ms11111111WHIHTWTWlllll/lllll 23 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Environmental Determinism vs Environmental Adaptation: Restriction of Strategic Choice in the U.S. Downhill Ski Industry presented by Floyd G . Willoughby has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Management _§U\\C\ {35 \KV Maj professor new Q l MCI/[ran Afr. r ‘ ' "1 ’“rr ' ' ‘ ' 0-12771 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM VS ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION: RESTRICTION OF STRATEGIC CHOICE IN THE U.S. DOWNHILL SKI INDUSTRY By Floyd G. Willoughby A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management Copyright by Floyd G. Willoughby 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM VS ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION: RESTRICTION OF STRATEGIC CHOICE IN THE U.S. DOWNHILL SKI INDUSTRY By Floyd G. Willoughby AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management ABSTRACT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM VS ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION: RESTRICTION OF STRATEGIC CHOICE IN THE U.S. DOWNHILL SKI INDUSTRY By Floyd G. Willoughby This research focuses upon the antecedents of organization strategy. Using the integrative model of White and Hammermish (1981) and the enactment-selection-retention theory of Weick (1969) to concep- tualize the environment, an empirical study is made of the United States downhill ski industry. This field study tests the hypotheses that 1) there is a significant relationship between the consequences of past organization strategies and current organization strategies and 2) there is a relationship between how an organization perceives itself relative to its competitors and current organization strategies. Business Position is conceptualized as the perceptions of mana~ gers while Shaping Factors are considered retained environment (Weick, 1969). Business Position variables have a more temporal, less restric- tive influenCe upon an organization's strategic choices. Business Posi- tion variables have more impact on organization strategies for which the organization has more decision-making freedom, i.e., more freedom to adapt to its environment. These strategies are Change Strategies and Pricing Strategies. Shaping Factors have more permanent, restrictive implications for an organization's strategic choices. Shaping Factors have more influence on the types of organization strategies for which the organization has less decision—making freedom, i.e., organization strategic choice is determined by its environment. These strategies are Geographic Market Area, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts, and Facility and Service Strategies. The questionnaire was formulated using the Delphi technique. Questionnaires were mailed to 292 U.S. downhill ski resorts. A response rate of 32% was obtained after a prompting letter was sent two weeks after the questionnaire mailing. The data analysis was simplified by using cluster analysis pro- cedures to group items into scales. Multiple regression techniques were used to test the hypotheses. The first hypothesis is partially sup— ported by the data but the second hypothesis is not. Business Position variables explain more variance for Pricing Strategies and Geographic Market Area than for Change Strategies, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts, and Facility and Service Strategies. Shaping Factors explain more variance for Pricing Strategies, Geographic Market Area, and Facility and Service Strategies than for Change Strategies and Current Markets and Expansion Efforts. DEDICATION Dedicated with fond memory to A. Fern Persons (1897-1965), teacher, principal, educator who by example taught others the real meaning of education. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The road to obtaining the Ph.D., for me, has been ALL uphill, rutted, and muddy. I owe so much to so many who have greased the wheels, dotted the "1's" and generally showed concern. I wish to officially recognize those whom have unselfishly aided and abetted the cause. The dissertation as a task rates just below spending Super-Bowl Sunday unplugging the toilet. It was not fun, but the learning and per- sonal growth experienced is beyond measurement. The benefits which I have received from the experience are a function of my committee. Larry Foster, as chairman, imposed structure only in the forms of guidance and encouragement. Jack Hunter kept asking the hard questions and forced me to think in terms of the practical aspects of the industry. Mary Van Sell was helpful in her meticulous editing and her suggestions which clarified the text. John Wagner III helped put everything in perspec— tive and gave suggestions about which resources to include. Unlike some horror stories of alienationduring the dissertation process, my experi- ence was the growing from that of student and faculty to that of friends and colleagues working toward a common goal. I feel truly blessed by having the opportunity to work with such caring and talented scholars. Many friends and acquaintances have given much support to me along the way. Henry Tosi was instrumental in my acceptance into the Ph.D. program--he is now off the hook. Bruce Coleman offered helpful iii guidance and advice throughout my stay at MSU. Kathy Jegla helped do mailings and transpose data. Betty Peacock and Peg Cushion are two people who helped grease the administrative wheels and made life in the big bureaucracy bearable. Marie Dumeney was a source of constant sup- port and impeccably typed the final draft. Phil Carter provided the financial support and the opportunity for real teaching experience. Richard Gonzalez provided strategic and timely "attitude adjustments." Daniel Stynes and Edward Mahoney, Parks and Recreational Resources, pro- vided background materials and advice on the downhill ski industry. Chuck Moll, Boyne U.S.A., provided uncommon practitioner insights into the downhill ski industry. Jerry Post, a good friend and colleague at Oakland University, was of immeasurable help in acclimating me to_the computer system at 0U. Gerard Joswiak, Computer Services at Oakland University, responded admirably to my pestering and was invaluable in getting the data on line. I am indebted most of all to CKR. She listened when I needed to vent my frustrations, she counseled when I needed advice, she pushed when I needed to be motivated, she exalted me when I became depressed, she forced me to keep everything in perspective, and in the midst of the whole process she provided a 7 lb. 4 oz. bundle of incentive. iv CHAPTER I CHAPTER II CHAPTER III CHAPTER IV TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Market Positioning Strategy. . . . . Business Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . Business Position-Current Market Positioning Strategy Relationships . . . . . . . . . Shaping Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaping Factors—Current Market Positioning Strategy Relationships . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of Research Industry . . . . . Questionnaire Construction . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forming Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business Position Variables and Current Market Positioning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 13 16 17 20 20 22 22 24 . 26 35 36 . 38 39 39 4O 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER V APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E BIBLIOGRAPHY. Shaping Factors and Current Market Positioning Strategies . Summary. . . . . . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Influences of Business Position Variables and Shaping Factors Upon Current Market Positioning Strategies . Summary of Findings. Limitations of the Research. Delphi Questionnaire . United States Downhill Ski Industry Regional Questionnaire. . . Prompting Letter . Table E-l Page 44 . 45 Divisions Intercorrelations of Business Position Variables . Table E—2 Intercorrelations of Shaping Factors . Table E-3 Intercorrelations of Current Market Positioning Strategies . Table E—4 Correlations of Business Position Variables with Shaping Factors. Table E-5 O 0 Correlations of Business Position Variables with Current Market Positioning Strategies. . . . Table E-6 Correlations of Shaping Factors and Current Market Positioning Strategies. . . vi 0 56 56 58 6O 62 68 69 84 85 . 86 . 87 88 89 90 91 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 LIST OF TABLES Response Rates by Region and State. Response Sample Description . . . Correlations of Slopes. . . . . . Correlations of Crowding. . . . . Correlations of Accommodations. . Correlations of Financial Attributes. Correlations of Unclustered Business Position Variables . . . Correlations of Slope Attributes. . Correlations of Psychographics of Market Segments . . Correlations of Dependence on C/C for FC,ACT. . . . . Correlations of Expansion Efforts . Correlations of Changes of Promotion, Services, Facilities and Activities. Correlations of Changes Directed to Market Segments . Correlations of Lift Prices . . . Correlations of Availability of Services, Facilities and Activities . Alphas for Scales . . . . . . . . Final List of Variables . . . . . Adjusted Regression Coefficients Squared, Adjusted Regression Coefficients and Significance for Business Position Variables and Shaping Factors for Current Market Positioning Strategies . . vii Page 46 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 49 49 . 49 49 50 50 50 51 52 53 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page Table 4.19 Table 4.20 Summary of Betas of Business Position Variables for All Current Market Positioning Strategy Regression Equations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Summary of Betas of Shaping Factors for All Current Market Positioning Strategy Regression Equations. . . . 55 Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 LIST OF FIGURES An Integrative Mbdel of Organizational Performance (White and Hammermish, 1981, p. 218) . . . Research Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enactment-Selection-Retention within Organizations (Source: Weick, 1969) . . . . . . . Predicted Influences of Independent Variables on Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . Decision-Making Freedom, Environmental Influences, and Specific Strategies . . . . . . . ix Page 11 20 21 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The concept of strategy is central to understanding organiza- tions and management (White and Hammermish, 1981). There are as many definitions of strategy as there are organization strategy researchers. The following are typical: (Strategy is) " . . . the determination of basic long— term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out those goals" (Chandler, 1962, p. 16). (Strategy is) " . . . the process of interaction with the environment, accompanied by a process of changing configurations and dynamics” (Ansoff, 1979, p. 4). "The basic characteristics of the match which an organi— zation achieves with its environment is called its strategy" (Hofer and Schendel, 1980, p. 4). "Strategy . . . is the guide for the enterprise's development and indicates how management intends to shape and align the organization's activities to take into account both the external environment and internal constraints" (Thompson and Strickland, 1980, p. 13). In general, strategy guides organization action as the organization deals with its external environment. White and Hammermish (1981) depict strategy as an endogenous variable in an integrative model explaining organizational performance. Combining the points-of—view of industrial economists, organizational theorists and business policy theorists, White and Hammermish represent industry environment and organization position as antecedents of l strategy (see Figure 1.1). The component variables are defined as follows: INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENT is the sum of the specific indus- try's characteristics commonly referred to as industry structure, i.e., number of buyers and sellers, cost structure, product differentiation and barriers to entry (Bain, 1956; Scherer, 1970; Porter, 1976). ORGANIZATION POSITION is the competitive position of the focal organization relative to other industry incumbents. Competitive position includes such dimensions as rela- tive market share, product quality and investment inten- sity (Porter, 1976; Hatten, Schendel, and Cooper, 1978). STRATEGY is how the focal organization chooses to com- pete. STRUCTURE is the particular way in which the focal organization divides tasks and achieves internal coordi- nation to accomplish daily operations. