables 1± 3).
There are six companies which cannot be clearly classified into a single strategy type as shown in Table 3. However, at a later stage, where for analysis purposes we
grouped these companies into two major groups, i.e.,
Analyser/Prospector into one and Defender/Reactor into
the other, we allocated these six into one group or the other
suitably, on the basis of their responses.
3.1. A cluster analysis
The distinctive competencies of the responding companies were cluster-analysed. The majority of the organizations (94.29%) fall into cluster 1, while only one member
each formed clusters 2 and 3. The responses to KSF
questions were similarly cluster-analysed. Again, the majority of the companies (94%) formed one of the clusters,
and the other two clusters are formed with one member
each. The cluster analysis indicated, in our view, that the
perceived KSFs and the supporting competencies are universal among the population, supporting an earlier hypoth-
Fig. 9. Comparison of key success factors ranking between `Top 50' enterprises and Ghosh's (1996) findings in Singapore and Australia SMEs.
218
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Table 6
Top six KSFs and capabilities
Perceived KSFs (Ks)
Rank
Capabilities (Qs)
Rank
Committed, supportive and strong management system
Leadership
Adopting correct strategy
Identify and focus on market
Develop and sustain capabilities
Good customer and client relationship
1
2
3
4
5
6
Frequently satisfy customer needs
Regionalization
Developing new ideas and capabilities
Identify market well
Identify niches well
Good relationship between top management and employees
1
2
3
4
5
6
esis on this matter that they are universal and positivist
in nature.
3.2. A multiple range test
This analysis applies a multiple comparison procedure
to determine which means are significantly different from
the others. The aim of the test is to identify and separate a
few top success factors (from the rest) with no significant
difference in their means at 95% confidence level. These
factors will then form the top KSFs. The method being
used to discriminate among the means is Fishers' least
significant difference (LSD) procedure at a 95% confidence level. The analysis found that at 95% confidence
level, there is no significant difference between the means
of Q2, Q9, Q3, Q1, Q4, and Q7. Similarly, there is no
significant difference between the means of K3, K5, K13,
K1, K2, and K7. The analyses show that the top KSFs are
of equal importance, as there is no significant difference in
the means.
Therefore, the strategy dynamics/distinctive capabilities
of these successful companies are:
1. An ability to satisfy customer's need
2. Regionalization capability
3. Constantly developing new ideas and capabilities,
i.e., innovativeness
4. Can always identify market well, i.e., opportunityseeker
5. Ability to identify niches, i.e., focuser
6. Good relationship between top management and
employees, i.e., brain-rather-than-brawn-centered
capability
The top KSFs which we consider the other side of the
mirror were identified to be (see Tables 4 and 5 and
Figs. 1± 4):
1. A committed, supportive, and strong management
team Ð supports 6 above
2. A strong, visionary and capable leadership Ð goes
with 1± 6 above
3. Adopting the correct strategy Ð arises from 1 to 6
above and other key abilities
4. Ability to identify and focus on market Ð especially
in support to 3± 5 above
5. Ability to develop and sustain capabilities
6. A good customer and client relationship Ð in support
in particular of 1 above
One interesting point can be noted, that is, the luck
factor (a mean of 3.14 which is at the neutral point almost,
neither disagreeing or agreeing as reflected by Q12) was
not a dominant contributing factor for the success of these
companies as compared with other factors (see Table 1
and Fig. 1).
Fig. 10. Plot of discriminant functions.
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
3.3. Correlation
Pearson correlation of the perceived KSFs (K) and
companies capabilities (Q) is tabulated in Fig. 5 for
correlation with 95% and above confidence level (i.e., p
0.05). The first number in the cell represents the
correlation coefficient and the second represents the
significance level.
One important point that can be seen from the table is
that all the factors are positively correlated. It means that
any positive improvements in the success factors and
capabilities have positive influence on other capabilities
and success factors. It also shows that success factors and
capabilities are not antagonistic. This is in agreement
with Ghosh and Kwan (1996) finding that KSFs are
generally positively biased than negatively. A further
confirmation perhaps of their being positivist in nature
(see Figs. 6± 9).
4. Discussion and conclusion
The KSFs from these `Top 50' enterprises have been
determined through the perception of these companies and
they are correlated with the capabilities of the organizations
as shown in the correlation Table 6 and Fig. 8. Further
analyses also showed that the KSFs are all positively
correlated and so are the capabilities. Further, it can be seen
that these KSFs and distinctive capabilities are interrelated,
therefore, in their togetherness, show that successful companies depending on their strategy type exhibit a similarity
in their strategic thrusts. For example, the ability to identify
and focus on market (K1) may give rise to an ability to
frequently satisfy customer needs (Q2). Furthermore, different capabilities of the organization may be elevated at the
same time if a single KSF is achieved or to put it the other
way, to achieve a KSF, different contributing capabilities of
the company must be achieved.
At this stage of our discussion, two express/implied
hypotheses can be stated: (1) that KSFs of successful
companies are fairly universal and positivist in nature,
and (2) that KSFs and distinctive abilities of successful
SMEs are complementary and interrelated. We are able to
say that these two hypotheses, similar to those in a prior
study (Ghosh and Kwan, 1996), are generally validated in
this study. However, when the top KSFs are ranked, the
differences are apparent. Fig. 9 shows the ranking of the top
six KSFs perceived by the `Top 50' enterprises surveyed in
this research and the results from Ghosh and Kwan's (1996)
survey of SMEs in Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, and
New Zealand.
A whole number of reasons can be conjectured as to why
these differences in ranking arise, for example, (Top 50) will
be essentially different in character from those in the normal
run of things, i.e., those who were respondents in the Ghosh
et al. study. It could also be explained by the fact that more
219
established and successful companies (those in the Top 50)
will be at an advanced stage of their corporate development.
Whatever they are, it can be hypothesized hence that at
different stages of corporate development, a different mixture of corporate capabilities/KSFs will be required; hence, a
different combination of strategic thrusts.
A further hypothesis which can be said to be partially
confirmed is: while KSFs and capabilities are generally
universal, the degree of importance of capabilities and KSFs
are viewed differently by organizations with different strategy types (see Tables earlier where means are compared).
Both Prospector and Analyzer (we consider these two types
as akin, though not identical) types companies view regionalization more critically for company survival than the
Defender type companies, as an instance. This may be due
to the inherent nature of the strategy type adopted. The
Prospector type companies typically will try to be `early in'
in new product and market areas, while the Analyzer will
move quickly to follow a carefully examined and selected
set of more promising new development in the industry and
market, hence they are usually the `second-in'. Such `phenomenon' is less inherent within a Defender type organization, which typically concentrates in achieving efficiency.
Further, close working relationship between top management and employees is valued more by the Prospector
organization than Defender type organization. This may
be due to Prospector organizations having to respond
rapidly to early signal concerning areas of opportunity,
which requires good communication and working relationship within the organization.
