The article written by Prahalad & Mashelkar (2010) entitled Innovation’s Holy Grail and published in the Harvard Business Review is to be compared with another article entitled “Drivers of Success for Market Entry into China and India” written by Johnson & Tellis (2008) and published in the Journal of Marketing. The current discourse hereby aims to find similarities and disparities in these two articles and to present them, as required.
Prahalad & Mashelkar’s (2010) article focused on innovation as the driving force of contemporary organizations in emerging markets, like India and China, which allegedly emphasizes affordability and sustainability. The authors expounded on factors that evidently led to innovation in contemporary organizations in India. These factors include: disrupting traditional business models; modifying capabilities of the organization; as well as tapping new capabilities . On the other hand, the focal point of Johnson & Tellis’ (2008) article is the factors that are deemed drivers of success for organizations which aim to venture into emerging markets like India and China. Therefore, although there could be differences in main points of discussion, there are still similarities inevaluating success factors for international organizations which aim to expand in these two emerging markets.
Concurrently, there are also similarities in terms of identifying that India and China are two of the most significant emerging markets which showcase great potentials for growth. From Prahalad & Mashelkar’s (2010) article, the authors identified that due to innovation factors in India, various technological applications which were previously only available to consumers from developed economies or those with higher income levels are able to access and avail of these applications, new products or services. Among those that were noted included innovations offered in emergency management, pharmaceutical products, and telecommunications services. In Johnson & Tellis’ (2008) article, due to the rapidly growing trends and economies exhibited by both China and India, it was explicitly revealed that “firms are in a rush to enter these markets” (p. 25). However, the findings from the article disclosed that success rates for entries are apparently greater in China, as compared to India and where joint ventures allegedly were exhibited as the most preferrred mode of entry. Thus, although these two emerging markets have exceedingly surpassed other markets in Asia as targets of entry for global organizations’ venture to operate, the diversity in culture, openness of the markets, size of the firms aiming to establish entries, as well as economic and culture proxity should be closely considered as drivers of success. This is a disparate view from innovativeness, which is an internal facet of competitive advantage. Other factors were deemed external; yet relevant to instrumentally contribute to organizations that aim to venture in these emerging markets.
Overall, the two articles have both presented relevant information regarding innovation as a success factor through the experiences disclosed in India; as well as the drivers of success for global organizations which aim to venture into these emerging markets. There have been similarities in identifying both China and India, among Asian markets, as showcasing the greatest growth potentials. Disaparities were noted in terms of main thrusts of each article and in overall perspective. Innovativeness could be considered an internal strength that provides competitive advantage to organizations that manifest the distinctive trait. External factors should be aptly considered to determine the overall success for new entrants or new ventures, as revealed.
Reference List
Johnson, J. & Tellis, G., 2008. Drivers of success for market entry into China and India. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), pp. 1-13.
Prahalad, C. & Mashelkar, R., 2010. Innovation's Holy Grail. Harvard Business Review, pp. 132-141.