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE is the sum of focal organi- zation outcomes; the results of implementing its strate— gies. The model indicates that: 1) industry environment and organization position directly affect strategy; 2) the interaction of industry environment and organization position affect strategy; 3) there is a relationship between strategy and structure (Chandler, 1962; Berg, 1971; Pitts, 1972; and Murphy, 1977; show that strategy influences structure while Bower, 1972, shows that structure influences strategy); and 4) strategy and structure independently determine organizational performance.. The main strength of the White and Hammermish model is that it combines the concepts of industry structure, competition, strategy and structure in a model predicting organizational perfor- mance. There are two major shortcomings of the White and Hammermish model. First, the model severely limits environmental influences to industry and competition. All other environmental events and ORGANIZATION POSITION ’ -Market Share -Product Line -Product Quality -Price STRATEGY 3 ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORHONCE ' STRUCTURE INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENT -Concentration -8arriers to Entry/Exit -Power of Buyers -Power of Sellers -W of Incumbents -Relative Size of Incumbants -Differing Hgt Values and Objectives Figure 1.1 An Integrative Model of Organizational Performance (White and Hammermish, 1981, p. 218) interorganizational relationships not germane to these two categories are not considered. Dill (1958) defines the organizational environment as the "task environment." The task environment of an organization is that part of the total environment which is potentially relevant to goal setting and goal attainment. Likewise, Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) con— " . every event in the ceptualize an organization's environment as world which has any effect on the activities or outcomes of the organi- zation" (p. 12). The point is that White and Hammermish ignore facets of the environment which have the potential for significantly affecting the organization's strategic choices and/or the effectiveness of the organization's chosen strategies. Second, White and Hammermish do not consider the organization theory literature which hypothesizes mutual influence processes within the organization-environment relationship. 4 Weick (1979), avoiding the traditional organization dependence concept, maintains that an organization "enacts" its environment. An organiza- tion is bombarded with informational inputs which are ambiguous and uncertain. Organizational activities are directed toward establishing a workable level of certainty by narrowing the range of possible out- comes and thus establishing an enacted environment. The enacted environment focuses organizational attention and limits the choices of coping strategies. Formulating strategy consists of resolving the equivocality, the uncertainty due to many possible interpretations and/or possible outcomes, in an enacted environment. Strategy is a function of interlocking behaviors embedded in continually related pro— cesses. Thus present strategy is a function of the organization's environment which is the product of strategies implemented in the past. Industry Environment as an exogenous variable is not included within the scope of this research. This field study is limited to a single industry. Thus the effects of Industry Environment variance is beyond the scope of this research. The broader organization environ- ment is considered the enacted organization environment (Weick, 1979). Organizational Performance is also deleted from the research model. There is great diversity of opinion as to the nature and com- position of organizational effectiveness (Steers, 1977, p. 1). His- torically, researchers have selected measures of effectiveness oppor— tunistically and justified their relevance post-hoc (Cameron and Whetten, 1980). Given this present unresolved controversy and the fact that organizational effectiveness is only peripheral to the main focus of the present research, it is not included in the research model. Since organization structure is an intervening variable when organization performance is considered, organization structure is also dropped from the model. Organization strategy is the dependent variable in this research. Organization strategy is limited to current market position- ing strategies. The rationale for this restriction is two-fold. First, in a highly competitive industry, incumbents are reluctant to reveal any information perceived relative to competitive advantage. For example, the downhill ski industry is a recreational industry which is considered a high risk industry by financial institutions. If an organization has been successful in securing private investment capital and thus avoiding the high interest rates of conventional financing, the source of that private capital is a well guarded secret. Any amount of guaranteed anonymity does not produce substantial openness. Therefore members of an competitive industry are very secretive about financial resource information and internal operations. On the other hand, what products/services an organization offers and how it markets those products/services are highly visible. Since market strategies are so observable, data are freely given to researchers. The above observa— tions are substantiated by personal interviews with service industry managers. Second, there is a logically assumed single purpose of mar- keting strategies, i.e., to attract more consumers to the organiza- tion's produCts/services. Conversely, other organization strategies such as financial strategies may be formulated and implemented for any number of reasons, i.e., to take advantage of income tax benefits, to enhance potential investor perceptions, to finance growth, and/or to glorify managerial performance. 6 The focus of this research is to empirically test the hypotheses that 1) there is a significant relationship between the consequences of past organization strategies and current organization strategies, and 2) there is a relationship between how the organization perceives itself relative to its competitors and current organization strategies. These hypotheses are fully developed in Chapter II. The research model depicts Shaping Factors and Business Position variables as influencing Current Market Positioning Strategies (see Figure 1.2). Shaping Factors are defined as the consequences of past SHAPING FACTORS ~11 BUSINESS. § CURRENT POSITION I MARKET POSITIONING STRATEGIES Figure 1.2 Research Model organizational strategies, managerial values and managerial experiences. To the extent that Shaping Factors are irreversible, they represent part of the enacted environment and impose upon the organization constrain- ing Current Market Positioning Strategies. Business Position variables are defined as the focal organization member's perceptions of how the focal organization compares with its competitors on a variety of physi- cal, facility, and marketing dimensions. Business Position variables are also part of the enacted environment and influence Current Market Positioning Strategies. Specific predictions are made as to the relative influence of Shaping Factors and Business Position variables on particular Current Market Positioning Strategies. Summary This research focuses upon the antecedents of organization strategy. Using the integrative model of White and Hammermish (1981) and the enactment—selection-retention theory of Weick (1969) to con- ceptualize the organizational environment, an empirical study is made of the United States downhill ski industry. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the pertinent literature and presents the theoretical basis for the research. The major variables of Business Position, Shaping Factors and Strategy are discussed. The hypotheses are stated. Organizations may be viewed as open systems which are affected in varying degrees by their environments (Katz and Kahn, 1978). There are two schools of thought concerning the organization-environment relationship: environmental determinism versus environmental adapta— tion. Environmental determinism is the basic position of organizational ecologists. Organizational ecologists seek to explain the abundance and scarcity of organization forms in terms of environmental variance which determines or Severely limits the organizational forms which can survive. Aldrich and Pfeffer (1976) state that the variations between organizations are largely due to variations in environments, chance, luck, and/or conflict. There are usually severe limitations upon mana- gerial autonomy since many organizations may not be powerful enough to influence their environments. In addition, limitations can stem from economic and legal barriers to entry and perceptual distortions which bias most organizational decisions. From a population ecology perspec- tive therefore, strategy is largely predetermined and a manager has very little discretion in dealing with environmental change. For example, a ski resort confronted with the lower prices of a close competitor has no option but to lower prices or lose business. The "environmental determinism" approach is in contrast to the "adaptive" school of thought. "Adaptive" theorists (March and Simon, 1958; Levine and White, 1961; Emery and Trist, 1965; Evan, 1966; Terre- berry, 1968; Weick, 1969; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; and others) con- tend that organizational variation is a function of how organizations choose to interact with their environments. There is more than one alternative strategy and the variation among organizations is a function of different organizations choosing different strategies. For example, the ski resort in the above example may choose to meet the competitor's price competition by increasing advertising, running a sales promotion, offering more services and activities, buying out the competitor or simply doing nothing. Even considering that the options of some organizations may be more limited than others, the adaptive explanation of organization variation may seem the more plausible. Child (1972), building on the concept of "enacted environment" (Weick, 1969), maintains that, "Organi- zational decision-makers take positive steps to define and manipulate their own concerns of the environment" (p. 8). Thus, for the environ- mental adaptation school, variation between organizations is a function of organization strategy. The two schools seem mutually exclusive, yet observation of the downhill ski industry suggests that an alternative explanation of organizational variation which involves a "fit" between the two schools exists. Environmental determinism considers the variation of 10 environment (little managerial decision-making freedom) to be the critical variable for explaining organizational variation while environ- mental adaptation considers strategic choice (great managerial decision- making freedom) to be the chief determinent of organizational variation. An alternative approach is to view the two schools at opposite poles of relative managerial decision—making freedom. At one pole the degree to which current managerial decision-making is limited is solely a func— tion of previous managerial decisions. To the extent that previous decisions (chosen strategies) are not easily reversible and place long— term resource restrictions upon an organization, choices of future strategies may be severely constrained. Conversely, if previous strategies are reversible and do not have lasting implications for an organization, the choice of strategies may be fairly unlimited. Current Market Positioning Strategy The managerial activities included within the strategic manage— ment process are goal formation, environmental analysis, strategy for- mation, strategy implementation and strategic control (Schendel and Hofer, 1979, p. 14). Weick (1979) conceptualizes the strategic manage- ment process as having only three major activities: enactment, selec- tion, and retention. Enactment is the imposition of meanings on the environment. Subsequently, these meanings influence organizational activities. Enactment is a "bracketing" activity involving a percep- tual cycle. In this perceptual cycle, a manager's perception of the organization's environment is derived from physical or social cues which are organized, hence made sense of, according to the manager's cognitive map of the world. This cognitive map is the product of the product of the manager's prior experiences and learning. The ll organization's environment, then, exists as the manager sees it through past experiences, personal values, and current attitudes about the world. Selection involves interpretation and decision-making activi- ties. According to Weick, managerial sense-making primarily occurs during selection, even though some