Although the degrees of importance among the KSFs are
perceived differently by different strategy types, the differences in means are generally quite small. Hence, only
partial acceptance of this hypothesis.
In a somewhat broader sense, an examination of factor
analyses of capabilities and perceived KSFs reveals that
enterprises need to pay attention to the following areas
which these factors constitute in order to achieve excellence
in performance:
(i) Strong market orientation capability
(ii) Effective management:
(a) Strong management commitment and support
(b) Strong organisation and management set-up
(iii) Access to broad base support and resources
(i.e., networking).
Regionalization, which is to a large extent influenced by
government initiatives (in a Singapore context), also leads to
these successful companies expanding overseas, as such,
government influence seems to play an important role in
determining where companies will develop in the long run.
These general broad base findings also agree well with the
findings of Euromoney (1996) which also found that management, technology, and an international orientation make
a company excel.
220
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
5. A discriminant analysis
The standardized coefficients used to discriminate among
the different levels (i.e., Proactive (P + A) and Passive (D +
R)) are (Ks are KSFs, earlier discussed):
0:161835 K1 ÿ 0:395471 K10 ÿ 0:837619 K11
ÿ 0:0906812 K12 ÿ 0:224911 K13 0:700035 K2
0:379661 K3 ÿ 0:253795 K4 1:32569 K5
ÿ 1:24406 K6 0:138705 K7 1:64324 K8
ÿ 0:108664 K9
From the relative magnitude of the coefficients in the
above equation, one can determine how the independent
variables are being used to discriminate among the groups.
The function plot shows the centroids of the two groups.
Fig. 10 shows the results of using the derived discriminant function to classify observations. It plots the two
highest scores among the classification functions for each
of the 29 observations used to fit the model, as well as for
any new observations. For example, row 1 scored highest
for Proactive Reactive = p and second highest for Proactive
Reactive = r. In fact, the true value of Proactive Reactive
was p. Among the 29 observations used to fit the model, 26
or 89.6552% were correctly classified.
The model shows that the discriminant functions correlate well with strategy types predicted.
6. Implications
The research shows that organizations with different
strategy types will nevertheless show that the strategic
thrusts they require (meaning those resulting from a suitable
combination of KSFs and capabilities) are not essentially
different. The top six KSFs are generally universal and so
are the capabilities. Given the competitive environment that
this region faces, hence, it can be concluded that similarities
in approach over ride dissimilarities, though degrees of
importance given to each KSF/capability can be different.
The majority of the enterprises surveyed adopted a
Defender type strategy (D + R), which may be due to the
fact that most of these enterprises are OEMs and supporting
the MNCs which requires them to be efficient and watch
their operating cost. As such, under such environment, the
Defender type strategy may seem appropriate. In the long
run however, organizations may have to evolve to adopt
other strategy types and move towards a more superior
strategy such as a Prospector and Analyzer types (Conant et
al., 1990) as the environment changes. The trend would then
be for companies to adopt a more proactive type of
strategies as they need to expand in an increasingly competitive environment of SE Asia (and indeed, anywhere now,
as one might venture to say). The discriminant analysis
above shows that Miles and Snow's strategy type classification bears some statistical validity, too, though much further
research is necessary. However, our own finding shows 89%
predictive ability. Success factors indicated in the model are
those that will predictively distinguish one type from the
other and hence, indicate strategies to be adopted.
Postscript: Since this analysis, our data have been expanded to include input from 55 companies at the
presentation hence the data analysis and results may somewhat differ from those in the article (but they are not ready
at the moment of submission of this article).
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the participation of Student
Research Assistants Tee Song Jue, Tan Jok Tin, Monica
Lim, and Yeo Teck Yeow.
Appendix A. Names of companies
(1) Amara Holding
(2) Asiatic Enterprises
(3) Ban Joo
(4) Batey Ads
(5) Barnsburry
(6) Chong Lee Leong Seng
(7) Chuan Soon Huat Ind
(8) C&P Rent-A-Car
(9) Container Printers
(10) Excel Machine Tools
(11) Europa Holdings
(12) Expression Marketing Services
(13) Far East Packaging Industrial
(14) GES Singapore
(15) GUL Technologies Singapore
(16) Hai Leck Engineering
(17) Hiap Seng Engineering and Construction
(18) Hua Kok Realty
(19) International Press
(20) IPACS Computer Services
(21) Jay Gee Enterprises
(22) JIT Electronics
(23) Kian Ann Engineering
(24) Kin Keong Printing
(25) Komoco Auto
(26) Labroy Marine
(27) Lian Hup Timber
(28) Luxasia
(29) Manufacturing Integration Technology
(30) Mech-Power Generator
(31) Micro-Machining Industries
(32) Mohamed Mustafa and Samsuddin
(33) Nobel Design and Contracts
(34) Ossia International
(35) P D International
(36) Poh Cheong Concrete Pre-Cast
(37) Pico Art International
(38) Richgold Industries
(39) Royal Sporting House
(40) Salcon
(41) Sanwa Plastics Industry
(42) Second Chance Enterprises
(43) Serial System
Responded
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
(44) Shankar's Emporium
(45) Sherridon Exim
(46) Stamford Press
(47) Singapore Shinei Sangyo
(48) SUTL
(49) Sunningdals Plastics Industries
(50) Tat Hong Holdings
(51) Tan Chong Brother's Marble
(52) Tee Yih Jia Food Manufacturing
(53) T T Importers and Exporters
(54) Thakral Brothers
(55) The Gwee Group
(56) Thynoe
(57) Transtech Electronics
(58) Trans-Link Express
(59) Uraco Technology
(60) Wangi Industrial
(61) Wee Poh Construction
(62) Windmill International
(63) Xpress Print
(64) YHI Holdings
(65) Yongnam Engineering and Construction
(66) Ziv Zera Advertising
Total:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
35 responded
References
Barkham RJ. Enterpreneurship: New Firms and Regional Development.
PhD Thesis, University of Reading (UK), 1989.
Bhaskar JD, Jamaluddin HH. Survival of small firms: an examination
of the production flexibility model. Int J Manage (September) 1993;
10(3):283 ± 7.
Brazell JL. Starting a small business. Bus Econ Rev 1991;37(4):10 ± 4.
Campbell R. 12 keys for entrepreneurial success. Bus Econ Rev
1991;37(3):19 ± 22.
Colin G, Robson G, Daly M. Diversification strategy and practice in small
firms. Int Small Bus J (January) 1993;2:11.
Conant JS, Mokwa MP, Varadarajan PR. A multiple measures-based study,
strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organisational
performances. Strategic Manage J 1990;11:365 ± 83.
DeHayes DW, Haeberle WL. University Alumni Small Business Research
Program: A Study of Emerging Businesses. Bloomington: Centre for
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Indiana University, 1990.
Duncan I. An introduction to entrepreneurs. CMA Mag. 1991;65(9):32.