interpretation occurs during enact- ment. Managers interpret the enacted environment by assigning retro- spective meanings based on recently experienced environmental cues. Retention is the collection of enacted environments in the form of labeled variables and causal connections. This "reservoir of beliefs" is then fed back, chiefly in the form of cause maps, into the enactment and selection processes (see Figure 2.1). J, 3» 1,. ENACTMENT SELECTION RETENTION A a . ' Storing of Selective I Interpretation Beliefs and Decision-Making Perception Figure 2.1 Enactment—Selection-Retention within Organizations (Source: Weick, 1969) There are three major implications of enactment-selection- retention for strategic management. First, since the three activities are cognitive processes, they are going on simultaneously and continu- ously within the organization. For example, a manager of an organiza- tion may perceive and assign importance to the actions of certain com- petitors, general economic phenomena, and/or local events and make decisions on new target markets and prices while taking into considera— tion the organization's previous strategies. Thus strategic management cannot be a clearly identifiable phenomenon. In many cases, 12 organizational action must be taken to imply that the organization has undertaken some sort of strategic management activity. Second, current strategy is largely a function of past strategy. Organizations tend to do that which has been successful in the past regardless of environ- mental change. "Natural selection" (Aldrich and Pfeffer, 1976, and Aldrich, 1979) is explained in terms of the "strategic inertia" of organizations (Weick, 1979, p. 201). Third, present strategies are inevitably based on past environments, although the "past" may, in fact, have occurred quite recently. This research is concerned with current, business unit, market positioning strategy. Business unit strategy is the strategy of a small business having only a single line of products/services or as a smaller organization within a larger corporation (Steiner, Miner, and Gray, 1982, p. 20-23). Market positioning is the selection of a speci- fic pattern of market concentration which will afford the maximum opportunity to the organization to achieve its leadership objective (Kotler, 1976, p. 58). Preliminary research on the downhill ski industry in the United States reveals that organizations compete in five market positioning strategy categories each containing various strategic choice possibili- ties. These five categories are l) geographic market area, 2) current markets and expansion efforts, 3) change strategies, 4) pricing strate— gies, and 5) facility and service strategies. Geographic Market Area is defined as the largest geographic area in which an organization is currently implementing its marketing strategies. Current Markets and Expansion Efforts are the degrees to which an organization currently appeals to and is committing organizational resources to attract skiers 13 within each of nine skier market segments. Change Strategies are the degrees to which an organization is making changes in pricing, pack- ages, promotion, services, facilities, and activities and the degree to which it is directing these changes to market segments. Pricing Strate— gies are the current lift ticket prices and price structure complexity of an organization. Facility and Service Strategies are the avail- ability of services, facilities and activities; length of season; days of the week open; night skiing availability; and snmeaking capability. The definitions and measurements of the specific strategies are pre- sented in Chapter III. Porter (1980) and Steiner, Miner, and Gray (1982) suggest that of the five strategy categories, Change Strategies and Pricing Strate- gies have the fewest implications for future decision—making and thus provide the most strategic choice flexibility. Knowledge of the down— hill ski industry indicates that the strategic decisions within the categories of Geographic Market Area, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts and Facility and Service Strategies may be limited by previous strategic decisions such as an organization's location, physical attri- butes and size. Business Position Business Position is the focal organization member's perception of how the focal organization compares with its competitors on a variety of dimensions. White and Hammermish (1981) state that the con- tributions of industrial economists are most evident in research on business position. Empirical research has mainly concentrated upon organization size and profitability, relative market share and l4 profitability, the stability of market share over time and strategic groups within market structures. Hall and Weiss' (1967) study of 341 Fortune 500 organizations indicates that larger organizations tend to have higher rates of return. This result is interpreted to mean that there are significant capital requirements which act as barriers to entry and that these barriers to entry have a greater effect on profitability than does industry concen- tration. Schoeffler, Buzzell, and Heary (1974) using PIMS data to study 600 business units find that market share is a major influence on pro- fitability. Organizations having market shares of thirty-six percent or more have three times the return on investment of organizations which have less than seven percent market shares. Larger organizations seem to derive greater advantages from strong market positions than do smaller organizations. According to Schoeffler et al., larger organiza- tions more adequately support strong market positions with greater amounts of marketing and research and development. These findings are substantiated by Gale (1972). In a study of 106 organizations in either industries of low or high concentration, Gale (1972) reports that the effect of market share tends to be greater when organizations are relatively large, the industry is highly concentrated, or when there is moderate growth within the industry. Shepard (1972) in study- ing a sample of 231 organizations (118 producer goods organizations and 113 consumer goods organizations) finds that market share is the main determinate of profitability and that industry concentration and bar— riers to entry area of secondary importance. 15 Caves and Porter (1978) in the study of 470 manufacturing organizations find that non-price competition destabilizes market shares. Instability increases with the increase in research and development and with the time needed to develop new products. Newman (1978) in studying 500 organizations in thirty-four producer—goods industries, proposes the concept of "strategic groups." A strategic group is a group of organizations which have highly similar corporate strategies. The strategic group is a stable element of market structure. "Strategic group differences are also significant elements of market structure because strategic choice affects the preference system employed by the organization's decision makers in selecting short-term policies." Hetrogeniety of strategic groups within an industry frustrates communication and agreement on short-term goals for the industry and increases the difficulties of enforcing any consensus reached. Industrial economists have tended to use archival measures of business position. There is only an implication that these measures; market share, size, non—price competition, etc. result from organiza- tion strategy. Newman (1978) suggests that market positioning strate- gies of organizations determine strategic groupings and market posi- tions within an industry. There are two important issues of considera- tion. First, the preponderance of the research on business position is based upon producer—goods industries. The implications of Scherer (1970) and Newman (1978) are that market positioning strategies affect business position more than business position affects market positioning strategies. However, there appear to be some significant differences between producer-goods industries and consumer service industries which l6 tend to reverse this cause and effect relationship. Fitzsimmons and Sullivan (1982) state that in a service organization the service is a time perishable commodity, there are no distribution channels, produc— tion and consumption are inseparable, consumers are participants in the ' production/consumption function, and site selection (relative to the location of consumers) is more critical than for a manufacturing organi- zation. Thus, the service organization determines its competitors and business position by the choice of location. Second, Silverman (1970) states that " . . . 'objective factors' such as technology and market structure are literally meaningful only in terms of the sense that is attached to them by those who are concerned and the end to which they are related" (p. 37). This position is also suggested by Weick (1979). It is imperative that business position is measured in terms of organi- zational member perceptions rather than using an "objective" measure such as market share. Since this dissertation is studying service organizations which have already made a commitment to specific loca— tions, business position is considered an independent rather than a dependent variable. Business Position—Current Market Positioning Strategy Relationships In a highly competitive industry, rivalry among organizations takes the familiar forms of tactics such as price competition, advertis— ing battles, product introductions, and increased customer service (Porter, 1980). Tactics or immediate, short-term strategic responses (Steiner, Miner, and Gray, 1982) usually represent an action-reaction pattern. One organization's tactics are quickly and easily countered by rivals (Porter, 1980). This may indicate that an organization is l7 relatively free in its choice of these types of strategies. It is pro- posed that strategies which involve relatively free choice are influ- enced to a greater degree by perceptions of competition than those strategies with lesser freedom of choice. This results in the follow— ing hypothesis: I H1: Business Position variables influence Change Strate- gies and Pricing Strategies more than Geographic Market Area, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts and Facility and Service Strategies. ShapingiFactors Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) propose that organizational environ— ments are not given entities. Instead, they are created by the process of attention and interpretation. Organizations are constrained by their environments whenever responses to situations are not random. Organi- zational behavior is almost inevitably constrained by physical reali- ties, social influence, information and cognitive capacity, and/or personal preferences. The organization-environment relationship is one of resource exchange. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) further suggest that "organizations frequently operate on their environments to make them more stable or more munificent" (p. 18). Since organizations are dependent on their environments for resources, one function of manage- ment is to guide organizational actions so that the environments pro- vide, whenever possible, stable and abundant resources. The organization-environment resource exchange has three dimen- sions. First, the relative magnitude of the exchange is the ratio of total inputs to total outputs existing in the exchange. An organization requiring one primary input from one or a few similar suppliers is more dependent upon its suppliers than an organization requiring multiple 18 inputs from many different suppliers. An organization having only one product/service which it markets to one market segment is more depen- dent upon its customers than an organization having many products/ services which it markets to many market segments. Second, resource criticality is the extent of the organization's ability to continue to function in the absence of the resource or market. An organization which requires scarcer resources for which acquisition is more uncer— tain is less likely to survive than an organization requiring more abundant resources. Third, the discretion over a resource is the capa- city of the organization to determine the allocation and use of the resource. Discretion includes the ability of the organization to con- trol access to, or possession of a resource, and also the ability to make and enforce rules relative to the allocation of resources. Hannan and Freeman (1978) combine the theories of organization ecology and resource dependence into an "adaptive perspective" of organizational survival. Unlike organizational ecologists, who are concerned with the equilibrium of organizational populations, Hannan and Freeman (1978) and Freeman and Hannan (1983) are concerned with the dynamics of organizational adaptation. They indicate that the equilib— rium distribution analysis of organizations is appropriate when longi- tudinal data are available, competitive pressures are strong, and when environments do not change. Equilibrium analysis is not appropriate for studying the underlying dynamics of organizational adaptation. Hannan and Freeman (1978) and Freeman and Hannan (1983) draw upon the niche width theory of Levins (1978). "The (realized) niche of a population is defined as that area in constraint space (the space whose dimensions are levels of resources) in which the p0pulation 19 outnumbers all other local populations" (Hannan and Freeman, 1978, p. 152). An organization is classified as a "generalist" or as a "specialist." A generalist organization is an organization which has a broad niche, is more reliant on a wide variety of resources, maintains excess capacity, and is more suited to rapidly changing environments. A specialist organization is an organization which has a more narrow niche, commits most of its resources to a few strategies for dealing with the environment, has a more limited range of tolerance for environ- mental variance, and is thus better suited to more stable environments. A specialist organization is able to outcompete a generalist organiza- tion over a specialized range of outcomes. In the study of 738 California restaurants, Hannan and Freeman, 1983, show that the specialist organization is more effective in high variation environments only if the variations are relatively of short duration. Shaping factors are the consequences of past organization strate- gies. They influence an organization's ability to control resources critical to its survival. Critical resources include physical entities, knowledge of the industry and markets, market segments (customers), and customer perceptions of the organization. Unlike Business Position variables which may have temporal influences upon managerial decision- making, Shaping Factors have more permanent consequences for present and future strategic decisions. Shaping Factors may tend to "bound" an organization's strategic decisions. A particular combination of Shaping Factors defines an organization's optimal strategic decision space and thus limits the strategic options available to that organization. For example, an organization having only moderate physical attributes may be 20 limited in the size of the geographic area within which it is capable of attracting customers. From a skier's perspective, excessive adver- tising cannot make a mountain out of a molehill. Shapinngactors-Current Market Positioning Strategy Relationship Shaping Factors by having more restrictive implications for strategic decision-making may have greater influences upon the types of strategies in which an organization has less decision-making freedom. It is proposed that Shaping factors have a greater influence on Geo- graphic Market Area, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts and Facility and Service Strategies (see Figure 2.2). This results in the following hypothesis: H2: Shaping Factors influence Geographic Market Area, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts and Facility and Service Strategies more than Change Strategies and Pricing Strategies. Current Market Positioning Business Position Shaping Factor Strategy Grouping Influence Influence Geographic Market Area . Lesser Greater Current Markets/Expansion Efforts Lesser Greater Change Strategies Greater Lesser Pricing Strategies Greater Lesser Facility/Service Strategies Lesser Greater Figure 2.2 Predicted Influences of Independent Variables on Dependent Variables Summary Enactment—selection-retention theory (Weick, 1969) is the basis for conceptualizing Business Position as the perceptions of managers. 21 Shaping Factors may be thought of as retained environment (Weick, 1969). Business Position variables have a more temporal, less restric- tive influence upon an organization's strategic choices. Shaping Fac- tors have more permanent, restrictive implications for an organiza- tion's strategic choices. Business Position variables have a greater impact on the types of organization strategies for which there is more decision-making freedom. Shaping Factors have more influence on the types of organization strategies for which there is less decision- making freedom (see Figure 2.3). Decision-flaking Freedom Environmental Influence (Adaptation) (Determinism) High Low Business Position Change Strategies Pricing Strategies Shaping Factors Geographic Mkt Area Current Markets and Expansion Efforts Facility and Service Strategies Figure 2.3 Decision-Making Freedom, Environmental Influences, and Specific Strategies CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter discusses the methodology used in this research. The selection of the sample industry, questionnaire construction, the questionnaire, the data collection and data analysis procedures are dis- cussed. Selection of Research Industry The choice of an appropriate industry for this research is deter- mined by the research model. Shaping Factors and Business Position are independent variables and Current Market Positioning Strategies are the dependent variables. Significant correlations between Shaping Factors and Current Market Positioning Strategies are hypothesized. Correlation between an independent variable and a dependent variable is a function of the variance of the independent variable (Nunnally, 1978, p. 140). An appropriate industry is one in which there is variance in current market positioning strategies. There is a relationship between strategy and competitiveness within an industry (Khandwalla, 1977, p. 409). The form and intensity of competitive conduct within an industry are shaped by strategic choices which competing organizations make. Competition makes multiple demands on an organization. These demands are: l) the need for quick, coordinated adaptation to the competitive moves of rivals, 2) the need 22 23 for creative and innovative moves to gain an edge over rivals, 3) the need for efficiency of operations, and 4) the need to protect the organization from future deprivations. Porter (1976) states that intensity of competition within an industry is a function of structural characteristics of the industry which change slowly over time. The greater the diversity of form of ownership, managerial ideology, and organizational goals; the greater the intensity of competition. The more numerous the competitors and the lower the growth of demand for the industry; the greater the intensity of competition. The more that capacity must be augmented in large amounts, the higher the fixed costs, the lower the barriers to entry and the greater the barriers to exit; the greater the intensity of competi- tion. If Khandwalla and Porter are correct, an industry high on these characteristics is an industry displaying high intensity of competition and thus exhibiting a wide variance of strategies. The downhill ski industry within the United States meets all of Porter's qualifications for high intensity of competition. There is a high diversity of forms of ownership, managerial ideology and numerous competitors in the United States ski industry. Ski areas range from small "mom and pop" units with a few rope tows to corporations owning and operating year-round resort complexes (Leuschner, 1970; The White- book of Ski Areas, 1981). There are numerous competitors within the United States ski industry. The Whitebook of Ski Areas (1981) lists 620 downhill ski areas in the United States. The downhill ski industry in the United States is a low growth industry. Skier demand growth is estimated to be seven to ten percent with ski areas facing "the dilemma of a limited market" (Ski Area Management Magazine, January 1982, 24 p. 10). Variance in utilization ranges from over one-hundred percent on weekends to less than thirty percent on weekdays (Goeldner and Stanley, 1980). Capacity is augmented in large amounts. To be cost effective, facilities such as lodging, restaurants, and lifts must be added in large increments. Fixed costs within the industry are high. "Ski areas are capital intensive facilities that require long lead times for design, approval, and construction (Goeldner and Stanley, 1980, p. 112). There are no longer low barriers to entry in the downhill ski industry. Leuschner (1970) observes, "Low entry barriers are consistent with observed overcapacity, low average profits and fairly high number of entrants" (p. 6). This situation has been altered by the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Rare II (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation Program) (Goeldner and Stanley, 1980, p. 116-117). Entry is now restric- ted by the availability of preferable sites. However, barriers to exit are substantial. "Leaving the industry is probably difficult because there are not many alternative uses for ski area equipment, buildings, and land. Areas go bankrupt but still continue to operate" (Leuschner, 1970, p. 6). Questionnaire Construction The questionnaire design process included interviews, utilization of the Delphi Technique and actual questionnaire construction. Field interviews were conducted at seven downhill ski resorts in northern lower Michigan in July-August 1982. The resorts selected offered the greatest possible diversity of business position (organizations inter- viewed include the recognized leader in Michigan and a resort that was currently operating under Chapter 11), shaping factors (organizations 25 interviewed included the organization possessing greatest vertical rise and longest run in lower Michigan and an organization having the least of these attributes) and potential geographical marketing area (organi- zations interviewed were marketing nationally, regionally and/or locally) and for uniqueness (organizations interviewed included a closely owned corporation operating entirely on private land, a pro- fessionally managed resort and a public corporation operating entirely on national forest land). A wide variety of personnel were interviewed including a CEO, resort managers, a technical expert (resort design and snowmaking), marketing executives and a competitive skier who had become a slope manager. Knowledge of many ski resorts in the United States and insights into the industry were gained from these interviews. Determination of the questionnaire content was achieved by the Delphi Technique. "The Delphi Technique is a method for the systematic solicitation and collation of judgments on a particular topic through a set of carefully designed sequential questionnaires interspensed with summarized information and feedback of opinions derived from earlier reSponses" (Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson, 1975, p. 10). Open-ended questionnaires were sent to five industry experts previously interviewed whom had agreed to participate. Data for the feedback report and a second questionnaire were formulated from the participants' responses. The second questionnaire asked the participants to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the information collated from the previous responses and to make any additions or deletions. Only two iterations were necessary before the participants did not make any additions or deletions and agreed with information as listed (see Appendix A). The 26 final questionnaire was then constructed using the experts' Opinions as to what was important to include in the questionnaire. Questionnaire The sixteen page questionnaire consists of a cover page and questions measuring the major categories of variables; Business Posi- tion, Shaping Factors and Current Market Positioning Strategies (see Appendix B). The cover page states the purpose of the research, states the importance of respondent participation and guarantees respondent anonymity. The major categories of variables and specific variables are defined below. Specific questions and response formats are pre- sented. BUSINESS POSITION is defined as the focal organization member's perception of how the focal organization compares with its competitors on a variety of physical, facility, and marketing dimensions. The respondent is first asked to list the focal organization's competitors. The respondent is then asked "Considering these competitors as a whole, how does your organization compare to them?" The appropriate response is indicated by circling one of the numbers on the scale (l=Competition has a distinct advantage, 2=Competition has a slight advantage, 3=There is no competitive advantage, 4=We have a slight advantage, 5=We have a distinct advantage) for each of the following items: Direction of slopes, Length of slopes, Steepness of slopes, Moguled slopes, Crowding on slopes, Lift capacity, Lift line waiting, Accessibility of