Effective handling of complaints in a key factor in business success. Profit
Building Strategies for Business Owners 1991;21(10): 5 ± 6.
Euromoney. Asia's Competitive Companies (December) 1996. p. 17.
Evans III JH, Evans FC. A small manufacturer's success story. Manage
Account. 1986;68(2):47 ± 9.
Foley P. Marketing Management Policies and Small Business: An Investigation of the Factors Contributing to Small Business Success. PhD
Thesis, Council for National Academic Awards (UK), 1987.
221
Gaskill GT, Hyland JM. Starting and managing a small business. Manage
Account 1989;71(6):28 ± 31.
Ghosh BC, Kwan W. An Analysis of Key Success Factors of SMEs: A
Cross National Study of Singapore/Malaysia and Australia / New Zealand. ICSB, Sweden, in the proceedings of selected papers, 1996a.
Ghosh BC, Schoch HP. An Empirical Study of Marketing Effectiveness of
MNCs, SMEs and Large Local Companies in Singapore, Working Paper, Nanyang Business School, WPS 6-1996b.
Ghosh BC, Schoch HP. An Empirical Study of Marketing Effectiveness Ð
Comparing Singapore Australia and New Zealand, Working Paper, Nanyang Business School, WPS 4-1996.
Ghosh BC, Schoch HP, Huang JY, Hooley G. An Empirical Study of Top
Performing Companies in Singapore and Taiwan and A Comparison of
their Marketing Effectiveness, Working Paper, Nanyang Business
School, WPS 5-1996.
Gunter R, Kluge J, Kempis R-D, Diederichs R, Bruck F. Simplicity Wins.
How Germany's Mid-Sized Industrial Companies Succeed. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1995.
Haswell S, Holmes S. Estimating the small business rate Ð a reappraisal. J
Small Bus Manage. 1989;27(3):68 ± 74.
Huck JF, McEwen T. Competencies needed for small business success
Ð perceptions of Jamaican entrepreneurs. J Small Bus Manage.
1991;29(4):90 ± 3.
Ibielski D. Inter-firm Co-operation: A Small Business Directive, Introductory Remarks to a Seminar Hosted by The Entrepreneurship Development Center, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, (16
August) 1996.
Kofi Q, Cho Y. Determinants of minority business formation and survival: an empirical assessment. J Small Bus Manage (July) 1989;27(3):
56 ± 61.
Louis R, Julien P-A, Carriere J-B, Lachance R. Managing technological
change in manufacturing SMEs: a multiple case analysis. Special Issue
on the 5th International Forum on Technology Management. Int J Technol Manage 1996;11(3/4):270 ± 85.
McCormack MH. Starting your own business. Mod Off Technol 1989;
34(9):12 ± 4.
Mraz SJ. Advice from entrepreneurs. Mach Des 1989;61(9):125 ± 8.
Pollock MF. Controlling their Own Success, Women and Business Ownership, PhD Thesis. Rutgers State Universirty of New Jersey, 1989.
Prescott E. How to be small and successful. Publ Relat J 1986;42(2):32.
Schilit KW. Guidelines for entrepreneurial success. Adv Manage J
1986;51(3):44 ± 8.
Six factors that separate business winners from losers. Profit Building
Strategies for Business Owners 1990;5(20): 3 ± 5.
Smallbone D. Success and failure in new business start-ups. Int Small Bus J
1990;8:34 ± 47.
Special characteristics you need to succeed in your own business. Profit
Building Strategies for Business Owners 1989;19(10): 21 ± 2.
Steiner MP, Solem O. Factors for success in small manufacturing firms. J
Small Bus Manage. 1988;26(1):51 ± 6.
The Business Times. Osaka Chamber calls for tie-ups between medium
sized firms, Singapore, (5 July) 1995. p.12.
The Economist. Fruitful stuff . . . 1991;319(7711):66 ± 7.
Wood D. Why new business fail and how to avoid disaster. Corporate
Cashflow 1989;10(8):26 ± 7.
The key success factors, distinctive capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top
SMEs in Singapore
B.C. Ghosh*, Tan Wee Liang, Tan Teck Meng1, Ben Chan
School of Accountancy and Business, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Received 1 December 1998; accepted 1 December 1998
Abstract
The research tries to determine the strategy dynamics and key success factors (KSFs) for excellence in performance of the so-called
``tiger'' SMEs in Singapore. In 1995 and 1996, 50 top privately owned and successful enterprises in Singapore were identified. They
have shown that they can excel, even in the current highly competitive and high operation ± cost environment. Their performance can be
attributed to their dynamism and a few KSFs that are apparently universal to these successful companies. The strategy dynamics and
their specific components (i.e., the six top SMEs) are found to be: 1) A committed, supportive, and strong management team. 2) A
strong, visionary, and capable leadership. 3) Adopting the correct strategic approach. 4) Ability to identify and focus on market. 5)
Ability to develop and sustain capability. 6) A good customer and client relationship. Approximately 60% of the companies surveyed
were found to be of Defender type organizations (Miles and Snow typology). As a majority of the companies are from manufacturing
and servicing sectors and from OEMs supporting the MNCs, it is not surprising that the Defender type strategy is predominant.
However, such organizations may have to evolve in order to adopt a more superior strategy such as Prospector and Analyzer when
environment changes. The importance placed by organizations adopting different strategy types on their strategic posture are different
although KSFs and capabilities are generally universal. Comparing proactive with passive strategy types, the degree of emphasis given
various success factors by proactive type companies was generally found to be higher. Specifically, proactive type companies placed
higher importance on the following factors for excellent performance: (i) Satisfying customers needs, (ii) Close working relationship
between top management and employee, (iii) Regionalization, (iv) Leadership, (v) Availability of financial and technology resources and
support. Further, the research also found that the importance attached to the various strategy-related success factors changes with the
development. As it becomes more established, the ranking of KSFs changes as the organization faces different challenges when
competition becomes tougher. Enterprises need to pay attention to the following dynamics and strategic thrusts: (a) Strong market
orientation and relevant capability; (b) Effective management; (1) Strong management commitment and support (2) Strong organizational
capability and management cohesiveness; (c) Access to broad base support and resources (i.e., Networking). D 2000 Elsevier Science
Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Key success factors; Strategic thrust; SMEs
1. Introduction
Businesses have been finding it hard to operate in
Singapore owing to the high operating cost and increasingly
intense competition from the region. Coupled with the fact
of small local market size, and relying very much on export
market, the business environment has become even more
difficult to operate. However, there are companies that
excelled. The `Top 50' privately held enterprises for 1995
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-799-5656; fax: +65-791-3697.
1
As of January 1998, Prof. Tan Teck Meng has since left the School to
join the Singapore Management University.
and 1996 have shown that they can excel even under these
adverse conditions. The objective of this research is to
identify and examine the strategic key success factors
(KSFs) [key success factor is defined for our purpose as
factors which are critical for excellent performance of the
company, rather than just survival which is the function of
critical success factors (CSFs)].