resort, Travel time for skiers, After ski entertainment, Lodging at resort, Lodging nearby, Prices of lift tickets, Variety of packages offered, X-Country skiing, Recreational racing events, Rapport with nearby 27 community, Ease of obtaining finance capital, Debt/Equity ratio, Unit costs and Unutilized capacity. SHAPING FACTORS are defined as the consequences of past organiza- tion strategies, managerial Values, and managerial experiences. Shaping Factors are measured by either extracting information from The Whitebook of Ski Areas, 1981, or by questionnaire responses. Physical Resources are the physical assets which the resort possesses due its immediate, specific location. These resources have to do with the resort proper. Vertical Rise is the difference in feet between the elevation of the top of the uppermost slope and the ele- vation at the bottom of the lowest slope (roughly the height of the mountain or hill). (Whitebook listing). Longest Run is the distance in tenths of miles which a skier may travel skiing from the top of the uppermost slope to the bottom of the lowest slope. (Whitebook listing). Average Annual Snowfall is the average annual snow- fall, measured in inches, at the resort. (Whitebook listing). Maximum Comfort Capacity is the number of skiers whom the resort can comfortably accommodate. It is the sum total of acceptable skier density per acre of slope mul— tiplied by the acreage per slope for all slopes (Farwell and Associates, 1977). Respondents are asked "What is the maximum comfort capacity of your slopes?" Respon- dents reply by indicating the number of persons. resort 28 Organization Demographics are defined as characteristics of the which are not physical resources. Percentage of Facilities on Government Land is the percentage of total resort acreage which is rented from federal or state governments. Respondents are asked "What percentage of your facilities (including slopes) is on state or federally owned land?" Respondents circle the appropriate percentage (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%). Miles from Metro Area is the distance in miles from the closest metropolitan area (population 100,000 or greater) to the resort. Respondents are asked "What is the closest metropolitan area (population 100,000 or greater) to your resort?" After naming the metropolitan area, respondents are asked "How many miles away is this metropolitan area from your resort?" Respondents reply by indicating the number of miles. Lift Capacity of the resort is the total number of skiers per hour whom the resort is capable of mechanically transporting up its slopes. (Whitebook listing). Number of Full-Time Employees is the total number of persons (who work more than thirty—five hours per week) employed by the resort during the skiing season. Respon- dents are asked "Considering the operations of your resort during the ski season, how many full—time paid members do you employ? (If an employee works more than 35 hours/week for most of the season, count him/her as a full-time 29 employee.)". Resondents reply by indicating the number of full-time employees. Form of Ownership is the type of financial ownership of the resort. Respondents are asked to circle one of the following: Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, Private Corporation, Public Corporation, Cooperative, or Municipal Ownership. Organization Perceptions are the focal organization member's specific perceptions of the focal organization's environment. Percep- tions included within this shaping factor are psychographic segmentation of skier markets, life cycle stage of the downhill ski industry, focal organization's dependence upon the closest community and weekday/weekend customer perceptions of focal resort attributes. Psychographic Sggmentation of Skier Markets are the focal organization member's perceptions of the relative importance of six resort attributes to nine skier market segments. Respondents are asked how important they think Quality (Quality of resort; including restaurants, lodg- ing and entertainment), Crowding (Crowding of lift lines and on slopes or trails), Pricing (Prices of lift tickets, lodging, restaurants, and entertainment), Slopes/trails (Slope or trail quality, difficulty and variety), Travel (Travel time from home to resort) and Activities (Special events, festivals, etc.) are to each of nine skier seg- ments. Skier segments are defined as Expert Skiers (Skiers with high skiing skill; including advanced skiers), Single Skiers (Unmarried; unattached skiers), 30 Family Skiers (Married couples with or without children and single parents with children), Group Skiers (Skiers whose visits are primarily with a group), Weekday Skiers (Skiers visiting the resort on weekdays/evenings), Week- end Skiers (Skiers visiting the resort on weekend/holidays), Vacation Skiers (Skiers whose visits primarily exceed three days), X-Country Skiers (Skiers participating in cross-country skiing), and Recreational Racers (Skiers participating in competitive skiing events). Respondents are asked to circle the appropriate response on the scale (1=Not Important, 2=Not Very Important, 3=Moderately Important, 4=Important, or 5=Extremely Important). Dependence on the Closest Community is the degree to which the focal organization members perceive the resort as relying upon the closest community for providing auxili— ary facilities, services, activities, and customers. The respondent is asked "To what extent does your organiza- tion depend on the closest community to provide the fol- lowing?" The respondent circles the appropriate number on the scale (l=Not at All, 2=Slight1y, 3=Moderately, 4=Mostly, or 5=Entirely) for Lodging, Restaurants, After ski entertainment and Skiers. CURRENT MARKET POSITIONING STRATEGIES are the strategies which the focal organization is presently implementing to customers and poten- tial customers for the purpose of producing revenues. Current marketing strategies are the geographical area in which the focal organization is marketing itself, its current skier market segments, its expansion skier 31 market segments, changes in marketing strategies, changes directed to skier market segments, length of season, days it operates, its snow- making capability, night skiing availability, its current prices, cur- rent services offered, current facilities and current activities offered. Geographical Market Area is the largest geographical area in which the focal organization is currently imple- menting its marketing strategies. The respondent is asked "What does your organization consider its largest geographical market?" The respondent answers the question by circling one of the following: "Local," "Regional," or "National." Current Market Segments are the degrees to which the focal organization currently appeals to each of the nine skier market segments. The respondent is asked "To what extent does your organization currently appeal to the skier segments listed below?" The respondent answers the question by circling the appropriate number on the scale (1=Not at All, 2=Slightly, 3=Moderately, 4=Mostly, 5= Entirely) for each of the skier market segments (Expert Skiers, Single Skiers, Family Skiers, Group Skiers, Weekday Skiers, Weekend Skiers, Vacation Skiers, X-Country Skiers, and Recreational Racers). Expansion Market Segments are the degrees to which the focal organization is currently directing expansion efforts to each of the nine skier market segments. The respondent is asked "To what extent is your organization 32 directing expansion efforts toward the following skier markets?" The appropriate response is indicated by cir- cling a number on the scale (1=Not at All, 2=Slightly, 3=Moderately, 4sMost1y, 5=Entirely) for each of the nine skier market segments (Expert Skiers, Single Skiers, Family Skiers, Group Skiers, Weekday Skiers, Weekend Skiers, Vacation Skiers, X-Country Skiers, and Recreational Skiers). Current Marketing Changes are the degrees to which the focal organization is making changes in prices (Changes in the pricing of lift tickets, lodging, food, equipment rental, ski lessons, and/or other ski related services), packages (Changes in combination of offerings of lift tic- kets, lodging, food, length of stay, etc.), promotions (Changes in the methods you use to promote your resort), services (Changes in offerings like nursery, video-taping, ski maintenance, shuttle bus, etc.), facilities (Changes in lodging, food facilities, slope lighting, additional slopes, greater lift capacity, cross-country trails, etc.) and/or activities (Changes in after ski activities, fes- tivals, recreational racing, special events, etc.). The respondent is asked "Considering the last three skiing seasons as your frame of reference, to what extent has your organization made changes in each of the categories listed below?" The respondent is asked to circle the appropriate number on the scale (1=No Change, 2=Slight Change, 3=Moderate Change, 4=Substantial Change, 5=Great Change) for each of the six categories. 33 Changes Directed to Skier Market Segments are the degrees to which the focal organization is directing its current marketing changes toward specific skier market segments. The respondent is asked to what extent their organization directs its marketing changes (Price Changes, Package Changes, Promotion Changes, Service Changes, Facility Changes, and Activity Changes) to each of the nine skier market segments (Expert Skiers, Single Skiers, Family Skiers, Group Skiers, Weekday Skiers, Vacation Skiers, X—Country Skiers, and Recreational Racers). The respondent answers the question by circling the appr0p- riate number. Prices are the listed prices of lift tickets for the focal organization. This variable is the sum total of prices in twelve categories: Adult/Weekday, Adult/Halfday/ Weekday, Adult/Night/Weekday, Adult/Weekend, Adult/Half- day/Weekend, Adult/Night/Weekend, Child/Weekday, Child/ Halfday/Weekday, Child/Night/Weekday, Child/Weekend, Child/Halfday/Weekend, and Child/Night/Weekend (Whitebook listing). Price Structure Complexity is the extent to which the focalorganization has current, published prices listed in all possible price categories. Possible price cate- gories are Adult/Weekday, Adult/Halfday/Weekday, Adult/ Night/Weekday, Adult/Weekend, Adult/Halfday/Weekend, Adult/Night/Weekend, Child/Weekday, Child/Halfday/Weekday, Child/Night/Weekday, Child/Weekend, Child/Halfday/Weekend, 34 Child/Night/Weekend, Student/Weekday, Student/Halfday/ Weekday, Student/Night/Weekday, Student/Weekend, Student/ Halfday/Weekend, Student/Night/Weekend, Senior Citizen/ Weekday, Senior Citizen/Halfday/Weekday, Senior Citizen/ Night/Weekday, Senior Citizen/Weekend, Senior Citizen/ Halfday/Weekend, and Senior Citizen/Night/Weekend (White: 222k listing). Services is the extent to which the focal organization has currently available services listed under all possible service categories. Possible service categories are down- hill ski rental, cross—country ski rental, ski mainten- ance, skiing instruction, shuttle service, auto rental, nursery/day care, bus service, and acceptance of credit cards (Whitebook listing). Facilities is the extent to which the focal organiza— tion has currently available services listed under all possible facility categories. Possible facility cate— gories are lodging, condo rental, full service restaurant, cafeteria, snack bar, bar, lounge, disco, ski shop, spe- cialty shop, bank, jacuzzi, indoor tennis court, handball court, racketball court, squash court, outdoor pool, indoor pool, deli/grocery, liquor store, coin operated racing, sauna, athletic club, movie theater, and drugstore (Whitebook listing). Activities is the extent to which the focal organiza- tion has currently available services listed under all possible activity categories. Possible activity 35 categories are cross-country skiing, ski touring, ice skating, ski jumping, sledding, sleigh/hayrides, tobog- ganning,tubing, snowmobiling, NASTAR, festival, and ice fishing (Whitebook listing). Length of Season is the number of calendar days dur- ing which the focal organization operates its skiing facilities (Whitebook listing). Days Open is the number of days per week on which the focal organization operates its skiing facilities (Whitef Ibggk_listing). Snowmaking Capability is the percentage of the focal organization's total slope/trail area for which snowmak- ing equipment is utilized (Whitebook listing). Night Skiing is the availability of night skiing (mea— sured in hours per day) available at the focal organiza- tion's resort (Whitebook listing). Data Collection The research questionnaire was mailed to 303 downhill ski resorts during October 1-10, 1982. The resorts were selected from The Whitebook of Ski Areas (1981). The population sampled consists of all listed resorts in the North Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, MiChigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), all listed resorts in two states (Vermont and New Hampshire) of the Northeast Region and all listed resorts in two states (Colorado and Utah) of the West Region. A cover letter (see Appendix C) stating the purpose of the research, the importance of participant response and the guarantee of anonymity accompanied the questionnaire. An addressed, 36 stamped envelope was included to facilitate the ease of response. The respondent's organization was deleted from the potential prompting list when the response was received. A prompting letter (see Appendix D) was mailed on November 1, 1982 to all organizations not responding by that date. No responses were received after danuary l, 1983. The response rate (after correction for undeliverables) was 32%. Data Analysis Procedures The data consist of measures of 450 separate variables. The number of variables is reduced by cluster analysis procedures. The resulting scales are then tested for internal consistency. The hypothe~ ses are addressed by using the statistical technique of multiple regres- sion. Cluster analysis is appropriate for summarizing information con- tained in a large number of variables into a smaller set of composite variables with a minimum loss of information. Taking advantage of redundancy within the data and the correlations among variables, a smaller number of variables partially replaces the original set of vari- ables. Cluster analysis consists of methods of classifying variables into groups. A cluster consists of variables which correlate more highly with one another than with variables in other clusters (Nunnally, 1978, p. 429). Variables are placed in clusters by inspecting correla- tional matrices and then collecting variables to take advantage of redundancy and consistency within the data. Using this "cut and try" method, the list of original variables is condensed into a smaller num— ber of clusters or scales. The appropriate measure of internal consistency of the scales is Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951). This measure requires only a single 37 measurement and provides a unique estimate of reliability for the given measurement (Carmines and Zeller, 1979, p. 44). The value of Cronbach's alpha is dependent on the number of variables (within each scale) and the average intervariable correlation (Carmines and Zeller, 1979, p. 45). A rule of thumb is that the value of alpha should not be below .80 for widely used scales (Carmines and Zeller, 1979, p. 51). This rule is relaxed in this research-due to original nature of the question- naire and the fact that the reliability estimate considers situational factors as a source of error (Nunnally, 1979, p. 230). Multiple regression analysis is a general statistical technique which can be used to examine the relationship between a dependent vari- able and a set of independent variables (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Grablowsky, 1979, p. 35). Multiple regression analysis results in a regression equation. The regression equation is an equation which pre- dicts the value of a dependent variable given values of the independent variables. The regression equation is a linear combination of a con- stant and independent variables multiplied by respective regression coefficients. The constant is the "y" intercept. The regression coefficients are parameter estimates associated with the respective independent variables. A "B" regression coefficient indicates the extent to which a change of one unit of a independent variable will affect the value of the dependent variable. A "Beta" regression coeffi- cient is a standardized B regression coefficient. Beta coefficients mean that the values of the dependent variables have been converted to z scores and any change of independent variable must be thought of as a change of one or more standard deviations of that variable. Beta regression coefficients reflect the relative influence of each of the 38 independent variables on the dependent variable in the regression equa- tion (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Grablowsky, 1979, p. 58). The regres— sion equation is determined by the "block" method in which all speci- fied independent variables are entered into the equation in one step. The appropriate statistic for determining the amount of explained vari- ance of dependent variables is the adjusted squared multiple regression coefficient (Pedhazur, 1982, p. 148). The statistic for determining the extent to which the independent variables in the regression equation as a group influence the dependent variable is the adjusted multiple regression coefficient. These statistics account for "shrinkage." Shrinkage is the difference between the multiple R obtained from pre— dicted scores and the multiple R resulting from the observed criterion scores. Zero-order correlations are treated as if they are error free. The adjusted explained variance is based on the ratio of the number of predictor variables in the regression equation and the sample size. SPSS makes this calculation automatically and lists the result as "Adjusted R Square." Summary The questionnaire was formulated by using the Delphi technique. The questionnaire was mailed to 303 United States downhill ski resorts in the North Central, Northeast, and West regions. The data were reduced using cluster analysis and analyzed using multiple regression techniques. CHAPTER IV RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the research. The sample response rate and the demographics of the sample are discussed. The scales resulting from the cluster analysis, the tests of the hypotheses, and the influences of specific independent variables are presented. The Sample The overall response rate is thirty-two percent. This is a low response rate but is comparable to mailed questionnaire response rates reported in other studies (Sellitz, Wrightman, and Cook, 1976). Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide more explicit information about the sample. Table 4.1 shows that the response rates for the North Central and West regions were higher than the response rate for the Northeast region. Except for Iowa and Wisconsin, the response rate for the states in these two regions tended to be higher than for New Hampshire and Vermont. There are two plausible explanations for these response rates. First, given the topographical limitations of the midwest compared to the west and northeast, the North Central region tends to have a prepon- derance of smaller resorts. Smaller resort owners/operators may be more inclined to respond to a research questionnaire in hopes of gaining industry feedback information. Second, the larger corporate resorts in the west, even though stating that answering research questionnaires is against corporate policies, returned partially completed questionnaires. 39 40 Table 4.2 shows the effects of the North Central regional influ— ence. The Vertical Rise, Longest Run, Lift Capacity, and Number of Full—time Employees all indicate that the sample may tend to be repre- sentative of smaller resorts. Forming:Scales As stated in the previous chapter, the first step in analyzing the data is the condensation of all possible variables into scales. The cluster analysis procedure is used to reduce redundancy within the data. Correlation matrices are inspected and variables which correlate highly are placed within clusters (Nunnally, 1979). Correlation matrices are presented in Appendix E. The correlations among clusters are checked for consistency. Business Position consists of five scales. The first cluster which is formed includes perceptual comparisons of the focal organiza- tion's slope attributes with those of competitors. The four variables in this scale are Direction of Slopes, Length of Slopes, Steepness of Slopes,and Moguled Slopes. The cluster is named Slopes (see Table 4.3) and has an alpha value of .80. The second cluster formed includes the three perceptual comparisons of Crowding on Slopes, Lift Capacity, and Lift Line Waiting. This scale is named Crowding (see Table 4.4) and has an alpha of .64. The third cluster formed consists of the two percep- tual comparisons of Accessibility for Skiers and Travel Time for Skiers. This scale is named Accessibility and has an alpha of .84 (this two item scale is not shown). The fourth cluster consists of After Ski Enter— tainment, Lodging at Resort, Lodging Nearby, and Variety of Packages Offered. This scale is named Accommodations (see Table 4.5) and has an alpha of .70. The fifth cluster consists of Ease of Attaining Finance 41 Capital, Debt/Equity Ratio, and Unit Costs. This scale is named Financial (see Table 4.6) and has an alpha of .71. The five variables (Lift Ticket Prices, X-Country Skiing, Recreational Racing Events, Rapport with Nearby Community, and Unutilized Capacity) are retained as separate variables (see Table 4.7). Shaping Factors consist of eleven variables, eight original vari- ables, and three scales. The first cluster formed includes the three variables of Vertical Rise, Longest Run, and Maximum Comfort Capacity. This scale is named Slope Attributes (see Table 4.8) and has an alpha of .90. The second cluster formed includes fifty-four measures (The Impor- tance of Quality, Crowding, Pricing, Slopes/Trails, Travel and Activi- ties to each of the nine skier segments; Expert Skiers, Single Skiers, Family Skiers, Group Skiers, Weekday Skiers, Weekend Skiers, Vacation Skiers, X—Country Skiers, and Recreational Racers). This scale is named Psychographics of Market Segments (see Table 4.9) and has an alpha of .71. The third cluster formed includes the three variables of Lodging, Restaurants, and After Ski Entertainment. The scale is named Dependence on the Closest Community for Facilities and Activities (see Table 4.10) and has an alpha of .89. The remaining eight variables (% of Facilities on Government Land, Miles from Metro Area, Distance to Closest Commun- ity, Lift Capacity, LG 10 of Full—Time Employees [the number of employees isreplaced by the logarithm of the number of employees to avoid nonlinear relationships evident within the data], Form of Owner- ship, and Dependence on Closest Community for Skiers) are retained as separate variables. Current Market Positioning Strategies consist of twenty—two variables, eighteen variables, and five scales. The first cluster 42 formed includes nine measures of what extent the organization is direc- ting expansion efforts toward each of the nine skier market segments. The scale is named Expansion Efforts (see Table 4.11) and has an alpha of .72. The second cluster formed consists of four variables measuring changes of Promotions, Services, Facilities, and Activities. The scale is named Changes of Promotions, Services, Facilities, and Activities (see Table 4.2) and has an alpha of .79. The third cluster formed con- sists of fifty-four variables measuring the extent to which the organi— zation is directing changes of Prices, Packages, Promotions, Services, Facilities, and Activities toward the nine skier market segments. The scale is named Changes Directed to Market Segments (see Table 4.13) and has an alpha of .90. The fourth cluster consists of measures of twelve lift rate categories. The scale is named Lift Prices and has an alpha of .96. The fifth cluster consists of three variables; Availability of Services, Availability of Facilities, and Availability of Activities. The scale is named Availability of Services, Facilities, and Activities (see Table 4.14) and has an alpha of .80. Table 4.15 summarizes the alphas for all of the scales. Table 4.16 is a final list of variables. Business Position Variables and Current Market Positioning Strategies The first hypothesis that Business Position variables explain more variance for Change Strategies and Pricing Strategies than for Geographic Market Area, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts and Facility and Service Strategies is partially supported by the data (see Table 4.18). The Mean Adjusted R Squares for the five strategic cate- gories are: Pricing Strategies (.447), Geographic Market Area (.154), 43 Change Strategies (.114), Current Markets and Expansion Efforts (.102), and Facility and Service Strategies (.061). Geographic Market Area is negatively influenced by Rapport with Nearby Community (Beta=—.240) and Unutilized Capacity (Beta=.239) (see Table 4.19). Resorts which perceive competitors as having better rela- tions with nearby communities and perceive their resorts as having more unutilized capacity than competitors tend to have larger geographic mar- ket areas. Current Markets and Expansion Efforts are not influenced in a consistent fashion by any of the Business Position variables. Most of the Business Position variables influence Expert Skiers, Family Skiers, and Vacation Skiers positively and Weekend Skiers negatively. Accommo- dations (Mean Beta=.l46) has the most consistent overall positive influence on Current Markets and Expansion Efforts while Rapport with Nearby Community (Mean Beta=-.109) has the most consistent negative influence. Change Strategies are influenced most strongly by Accommodations (Mean Beta=.258) with Crowding (Mean Beta=.180), Cross Country Skiing (Mean Beta=.l74), Financial (Mean Beta=.158) and Unutilized Capacity (Mean Beta=.123) having lesser positive impacts. Pricing Strategies are strongly and positively influenced by Accommodations (Mean Beta=.315) and Recreational Racing Events (Mean Beta=.215) and strongly and negatively influenced by Rapport with Nearby Community (Mean Beta=-.313). Facility and Service Strategies are influenced positively by Accommodations (Mean Beta=.221) and Accessibility (Mean Beta=.l30) and negatively by Rapport with Nearby Community (Mean Beta=-.120). 