The successful privately held companies are potential
candidates for public listing if they need to raise public
funds. Some of them have crossed a turnover of S$800
million and others have yet to cross the S$100 million
turnover mark. But they are all on the fast track, growing
rapidly and regionalizing their operations. Some of those
0148-2963/01/$ ± see front matter D 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 7 - 8
210
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
that appeared in the 1996 listing were already publicly listed
at the end of that year.
The `Top 50' enterprises were ranked based on their
performance over a 4-year period. Various quantitative
factors were used such as gross turnover, profits, return
per employee, return on assets, and percentage of business
from overseas operations. The evaluation team, from Andersen Consulting, The Business Times, and The Economic
Development Board, developed and applied a balanced
scorecard of these performance indicators for companies
across a wide mix of industries. A key consideration in the
scorecard is giving a balanced weight to both absolute
financial performance and growth. The aim is to capture
how fast the company is growing, not just how much it
makes. So, aside from turnover and profit levels, the team
looked at growth in turnover and profits. However, this
information is privy to the group and were not available to
the researchers.
In the study conducted here, companies are defined
successful if they appeared in the 1995 or 1996 `Top 50'
Enterprises list compiled by Andersen Consulting, The
Business Times, and The Economic Development Board
of Singapore, a statutory board within Singapore. They form
our base group whose strategies we study.
1.1. Objectives of the study
The focus of this article is to isolate the top KSFs (not
CSFs) that are commonly practiced by these successful
privately held companies, so that they may be adopted by
any enterprise (even start-ups). The study also examines
what are the most commonly adopted strategy types by
these successful companies and to determine if the KSFs
correlate well with the strategy type adopted. We will
also argue that these factors will be positivist and
universal in nature. This will be one hypothesis. A
second hypothesis at this stage is to identify a discriminating model that will be able to predict the strategy
type from its KSFs and distinctive capabilities, such
that such a model can be used for a firm's future
strategic direction.
1.2. Significance of research
Privately held enterprises play an important role in the
growth of the Singapore economy. There are already
80,000 SMEs in Singapore employing about 40% of the
workforce and contributing around 30% of the total value
added in the economy. Their continual survival and success
is therefore critical, especially with increasing competition
from the region and uncertainties associated with multinationals. By identifying the KSFs of top successful local
enterprises, and many of them are SMEs, one will gain
insight and understand better how they remain competitive
and even excel in the harsh operating environment in
Singapore. The findings of the research are likely to be
more relevant and applicable to local companies, though
there are other generalizable aspects.
2. Some discussion of the relevant literature
There were studies done on the local SMEs to identify
CSFs for business success; a significant contribution comes
from Ghosh and Kwan (1996) who covered Singapore,
Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand, a cross-national
study. This study found that factors that contributed to the
successful SMEs were (among others): having a good
customer relationship, effective management and marketing. Constraints to success were found mainly in the high
cost of doing business and competition. Similar research
has been undertaken elsewhere. DeHayes and Haeberle
(1990) found that the most frequent reason for success
among businesses was their ability to identify and focus on
one or a few market niches. Further, they identified that
most business plateau at US$10 million and that business
is difficult to expand without change in management style
and building up human resources in terms of quantity and
quality. The finding is supported by Evans and Evans
(1986) who asserted that a firm's success in competing
in a hostile environment was directly related to human
resources development, besides top management's involvement with all phases of the operation. DeHayes and
Haeberle (1990) further identified the following CSFs:
the ability to develop and sustain technological advantage,
the ability to identify and focus on one or several market
niches, having strong leadership on top, having significant
`people bonding' mechanism in the system, strong management team, strategic alliance with customers and strategic use of information technology. Huck and McEwen
(1991) found technical knowledge and customer relations
to be the competencies most important for the success of
small business. Duncan (1991) found the ability to identify
a market niche and develop a standing in that niche market
as a CSF. The findings of Prescott (1986) and Steiner and
Solem (1988) were similar to those of DeHayes and
Haeberle (1990) and Duncan (1991). Campbell (1991)
identified 12 keys for a successful business, among which
were a clear mission statement and a corporate value
system, a customer-oriented policy, a competitive strategy,
and a personal commitment from the top management.
Gaskill and Hyland (1989) identified six keys to a successful business, which included people power, a business
plan, a study of the competition, performance measurement, and avoiding complacence. Mraz (1989) found that
thorough planning was vital to start a successful business
while Schilit (1986) found that critical success included:
having a formal business plan, continual monitoring of the
business environment, retaining a market orientation, developing a common value system, ensuring adequate
capitalization, and encouraging entrepreneurial thinking
through all levels of the company. Foley (1987) reported
211
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
Table 1
Profile of the companies surveyed
History of companies (years)
Industry type
No. of returns
Manufacturing
Services
Retail
Engineering
Others
Total
15
7
4
3
6
35
(43%)
(20%)
(11%)
(9%)
(17%)
(100%)
15
500
10
5
2
2
4
22
5
1
1
1
1
9
100
5
2
1
4
12
Wikin and Sons, reported by The Economist (1991),
emphasized successful market positioning and trend identification well ahead of the rivals, and an obsession with
quality; McCormack (1989) agreed that one of the most
important factors to a successful business was a commitment to quality. Profit Building Strategies for Business
Table 2
Summary statistics
Question
Key content
Count
Mean
Standard
deviation
D1
D2
D3
D4
P1
P2
P3
P4
A1
A2
A3
R1
R2
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
K7
K8
K9
K10
K11
K12
K13
Total
Products and services focused
Ability to identify niche
Efficiency emphasis
Low price and good products
Periodic re-definitions
``Early in'' in new product and market
Production flexibility rather than efficiency
Rapid response to opportunity
Stable and limited line of products and services
Not ``first in'' but with cost-efficient products or services
Monitoring the ``first in'' leader
Limited risk taking
Forced by environmental pressure to respond
Always identify the market well
Frequently satisfy customers' needs
Constantly developing new ideas and capability
Ability to identify niche
Always ahead of competitors
Employees always get the resources and support
Close relationship between top management and employees
Customer relationship is more important than good product/service
Regionalization is necessary for company's survival
Government plays an important role in the company's success
Easy to access to capital to achieve company's goal
Luck is important in the success of a business
Ability to identify and focus on market
Ability to develop and sustain capability
Committed, supportive and strong management system
Good and responsive organization system
Leadership
Good HR management practice
Good customer and client relationship
Availability of financial and technology resources
Government support
Good product/service feature
Good networking
Regionalization
Adopting the correct strategy
35
35
35
35
34
35
34
35
35
35
35
34
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
1327
1.84
1.53
2.39
2.21
2.72
2.59
2.90
2.20
2.24
2.73
2.13
3.22
2.87
2.00
1.81
2.01
2.07
2.63
2.47
2.19
2.33
1.83
2.46
2.79
3.14
1.50
1.59
1.41
1.79
1.43
2.20
1.71
1.99
2.63
1.87
2.01
2.09
1.49
2.18
0.77
0.67
0.84
1.11
0.77
0.73
0.98
1.15
0.88
0.98
1.01
1.02
1.09
0.76
0.71
0.71
0.73
1.00
0.87
0.92
1.15
1.22
1.30
1.11
1.10
0.68
0.62
0.59
0.64
0.65
0.77
0.68
0.61
1.01
0.56
0.75
1.02
0.62
0.99
Remarks
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
To
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
Defenders type
Defenders type
Defenders type
Defenders type
Prospectors type
Prospectors type
Prospectors type
Prospectors type
Analyzers type
Analyzers type
Analyzers type
Reactors type
Reactors type
212
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Table 3
The strategy type of the surveyed companies
Sector
Defenders (D)
Prospectors (P)
Analyzer (A)
Manufacturing
Service
Retail
Engineering
Others
Total
7
5
4
1
4
21
3
2
1
3
Reactors (R)
1
1
4
1
Owners (1989, 1990, 1991) identified that one of the
factors in building a successful business was the ability
to deal effectively with customer complaints. Kofi and
Cho (1989) emphasized the importance of governmentrelated and foreign markets for businesses seeking expansion. Mraz (1989) states that thorough planning was vital
to starting a successful business; finding customers, vendors, employees and financial resources should be thought
out in advance.