44 Shaping Factors and Current Market Positioning Strategies The second hypothesis that Shaping Factors explain more variance for Geographic Market Area, Current Markets and Expansion Efforts and Facility and ServiCe Strategies is not supported by the data. The Mean Adjusted R Squares for the five strategic categories are: Pricing Strategies (.396), Geographic Market Area (.362), Facility and Service Strategies (.279), Change Strategies (.154), and Current Markets and Expansion Efforts (-.037). Geographic Market Area is influenced positively by Slope Attri- butes (Beta=.362), Log 10 of Full-Time Employees (Beta=.343), Dependence on Closest Community for Facilities and Activities (Beta=.265), and Miles from Metro Area (Beta=.204). Percent Facilities on Government Land (Beta=-.338) has a negative impact (see Table 4.20). Current Markets and Expansion Efforts are marginally influenced by Slope Attributes (Mean Beta=.128) and Psychographics of Market Seg- ments (Mean Beta=.118). Change Strategies are negatively influenced by Distance to Closest Community (Mean Beta=-.260), Form of Ownership (Mean Beta=—.246), Miles from Metro Area (Mean Beta=-.l65) and Dependence on Closest Community for Skiers (Mean Beta=-.151). SlOpe Attributes (Mean Beta=.l68) has a moderate positive influence. Pricing Strategies are influenced positively by Log 10 of Full- Time Employees (Mean Beta=.334) and Slope Attributes (Mean Beta=.205). Psychographics of Market Segments (Mean Beta=-.l62) and Distance to Closest Community (Mean Beta=-.158) and have moderate negative influ- ences. 45 Facility and Service Strategies negatively influenced by Average Annual Snowfall (Mean Beta=-.675) and Dependence on Closest Community for Facilities and Activities (Mean Beta=-.233). Log 10 of Full-Time Employees (Mean Beta=.4l6), Percent Facilities on Government Land (Mean Beta=.344), Distance to Closest Community (Mean Beta=.297) and Form of Ownership (Mean Beta=.242) have positive influences. Summary The overall response rate of thirty-two percent reflects higher response rates for the North Central and West regions as compared to the Northeast region. The data analysis is simplified by using the cluster analysis procedures to group items into scales. Multiple regression techniques are used to test the hypotheses. The first hypothesis is partially supported by the data, but the second hypothesis is not sup— ported by the data. Region and State Northeast New Hampshire Vermont North Central Illinois Indiana Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri North Dakota Ohio South Dakota Wisconsin West Colorado Utah Total 46 Table 4.1 Response Rates by Region and State I of Ret’d AdJ’d Ouestion- Per- Resorts (Not I of naires cent Listed Del) Res Ret’d Response (23x) 36 o 36 9 25% 31 2 29 6 21% (34%) 9 e 9 4 442 1a 2 s 5 63% 11 1 1o 2 20% 54 e 54 21 39% 29 1 28 11 39% 1 e 1 1 100% 6 1 5 2 402 s o 8 4 sex 4 e 4 1 25% 53 2 51 1e 20% (332) 35 2 33 10 sex 16 1 15 6 402 303 -12_ 231- —92- 32% §(Box Closed, No Forwarding Address, Moved--No New Address, Not Deliverable, No Such Address, Attempted--New Address Not Known, Authorization for Forwarding Address Expired, and Insufficient Address) 47 Table 4.2 Response Sample Description Shaping Factor Hean Hedian SD Organizational Resources Vertical Rise (Feet) 761.46 400.50 796.33 Longest Run (tenth miles) 9.98 5.00 9.30 Average Annual Snowfall (ins) 194.82 156.00 114.92 Maximum Comfort Capacity 2137.75 1493.30 2779.99 Organizational Demographics 2 Facilities on Gov’t Land 29.59 2.94 43.06 Miles from Metro Area 112.42 90.00 102.67 Distance to Closest Comm (mi) 6.00 3.75 5.70 Lift Capacity 5608.56 4650.00 4986.00 0 of Fulltime Employees 113.07 35.00 227.29 L910 of Fulltime EEs 1.38 1.48 .84 Form of Ownership 3.59 3.19 1.33 Organizational Perceptions Psychographic Hkt Segments 167.65 168.00 23.12 Dependence on Closest Comm 9.81 10.14 3.76 Dependence on C1 Comm for S’s 2.85 2.67 1.27 Table 4.3 Correlations of Slopes 2 3 1 Direction of Slopes .31 .42 2 Length of Slopes .71 3 Steepness of Slopes 4 Moguled Slopes Table 4.4 Correlations of Crowding 2 3 1 Crowding on Slopes .28 .50 2 Lift Capacity .28 3 Lift Line Waiting 634140.77 86.47 13206.09 7728360.56 18.54 10541.60 32.44 51661.08 .71 1.77 534.72 14.10 4 .28 .59 16900 100 24 27350 1499 48 Table 4.5 Correlations of Accommodations 2 3 4 1 After Ski Entertainment .32 .42 .47 2 Lodging at Resort .21 .37 3 Lodging Nearby .25 4 Variety of Packages Offered Table 4.6 Correlations of Financial Attributes 2 3 1 Ease of Obtaining Finance Cap .51 .2 2 Debt/Equity 3 Unit Costs (.4 N Table 4.7 Correlations of Unclustered Business Position Variables 2 3 4 5 1 Prices of Lift Tickets .20 -.24 .10 .07 2 Cross Country Skiing .08 -.20 -.16 3 Recreational Racing Events .06 -.16 4 Rapport with Nearby Community .01 5 Unutilized Capacity Table 4.8 Correlations of Slope Attributes 2 3 1 Vertical Rise .86 .75 2 Longest Run .60 3 Maximum Comfort Capacity OLIOLJN" 49 Table 4.9 Correlations of Psychographics of Market Segments Importance of Quality to Market Segments Importance of Crowding to Market Segments Importance of Pricing to Market Segments' Importance of Slopes/Trails to Mkt Segments Importance of Travel to Market Segments Importance of Activities to Market Segments Table 4.10 2 3 .65 .47 .55 4 5 .68 .43 .78 .60 .57 .55 .61 Correlations of Dependence on C/C for FC,ACT 1 Lodging 2 Restaurants 3 After Ski Entertainment Table 4.11 Correlations of Expansion 2 3 Expert Skiers .55. .29 Single Skiers .44 Family Skiers Group Skiers Weekday Skiers Heekend Skiers Vacation Skiers X Country Skiers Recreational Racer 0(D‘JOIIJWABJ“ Table 4.12 4 .36 .43 .66 2 3 .72 .77 .72 Efforts 5 a .43 '.23 .40 .45 .45 .48 .41 .46 .1o 7 8 .39 .03 .30 .07 .53 .37 .50 .19 e30 -e03 .30 .07 .33 Correlations of Changes of Promotion, Services, Facilities and Activities 2 1 Promotions .53 2 Services 3 Facilities 4 Activities 3 4 .44 .48 .49 .53 .52 6 .56 .48 .41 .58 .53 9 .23 .41 .47 .41 .10 .43 .28 .32 50 Table 4.13 Correlations of Changes Directed to Market Segments 2 3 4 5 6 1 Prices .62 .70 .52 .56 .57 2 Packages .79 .50 .57 .66 3 Promotions .66 .65 .75 4 Services ' .72 .73 5 Facilities “ .83 6 Activities Table 4.14 Correlations of Lift Prices 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Adult/weekday Rate .87 .52 .91 .68 .41 .77 .68 .33 .59 2 Adult/dey/de Rate .65 .85 .84 .33 .67 .81 .20 .52 3 Adult/dey/Ngt Rate .64 .78 .91 .34 .66 .59 .47 4 Adult/weekend Rate .89 .59 .78 .73 .39 .80 5 Adult/Hknd/de Rate .69 .71 .77 .15 .72 6 Adult/Nknd/Ngt Rate .27 .28 .53 .47 7 Child/Weekday Rate .85 .67 .89 8 Child/dey/de Rate .84 .75 9 Child/dey/Ngt Rate .68 10 Child/Weekend Rate 11 Child/Uknd/de Rate 12 Child/Hknd/Ngt Rate Table 4.15 Correlations of Availability of Services, Facilities and Activities 2 3 1 Availability of Services .67 .2; 2 Availability of Facilities 3 Availability of Activities 11 .49 .62 .65 .73 .84 .64 .82 .84 .81 .92 12 .43 .31 .70 .63 .74 .85 .46 .89 .67 .82 51 Table 4.16 Alphas for Scales Independent or Dependent Variable/Scale Business Position Slopes Crowding Accessibility Accommodations Financial Attributes Shaping Factors Slope Attributes Psychographics of Market Segments Dependence on C/C for FC,Act Current Market Positioning Strategies Expansion Efforts Changes of Prom,Sv,Fc,Act Changes Directed To Prices Availability of Sv,Fc,Act 54 54 65 54 54 54 69 72 59 59 69 16 73 a of Items wanna 54 54 12 Alpha .88 .64 .84 .70 .71 .90 .71 .89 .72 .79 .90 52 Table 4.17 Final List of Variables Business Position (Total Variables=10) Slopes Crowding Accessibility Accommodations Financial Prices of Lift Tickets X-Country Skiing Recreational Racing Events Rapport with Nearby Community Unutilized Capacity Shaping Factors (Total Variables=11) (Physical Attributes) Slope Attributes Average Annual Snowfall (Organization Demographics) ZFacilities on Government Land Miles from Metro Area Distance to Closest Community Lift Capacity LG 10 of Fulltime Employees Form of Ownership (Organization Perceptions) Psychographics of Market Segments Dependence on C/C for Fc,Act Dependence on C/C for Skiers Current Market Positioning Strategies (Total Variables=22) Geographic Market Area Current Markets-~Expert Skiers Current Markets-~Single Skiers Current Markets--Family Skiers Current Markets--Group Skiers Current Markets-~Neekday Skiers Current Markets-~Weekend Skiers Current Markets-~Vacation Skiers Current Markets—~X Country Skiers Current Markets--Recreational Racers Expansion Efforts Price Changes Package Changes Changes of Pr,Sv,Fc,Act 1 Changes Directed To Prices Price Structure Complexity Availability of Sv,Fc,Act Length of Season Days of Week Open Night Skiing Availability Snowmaking Capability 53 Table 4.18 Adjusted Regression Coefficients Squared, Adjusted Regression Coefficients and Significance for Business Position Variables and Shaping Factors for Current Marketing Positioning Strategies CURRENT MARKET POSITIONING STRATEGIES Geographic Market Area CM-Expert Skiers CM-Single Skiers CM-Family Skiers CM~Group Skiers CM-Heekday Skiers CM-Heekend Skiers CM-Vacation Skiers CM-Cross Country Skiers CM-Recreational Racers Expansion Efforts MEANS Price Changes Package Changes Changes of Pr,Sv,Fc,Act BUSINESS POSITION Adj R Squ 154 -o34 -061 -o46 125 168 -o19 158 492 129 107 152 -o19 154 308 Changes Dir to Market Segments 014 MEANS Prices Price Structure Complexity MEANS Availability of Sv,Fc,Act Length of Season Days of week Open Night Skiing Availability Snowmaking Capability MEANS 113 930 -036 447 053 -002 137 044 075 66? VARIABLES Adj Mult R 392 -184 -247 -215 354 410 -138 398 701 359 327 177 —138 392 555 118 361 '964 “190 387 -o45 370 210 274 268 Sign p<.05 p<.62 p<.75 p<.67 p<.08 p<.04 p<.55 p<.05 p<.00 p<.OB p<.13 p<.55 p<.05 p<.01 p<.42 p<.00 p<.63 p<.25 p<.47 p<.07 p<.28 p<.18 Adj Squ 362 104 -084 -232 -o19 026 -206 -168 —059 159 -637 021 173 217 205 153 945 ~154 396 —424 765 279 Ad) Mult R 602 323 -290 —482 —138 161 -454 -410 —243 399 -080 145 466 453 376 972 -392 290 831 458 416 -651 875 386 SHAPING FACTORS Sign p<.02 p<.26 p<.67 p<.93 p<.52 p<.41 p<.90 p<.24 p<.84 p<.61 p<.17 p<.42 p<.15 p<.10 p<.12 p<.oo p<.82 p<.03 p<.34 p<.36 p<.85 p<.02 54 Table 4.19 Summary of Betas of Business Position Variables for All Current Market Positioning Strategy Regression Equations CURRENT MARKET BUSINESS POSITION VARIABLES POSITIONING STRATEGIES Slps Crud Aces Acom Fin PoLT XCS RRE RapC UCap Geo Mkt Area 164 166 050 157 040 -103 -053 174 -240 239 CM-Expert Skiers 177 058 .046 114 096 124 012 206 -201 -045 CM-Single Skiers 023 004 228 -074 -188 -071 -051 042 080 -123 CM-Family Skiers -254 113 107 194 131 003 032 -032 -163 101 CM-Group Skiers -140 143 133 281 -106 -308 041 102 —164 239 CM-Weekday Skiers 140 026 344 134 383 —179 158 116 -317 -055 CM-Neekend Skiers -126 -050 ~044 033 -298 019 -223 -199 015 -120 CM-Vacation Skiers 079 220 -305 261 -038 192 012 091 -082 204 CM-X Country Skrs -059 O43 -O30 027 114 056 760 -123 122 -017 CM—Rec Racers -092 135 -082 280 -133 235 027 281 007 -148 Expansion Efforts -103 188 018 205 064 —026 ~195 129 -390 30 MEAN BETAS -886 888 832 128 818 -886 828 881 —188 827 Price Changes 028 181 111 -011 231 -215 265 077 -137 25 Package Changes 069 120 050 424 189 -108 118 056 092 083 Chgs of Pr,Sv,Fc,At -050 202 049 363 132 257 -112 379 -225 263 Chgs Dir to Mkt 595 081 216 065 254 080 250 -021 183 046 120 —_- -s—-— ——— -———_ MEAN BETAS 882 180 888 258 158 046 063 174 —858 123 Prices -168 t t 368 t -297 t t —475 77 Price Str Cmplxty -067 -046 150 262 128 087 024 215 —151 121 MEAN BETAS -118 -848 188 315 128 -188 823 215 —813 099 Avail of Sv.Fc,Act 064 112 -048 309 132 128 067 235 -056 106 Length of Season 114 —042 -123 069 247 364 018 185 ~087 -007 Days of Week Open -040 127 313 293 298 -142 068 034 —276 148 Night Skiing Avail ~132 142 305 060 -127 010 -109 046 -233 -117 Snowmaking Cap 079 063 203 402 -085 001 061 -116 051 117 MEAN BETAS 