Louis et al. (1996) investigated SMEs from the manufacturing sector and found that there is no `one best'
D or R
1
1
D or A
D or P
A or P
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
7
4
3
6
35
1
3
strategy of technology change; however, for SMEs, he
advocated flexibility.
Bhaskar and Jamaluddin (1993) examined the production
flexibility model and similarly found flexibility is the key
that allows small firms to survive and compete with larger
firms. Colin et al. (1993) examined diversification as one of
the survival strategies. Brazell (1991) stated that lack of
management skills, competence, and experience were the
great contributing factors to failure. Haswell and Holmes
(1989) attributed the main causes of business failures to
management incompetence and inexperience. Wood (1989)
Table 4
Multiple range tests on Q1 ± Q12 (companies, capabilities)
Method: 95.0% LSD
Q2
Q9
Q1
Q3
Q4
Q7
Q8
Q10
Q6
Q5
Q11
Q12
Frequently satisfy customer needs
Regionalization
Always identify the market well
Developing new ideas and capability
Ability to identify niches
Good relationship between top management and employees
Customer relationship is more important
Government plays an important role in the company's success
Employees always get the resources and support
Always ahead of competitors
Easy access to capital
Luck is important in the company's success
Count
Mean
Homogeneous groups
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.81
1.83
2.00
2.01
2.07
2.19
2.33
2.46
2.47
2.63
2.79
3.14
X
X
XX
XXX
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXX
XX
XX
X
Table 5
Multiple range tests on K1 ± K13 (perceived KSFs)
Method: 95.0% LSD
K3
K5
K13
K1
K2
K7
K4
K10
K8
K11
K12
K6
K9
Committed, supportive and strong management system
Leadership
Adopting the correct strategy
Ability to identify and focus on market
Ability to develop and sustain capability
Good customer and client relationship
Good and responsive organization system
Good product/service feature
Availability of financial and technology resources
Good networking
Regionalization
A good human resource management
Government support
Count
Mean
Homogeneous groups
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
1.41
1.43
1.49
1.50
1.59
1.71
1.79
1.87
1.99
2.01
2.09
2.20
2.63
X
X
XX
XX
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXX
XX
X
X
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
213
Fig. 1. Tabulation of capabilities along with types of strategy. The shaded region in each column indicates no significant difference in mean within the
respective groups. The numbers in the bracket show the ranking. * and + indicate significant difference between means at p < 0.1.
also confirmed that lack of experience was one of the causes
of business failures. Smallbone (1990) concluded that a lack
of capital and the lack of revenue-generating ability were the
main reasons for business failures.
Ibielski (1996) found that interfirm co-operation is an
important attribute for future survival. Japan's Osaka
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in their visit to
Singapore in July 1995, called for tie-ups between smalland medium-sized companies from Singapore and Japan,
and operate in third countries. The joint effort is to reduce
costs and maximize complementary strength (The Business
Times, 1995).
Gunter et al. (1995) found that the secret of success for
the mid-sized German companies is the emphasis of simplicity in their operations. These leading firms produce a
narrower range of products, sell to few customers, and have
fewer suppliers. They have decentralized organizational
structures, simpler and faster processes, and a more concentrated focused nature of R&D investment, logistics, and
location structure.
Conant et al. (1990) suggest that strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies, and organizational effectiveness determine how a business performs. They found
marketing competencies associated with prospector type
organizations superior to those of analyzer, defender, and
reactor type organizations. Briefly, organizations having the
trait of a Defender attempt to locate and maintain a secure
niche in a relatively stable product or service area. The
Prospector type of organization typically operates within a
broad product ± market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition. The organization tries to be `early in' in new
product and market areas even if not all of these efforts
Fig. 2. Tabulation or perceived KSFs along with types of strategy. The shaded region in each column indicates no significant difference in mean within the
respective groups. The numbers in the bracket show the ranking. * and + indicate significant difference between means at p < 0.1.
214
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Fig. 3. Comparison of capabilities of Defender type and Proactive type strategies. The shaded cells show no significant between means of factors in the
respective column. Significant difference between factors from different columns at p < 0.1 is indicated by +. D = D + R, P = P + A; six mid-pointers pro-rated.
prove to be highly profitable. An Analyzer attempts to
maintain a stable, limited line of products or services, while
at the same time, moving out quickly to follow a carefully
selected set of more promising new developments in the
industry. The organization is seldom `first in' with new
product or services. The reactor type of organization does
not appear to have a consistent product ± market orientation.
The organization is usually not as aggressive in maintaining
established products and markets as some of its competitors
nor is it willing to take as many risks as other competitors.
Rather, the organization responds in those areas where it is
forced to by environmental pressures.
Recent research studies carried out by Ghosh and Schoch
(1996b) and Ghosh et al. (1996), on the empirical study on
marketing effectiveness Ð comparing Singapore with Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan give a further insight into
marketing effectiveness as a success factor that contributes
to better performance. Singapore's companies that have
better performance claimed a much stronger marketing than
product or selling orientation. And these better-performing
Fig. 4. Comparison of perceived KSFs of Defender type and Proactive type strategies. The shaded cells show no significant difference between means of factors
in the respective column. Significant difference between factors from different columns at p < 0.1 is indicated by +.
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
companies have adopted a stronger marketing role in
identifying and meeting customer needs with a role played
by the chief executive officer himself. Ghosh and Schoch
(1996a) confirmed this again in a later study which compared local SMEs, large companies, and MNCs. The three
types of organization are dominantly marketing oriented
with no significant difference between MNCs and the local
companies. Euromoney (1996) suggested that Asia's excellent companies succeeded due to good management, technology adaptation, and appropriate international orientation.
Ghosh et al. found that success factors are generally
positive in nature (that is, those who are self-driven rather
than circumstances-driven tend to succeed more as an
entrepreneur) and these success factors tend to be more
universal in character. In preparing a list of success/strategic
factors, we however included such other matters as regionalization. We also included a list of distinctive marketing
competencies, based on Conant et al. (1990), to see how
215
competencies complement the KSFs. But more on research
methodology a little later.
2.1. The sample
The target population of the survey are the `Top 50'
enterprises in 1995 and 1996, however, several companies
appeared in the list for consecutive years and therefore, the
total number of companies from the two lists is 66. A
questionnaire was sent to all 66 of them.
The questionnaire is based on the prior work of Conant
et al. (1990) and Ghosh et al. (1996). Four main sections can
be identified in the questionnaire; the first section (questions
1 to 4) captured the general profile of the organization,
while the second section determined the strategic type of the
organization. The third section (Q1 ± Q12) was designed to
determine the competencies of the company that contribute
to excellent performance and the fourth section (K1 ±K13)
Fig. 5. (a and b) Pearson correlation matrix of key success factors (K) and Capabilities (Q) for p 0.05.
216
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Fig. 6. Factor analysis of companies' abilities in achieving factors Q1 to Q12. Factor loading matrix after varimax rotation.
was designed to identify the perceived KSFs of the company. A Likert type of scale was used, 1 to 5, with 1 being
most significant and 5 the least.
the organization was performed through clustering. Software used was Statgraphic.
2.2. Method of data analysis
3. Results and analysis
Descriptive analysis was performed on the data and a
cluster analysis was also performed to determine if the
postulated KSFs are widely perceived and practiced by the
respondents as their strategic mode of operation. Top KSFs
were identified through the application of multi-range test.
The relationships between KSFs and capabilities were
analyzed by employing the Pearson correlation technique.
Correlation between strategy types, KSFs and capabilities of
We were able to get 35 usable responses (out of 38
actually returned) out of the 66 targeted companies, hence,
the effective response rate was 53%. Further, the majority
(i.e., 60% >) of respondents responded within 3 weeks
after the surveys were mailed, indicating that in general,
participants were willing enough to participate in the
survey. In view of these two factors, the data collected
are deemed representative of the population. As such,
Fig. 7. Factor analysis of perceived KSFs (K1 to K13). Factor loading matrix after varimax rotation.
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
217
Fig. 8. Pearson correlation between the top six KSFs and capabilities.
some of the statistical analyses carried later are assumed to
be representative (and hence conceptually valid) although
they may not meet the required normal minimum sample
size (e.g., factor analysis), specified in literature (see
Tables 1± 3).
There are six companies which cannot be clearly classified into a single strategy type as shown in Table 3. However, at a later stage, where for analysis purposes we
grouped these companies into two major groups, i.e.,
Analyser/Prospector into one and Defender/Reactor into
the other, we allocated these six into one group or the other
suitably, on the basis of their responses.
3.1. A cluster analysis
The distinctive competencies of the responding companies were cluster-analysed. The majority of the organizations (94.29%) fall into cluster 1, while only one member
each formed clusters 2 and 3. The responses to KSF
questions were similarly cluster-analysed. Again, the majority of the companies (94%) formed one of the clusters,
and the other two clusters are formed with one member
each. The cluster analysis indicated, in our view, that the
perceived KSFs and the supporting competencies are universal among the population, supporting an earlier hypoth-
Fig. 9. Comparison of key success factors ranking between `Top 50' enterprises and Ghosh's (1996) findings in Singapore and Australia SMEs.
218
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
Table 6
Top six KSFs and capabilities
Perceived KSFs (Ks)
Rank
Capabilities (Qs)
Rank
Committed, supportive and strong management system
Leadership
Adopting correct strategy
Identify and focus on market
Develop and sustain capabilities
Good customer and client relationship
1
2
3
4
5
6
Frequently satisfy customer needs
Regionalization
Developing new ideas and capabilities
Identify market well
Identify niches well
Good relationship between top management and employees
1
2
3
4
5
6
esis on this matter that they are universal and positivist
in nature.
3.2. A multiple range test
This analysis applies a multiple comparison procedure
to determine which means are significantly different from
the others. The aim of the test is to identify and separate a
few top success factors (from the rest) with no significant
difference in their means at 95% confidence level. These
factors will then form the top KSFs. The method being
used to discriminate among the means is Fishers' least
significant difference (LSD) procedure at a 95% confidence level. The analysis found that at 95% confidence
level, there is no significant difference between the means
of Q2, Q9, Q3, Q1, Q4, and Q7. Similarly, there is no
significant difference between the means of K3, K5, K13,
K1, K2, and K7. The analyses show that the top KSFs are
of equal importance, as there is no significant difference in
the means.
Therefore, the strategy dynamics/distinctive capabilities
of these successful companies are:
1. An ability to satisfy customer's need
2. Regionalization capability
3. Constantly developing new ideas and capabilities,
i.e., innovativeness
4. Can always identify market well, i.e., opportunityseeker
5. Ability to identify niches, i.e., focuser
6. Good relationship between top management and
employees, i.e., brain-rather-than-brawn-centered
capability
The top KSFs which we consider the other side of the
mirror were identified to be (see Tables 4 and 5 and
Figs. 1± 4):
1. A committed, supportive, and strong management
team Ð supports 6 above
2. A strong, visionary and capable leadership Ð goes
with 1± 6 above
3. Adopting the correct strategy Ð arises from 1 to 6
above and other key abilities
4. Ability to identify and focus on market Ð especially
in support to 3± 5 above
5. Ability to develop and sustain capabilities
6. A good customer and client relationship Ð in support
in particular of 1 above
One interesting point can be noted, that is, the luck
factor (a mean of 3.14 which is at the neutral point almost,
neither disagreeing or agreeing as reflected by Q12) was
not a dominant contributing factor for the success of these
companies as compared with other factors (see Table 1
and Fig. 1).
Fig. 10. Plot of discriminant functions.
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
3.3. Correlation
Pearson correlation of the perceived KSFs (K) and
companies capabilities (Q) is tabulated in Fig. 5 for
correlation with 95% and above confidence level (i.e., p
0.05). The first number in the cell represents the
correlation coefficient and the second represents the
significance level.
One important point that can be seen from the table is
that all the factors are positively correlated. It means that
any positive improvements in the success factors and
capabilities have positive influence on other capabilities
and success factors. It also shows that success factors and
capabilities are not antagonistic. This is in agreement
with Ghosh and Kwan (1996) finding that KSFs are
generally positively biased than negatively. A further
confirmation perhaps of their being positivist in nature
(see Figs. 6± 9).
4. Discussion and conclusion
The KSFs from these `Top 50' enterprises have been
determined through the perception of these companies and
they are correlated with the capabilities of the organizations
as shown in the correlation Table 6 and Fig. 8. Further
analyses also showed that the KSFs are all positively
correlated and so are the capabilities. Further, it can be seen
that these KSFs and distinctive capabilities are interrelated,
therefore, in their togetherness, show that successful companies depending on their strategy type exhibit a similarity
in their strategic thrusts. For example, the ability to identify
and focus on market (K1) may give rise to an ability to
frequently satisfy customer needs (Q2). Furthermore, different capabilities of the organization may be elevated at the
same time if a single KSF is achieved or to put it the other
way, to achieve a KSF, different contributing capabilities of
the company must be achieved.
At this stage of our discussion, two express/implied
hypotheses can be stated: (1) that KSFs of successful
companies are fairly universal and positivist in nature,
and (2) that KSFs and distinctive abilities of successful
SMEs are complementary and interrelated. We are able to
say that these two hypotheses, similar to those in a prior
study (Ghosh and Kwan, 1996), are generally validated in
this study. However, when the top KSFs are ranked, the
differences are apparent. Fig. 9 shows the ranking of the top
six KSFs perceived by the `Top 50' enterprises surveyed in
this research and the results from Ghosh and Kwan's (1996)
survey of SMEs in Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, and
New Zealand.
A whole number of reasons can be conjectured as to why
these differences in ranking arise, for example, (Top 50) will
be essentially different in character from those in the normal
run of things, i.e., those who were respondents in the Ghosh
et al. study. It could also be explained by the fact that more
219
established and successful companies (those in the Top 50)
will be at an advanced stage of their corporate development.
Whatever they are, it can be hypothesized hence that at
different stages of corporate development, a different mixture of corporate capabilities/KSFs will be required; hence, a
different combination of strategic thrusts.
A further hypothesis which can be said to be partially
confirmed is: while KSFs and capabilities are generally
universal, the degree of importance of capabilities and KSFs
are viewed differently by organizations with different strategy types (see Tables earlier where means are compared).
Both Prospector and Analyzer (we consider these two types
as akin, though not identical) types companies view regionalization more critically for company survival than the
Defender type companies, as an instance. This may be due
to the inherent nature of the strategy type adopted. The
Prospector type companies typically will try to be `early in'
in new product and market areas, while the Analyzer will
move quickly to follow a carefully examined and selected
set of more promising new development in the industry and
market, hence they are usually the `second-in'. Such `phenomenon' is less inherent within a Defender type organization, which typically concentrates in achieving efficiency.
Further, close working relationship between top management and employees is valued more by the Prospector
organization than Defender type organization. This may
be due to Prospector organizations having to respond
rapidly to early signal concerning areas of opportunity,
which requires good communication and working relationship within the organization.
Although the degrees of importance among the KSFs are
perceived differently by different strategy types, the differences in means are generally quite small. Hence, only
partial acceptance of this hypothesis.
In a somewhat broader sense, an examination of factor
analyses of capabilities and perceived KSFs reveals that
enterprises need to pay attention to the following areas
which these factors constitute in order to achieve excellence
in performance:
(i) Strong market orientation capability
(ii) Effective management:
(a) Strong management commitment and support
(b) Strong organisation and management set-up
(iii) Access to broad base support and resources
(i.e., networking).
Regionalization, which is to a large extent influenced by
government initiatives (in a Singapore context), also leads to
these successful companies expanding overseas, as such,
government influence seems to play an important role in
determining where companies will develop in the long run.
These general broad base findings also agree well with the
findings of Euromoney (1996) which also found that management, technology, and an international orientation make
a company excel.
220
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 209±221
5. A discriminant analysis
The standardized coefficients used to discriminate among
the different levels (i.e., Proactive (P + A) and Passive (D +
R)) are (Ks are KSFs, earlier discussed):
0:161835 K1 ÿ 0:395471 K10 ÿ 0:837619 K11
ÿ 0:0906812 K12 ÿ 0:224911 K13 0:700035 K2
0:379661 K3 ÿ 0:253795 K4 1:32569 K5
ÿ 1:24406 K6 0:138705 K7 1:64324 K8
ÿ 0:108664 K9
From the relative magnitude of the coefficients in the
above equation, one can determine how the independent
variables are being used to discriminate among the groups.
The function plot shows the centroids of the two groups.
Fig. 10 shows the results of using the derived discriminant function to classify observations. It plots the two
highest scores among the classification functions for each
of the 29 observations used to fit the model, as well as for
any new observations. For example, row 1 scored highest
for Proactive Reactive = p and second highest for Proactive
Reactive = r. In fact, the true value of Proactive Reactive
was p. Among the 29 observations used to fit the model, 26
or 89.6552% were correctly classified.
The model shows that the discriminant functions correlate well with strategy types predicted.
6. Implications
The research shows that organizations with different
strategy types will nevertheless show that the strategic
thrusts they require (meaning those resulting from a suitable
combination of KSFs and capabilities) are not essentially
different. The top six KSFs are generally universal and so
are the capabilities. Given the competitive environment that
this region faces, hence, it can be concluded that similarities
in approach over ride dissimilarities, though degrees of
importance given to each KSF/capability can be different.
The majority of the enterprises surveyed adopted a
Defender type strategy (D + R), which may be due to the
fact that most of these enterprises are OEMs and supporting
the MNCs which requires them to be efficient and watch
their operating cost. As such, under such environment, the
Defender type strategy may seem appropriate. In the long
run however, organizations may have to evolve to adopt
other strategy types and move towards a more superior
strategy such as a Prospector and Analyzer types (Conant et
al., 1990) as the environment changes. The trend would then
be for companies to adopt a more proactive type of
strategies as they need to expand in an increasingly competitive environment of SE Asia (and indeed, anywhere now,
as one might venture to say). The discriminant analysis
above shows that Miles and Snow's strategy type classification bears some statistical validity, too, though much further
research is necessary. However, our own finding shows 89%
predictive ability. Success factors indicated in the model are
those that will predictively distinguish one type from the
other and hence, indicate strategies to be adopted.
Postscript: Since this analysis, our data have been expanded to include input from 55 companies at the
presentation hence the data analysis and results may somewhat differ from those in the article (but they are not ready
at the moment of submission of this article).
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the participation of Student
Research Assistants Tee Song Jue, Tan Jok Tin, Monica
Lim, and Yeo Teck Yeow.
Appendix A. Names of companies
(1) Amara Holding
(2) Asiatic Enterprises
(3) Ban Joo
(4) Batey Ads
(5) Barnsburry
(6) Chong Lee Leong Seng
(7) Chuan Soon Huat Ind
(8) C&P Rent-A-Car
(9) Container Printers
(10) Excel Machine Tools
(11) Europa Holdings
(12) Expression Marketing Services
(13) Far East Packaging Industrial
(14) GES Singapore
(15) GUL Technologies Singapore
(16) Hai Leck Engineering
(17) Hiap Seng Engineering and Construction
(18) Hua Kok Realty
(19) International Press
(20) IPACS Computer Services
(21) Jay Gee Enterprises
(22) JIT Electronics
(23) Kian Ann Engineering
(24) Kin Keong Printing
(25) Komoco Auto
(26) Labroy Marine
(27) Lian Hup Timber
(28) Luxasia
(29) Manufacturing Integration Technology
(30) Mech-Power Generator
(31) Micro-Machining Industries
(32) Mohamed Mustafa and Samsuddin
(33) Nobel Design and Contracts
(34) Ossia International
(35) P D International
(36) Poh Cheong Concrete Pre-Cast
(37) Pico Art International
(38) Richgold Industries
(39) Royal Sporting House
(40) Salcon
(41) Sanwa Plastics Industry
(42) Second Chance Enterprises
(43) Serial System
Responded
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B.C. Ghosh et al. / Journal of Business Research 51 (2000) 209±221
(44) Shankar's Emporium
(45) Sherridon Exim
(46) Stamford Press
(47) Singapore Shinei Sangyo
(48) SUTL
(49) Sunningdals Plastics Industries
(50) Tat Hong Holdings
(51) Tan Chong Brother's Marble
(52) Tee Yih Jia Food Manufacturing
(53) T T Importers and Exporters
(54) Thakral Brothers
(55) The Gwee Group
(56) Thynoe
(57) Transtech Electronics
(58) Trans-Link Express
(59) Uraco Technology
(60) Wangi Industrial
(61) Wee Poh Construction
(62) Windmill International
(63) Xpress Print
(64) YHI Holdings
(65) Yongnam Engineering and Construction
(66) Ziv Zera Advertising
Total:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
35 responded
References
Barkham RJ. Enterpreneurship: New Firms and Regional Development.
PhD Thesis, University of Reading (UK), 1989.
Bhaskar JD, Jamaluddin HH. Survival of small firms: an examination
of the production flexibility model. Int J Manage (September) 1993;
10(3):283 ± 7.
Brazell JL. Starting a small business. Bus Econ Rev 1991;37(4):10 ± 4.
Campbell R. 12 keys for entrepreneurial success. Bus Econ Rev
1991;37(3):19 ± 22.
Colin G, Robson G, Daly M. Diversification strategy and practice in small
firms. Int Small Bus J (January) 1993;2:11.
Conant JS, Mokwa MP, Varadarajan PR. A multiple measures-based study,
strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organisational
performances. Strategic Manage J 1990;11:365 ± 83.
DeHayes DW, Haeberle WL. University Alumni Small Business Research
Program: A Study of Emerging Businesses. Bloomington: Centre for
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Indiana University, 1990.
Duncan I. An introduction to entrepreneurs. CMA Mag. 1991;65(9):32.
Effective handling of complaints in a key factor in business success. Profit
Building Strategies for Business Owners 1991;21(10): 5 ± 6.
Euromoney. Asia's Competitive Companies (December) 1996. p. 17.
Evans III JH, Evans FC. A small manufacturer's success story. Manage
Account. 1986;68(2):47 ± 9.
Foley P. Marketing Management Policies and Small Business: An Investigation of the Factors Contributing to Small Business Success. PhD
Thesis, Council for National Academic Awards (UK), 1987.
221
Gaskill GT, Hyland JM. Starting and managing a small business. Manage
Account 1989;71(6):28 ± 31.
Ghosh BC, Kwan W. An Analysis of Key Success Factors of SMEs: A
Cross National Study of Singapore/Malaysia and Australia / New Zealand. ICSB, Sweden, in the proceedings of selected papers, 1996a.
Ghosh BC, Schoch HP. An Empirical Study of Marketing Effectiveness of
MNCs, SMEs and Large Local Companies in Singapore, Working Paper, Nanyang Business School, WPS 6-1996b.
Ghosh BC, Schoch HP. An Empirical Study of Marketing Effectiveness Ð
Comparing Singapore Australia and New Zealand, Working Paper, Nanyang Business School, WPS 4-1996.
Ghosh BC, Schoch HP, Huang JY, Hooley G. An Empirical Study of Top
Performing Companies in Singapore and Taiwan and A Comparison of
their Marketing Effectiveness, Working Paper, Nanyang Business
School, WPS 5-1996.
Gunter R, Kluge J, Kempis R-D, Diederichs R, Bruck F. Simplicity Wins.
How Germany's Mid-Sized Industrial Companies Succeed. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1995.
Haswell S, Holmes S. Estimating the small business rate Ð a reappraisal. J
Small Bus Manage. 1989;27(3):68 ± 74.
Huck JF, McEwen T. Competencies needed for small business success
Ð perceptions of Jamaican entrepreneurs. J Small Bus Manage.
1991;29(4):90 ± 3.
Ibielski D. Inter-firm Co-operation: A Small Business Directive, Introductory Remarks to a Seminar Hosted by The Entrepreneurship Development Center, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, (16
August) 1996.
Kofi Q, Cho Y. Determinants of minority business formation and survival: an empirical assessment. J Small Bus Manage (July) 1989;27(3):
56 ± 61.
Louis R, Julien P-A, Carriere J-B, Lachance R. Managing technological
change in manufacturing SMEs: a multiple case analysis. Special Issue
on the 5th International Forum on Technology Management. Int J Technol Manage 1996;11(3/4):270 ± 85.
McCormack MH. Starting your own business. Mod Off Technol 1989;
34(9):12 ± 4.
Mraz SJ. Advice from entrepreneurs. Mach Des 1989;61(9):125 ± 8.
Pollock MF. Controlling their Own Success, Women and Business Ownership, PhD Thesis. Rutgers State Universirty of New Jersey, 1989.
Prescott E. How to be small and successful. Publ Relat J 1986;42(2):32.
Schilit KW. Guidelines for entrepreneurial success. Adv Manage J
1986;51(3):44 ± 8.
Six factors that separate business winners from losers. Profit Building
Strategies for Business Owners 1990;5(20): 3 ± 5.
Smallbone D. Success and failure in new business start-ups. Int Small Bus J
1990;8:34 ± 47.
Special characteristics you need to succeed in your own business. Profit
Building Strategies for Business Owners 1989;19(10): 21 ± 2.
Steiner MP, Solem O. Factors for success in small manufacturing firms. J
Small Bus Manage. 1988;26(1):51 ± 6.
The Business Times. Osaka Chamber calls for tie-ups between medium
sized firms, Singapore, (5 July) 1995. p.12.
The Economist. Fruitful stuff . . . 1991;319(7711):66 ± 7.
Wood D. Why new business fail and how to avoid disaster. Corporate
Cashflow 1989;10(8):26 ± 7.