017 080 130 227 093 072 021 077 -120 049 55 Table 4.20 Summary of Betas of Shaping Factors for All Current Market Positioning Strategy Regression Equations CURRENT MARKET POSITIONING STRATEGIES Geo Mkt Area CM-Expert Skrs CM-Single Skrs CM-Family Skrs CM-Group Skrs CM-deay Skrs CM-ernd Skrs CM-Vac Skrs SAtt AASf 362 I 214 t 113 3 283 1 182 I 243 t ~224 t 454 I CM-X Ctry Skrs -147 8 CM-Rec Racers Expan’ Eff’ts MEAN BETAS Price Changes Pkg Changes Chgs; P,S,F,A Chgs Dir; M S MEAN BETAS Prices Pc Str Cmplxty MEAN BETAS Avail; S,F,A Length of Sea Days/Week Open Ngt Ski Avail Snoumkg Cap MEAN BETAS ~063 : 225 t 128 '1' 066 a 264 n 056 a 287 a 168 '1' 109 I 301 t 285 "' 318 —895 210 765 —o7o -810 -203 -939 -428—1494 —835 -Z78 ZFac -338 082 -154 157 -074 061 —247 363 -124 883 5076 143 207 I75 112 -381 117 -132 420 -210 517 410 581 313 SHAPING FACTORS MfMA 204 -067 -o41 —244 -147 371 171 059 -257 -040 081 -200 -136 -406 -188 —129 055 —832 151 -136 -146 255 -015 022 DC/C -108 -157 5209 177 154 -016 163 -029 -227 069 ~00? -098 -439 —093 -401 -260 -248 -068 -158 370 013 437 159 504 297 LCap -O20 -084 -201 -027 127 153 -188 150 -016 -137 312 888 -345 -o19 -006 -826 037 068 053 -018 250 221 -407 -087 -008 LFtE 343 238 173 -232 -077 157 188 -153 128 457 -114 077 456 -o19 150 $103 121 684 -016 334 823 -O91 635 528 183 816 FOwn -083 -352 084 032 -118 -023 132 -205 -379 236 -885 097 -475 -189 -418 -246 040 -270 -115 426 -335 231 324 562 232 PsMS 085 102 235 248 230 299 046 -147 024 -138 142 -132 237 -203 -120 -162 -015 022 198 -O37 109 888 D/FA 265 -080 -128 -287 ~30? -O31 134 ~008 -422 165 236 -O73 102 -124 083 -021 ~297 146 -338 -369 -307 —233 D/Sk -184 045‘ 164 -099 -081 134 ~067 -040 081 238 ~278 818 -284 -043 -045 -151 -117 052 -033 -153 023 -151 013 ~180 ~888 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS As stated in the previous chapter, the two hypotheses are only partially supported by the data. The influence of Business Position variables, Shaping Factors, and specific independent variables upon Cur- rent Market Positioning Strategies are discussed. Theoretical implica- tions, limitations of the research, and directions for future research are presented. Influences of Business Position Variables and Shapinngactors Upon Current Market Positioning Strategies Geographic Market Area is more strongly influenced by Shaping Factors (Adj Mult R=.602) than Business Position variables (Adj Mult R=.392). The largest positive influences Slope Attributes and size of the organization (measured as LoglO of Fulltime Employees) are highly related (r=.73, p < .001). It could be expected that an organization with greater physical resources would tend to employ the greater number of employees and in turn would market to a larger geograhic area in order to support larger fixed costs. This is understandable since only about 6.5% of the population are active skiers. I Current Market Segments and Expansion Efforts are influenced (overall) more by Business Position variables (Adj Mult R=.209) than by Shaping Factors (Adj Mult R=—.80). Even though perceptions of 56 57 accommodations relative to competitors is the most influential, the influence of all independent variables appear to be spurious (see Tables 4.19 and 4.20). This results in the wide variance of Business Position and Shaping Factor influences for the current markets and expansion efforts. Except for Single Skiers and Vacation Skiers, Busi- ness Position variables tend to influence different current market seg- ments than do Shaping Factors. This indicates that for some market seg- ments Shaping Factors are a determinant and for other segments an organization is influenced by the competition. One explanation for these results is the fact that segmenting the total skier market into the nine specific segments was not meaningful to respondents. This is substantiated by interviews with industry experts and resort managers. Apparently skiers are not easily segmented into neat psychographic cate- gories. Thus, within limits, an organization markets itself to all skiers in a geographic area. For example, a small resort being rela— tively close to a large metropolitan area and lacking overnight accommo- dations may not market to vacation skiers but lumps all the other seg— ments together and markets to skiers in general. Change Strategies are influenced more strongly by Shaping Factors (Adj Mult R=.154) than by Business Position variables (Adj Mult R=.114). The major influences are negative and are Distance to Closest Community, Form of Ownership, Miles from Metro Area, and Dependence on Closest Community for Skiers. The closer a resort to a nearby community and a metropolitan area, the more tightly held an organization and the less dependent an organization on the nearby community for skiers; the more changes in strategies an organization is likely to make. An organiza- tion which is tightly held is also likely to be a larger organization 58 (r=-.44, p < .001). Of special note is the fact that the larger organization the more likely it is to make price changes (Beta=.456). Prices are very strongly influenced both by Business Position variables (Adj Mult R=.964) and by Shaping Factors (Adj Mult R=.972). To the extent that an organization perceives its relationship with its community to be better than that of its competitors, the lower its prices. The more an organization perceives its accommodations to be greater than those of its competitors, the higher its prices. The lar- ger the organization, the higher its prices. There seems to be a very close relationship between the size of an organization and the rapport which it maintains with its nearby community. Larger organizations tend more to be destination type resorts catering to vacation skiers, while (smaller resorts depend more on local skiers and are more mindful of good community relations. Facility and Service Strategies are influenced more strongly by Shaping Factors (Adj Mult R=.386) than by Business Position variables (Adj Mult R=.208). Availability of Services, Facilities and Activities is pretty much dictated by the size of the resort while Average Annual Snowfall has a dominate influence on the Length of Season, Days of the Week Open, Night Skiing Availability, and Snowmaking Capability. The negative influence of annual snowfall on number of days open during the week is explained by a strong influence of municipal resorts which tend to be open only on weekends and holidays. Summary of Findings The research results may be explained in terms of environmental determinism (Aldrich and Pfeffer, 1976), environmental adaptation 59 (Weick, 1969; Child, 1972; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; and others) and niche width theory (Hannan and Freeman, 1978; Freeman and Hannan, 1983). For any given environment there is a particular combination of resources and markets. For example, a smaller ski resort with modest slopes and facilities is realistically attractive to skiers within the local area. A larger resort with substantial slopes and facilities is comparatively more attractive to skiers within a much larger geographic area. Having comparatively more munificent resources, the larger resort has comparatively a more munificent market. Whereas the larger resort's most viable strategy may be to advertise to increase its appeal to a wider geographic market area, the smaller resort may attempt to increase skier visits within its limited market by sponsoring local ski clubs and/or lowering lift prices during weekdays. The point is that a par- ticular environment with its combination of resources places bounds on the viable strategies available to an organization. The more munificent the environment, the more strategic options or the less constrained the "strategic space" of an organization within that environment. An organization striving to make its resource environment more munificent (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) is essentially trying to broaden its range of viable strategic options. In less munificent environments the chances of choosing and implementing a strategy which will not be pro— ductive to the organization is greater. Therefore, the munificence of the environment is important only to the extent that greater constraints on strategic management space are prevalent in less munificent environ— ments. In such an environment, the choice of strategy is limited. The research findings can also be explained in terms of "generalist/specialist" niche width theory (Hannan and Freeman, 1978; 60 Freeman and Hannah, 1983). Niche width is defined in terms of resource levels. A generalist organization having greater resources may have a wider selection of strategic choices. By holding some of its available resources in reserve, a generalist organization may also retain strategic choice flexibility. Resource reserve gives an organi- zation more adaptive ability in that it may be able to discontinue a nonproductive strategy and avoid the future limitations of that strategy. A specialist organization has lesser resources and concen- trates its resources on a few strategies. Such an organization may be less able to avoid the future consequences of an implemented strategy. A generalist organization has many strategies and a specialist has fewer strategies is simply reflective of the degree to which the strategic space of the organization is constrained by the environment. Limitations of the Research This research is at best exploratory. Serious limitations exist which make conclusions tentative. "High multicollinearity is sympto— matic of insufficient, or deficient, information, which no amount of data manipulation can rectify" (Pedhazur, 1982, p. 247). Multi— collinearity may lead to distortions and reversal of signs of regres- sion coefficients. Data manipulation will not cure multicollinearity. A larger sample size is needed to substantiate the conclusions drawn from this research. The overall conclusions which may be made from this research are that: l) the environment of an organization determines the strategic space or range of viable strategies available to that organization, 2) munificent environments provide more latitude for strategic choice than less munificent environments, and 3) the competitive environment 61 as well as the resource environment of an organization effects organi— zation strategy. Enactment—selection—retention theory (Weick, 1979) is supported by the data. Organization member's perceptions of the environment do influence current organization strategies. Enactment theory as com— pared to the objective approach of industrial economists provides greater insight into the organization strategy phenomenon. Environmental determinism (Aldrich and Pfeffer, 1976) and organi- zation ecology (Hannan and Freeman, 1978; Freeman and Hannan, 1983) is supported to the extent that past organization strategy restricts cur- rent organization strategy. Organization ecology theory is limited by its adaptation of ecology theory from the biological sciences. An organization (like an animal or lower organism) is assumed to have no control over its environment. The correlational studies using objec- tive measures of environment and effectiveness support this premise. However, ecological theory does not allow for the cognitive abilities of organization members and thus ignores organization behavior resulting from freedom of strategic choice. Future research within the downhill ski industry will utilize the archival data in The Whitebook of Ski Areas. A larger sample size is guaranteed. This data will be supplemented with responses from.mai1ed questionnaires sent to a larger, random sample of ski organizations asking about perceptions of competition. A shorter questionnaire should result in a higher response rate. Assuming that the present research conclusions are substantiated, the results will provide a basis for investigating other service industries. APPENDIX A Ll L ._ . .._..........m.n.r£ 81......“sf...§.1«....c.....m.ii.n! .. ......-.. 10.8.1818... APPENDIX A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY blunt all M “(.301 or BL 51“.” M)\1I\ISIHA1IO.\ lAS'l |A\\|\(. - \m I|I(.A\ - 4,024 DH’ARI \1|\l U} MAVACI'AIINT August 17, 1982 Dear Thank you for your prompt reply to the first mailing. I have incorporated your responses with the responses from the other members of the panel and have arrived at what I believe to be a complete and final list. As I explained in my first letter to you, the Delphi Technique is a tvo-step process. The first step, narrowing the lists of components in each of the'five general areas, has been campleted and once again I need to call upon your expert judgment for assisting me in completing step tvo. I would like you to look at the list for each of the general areas and indicate on the scale in that section, how much you agree or disagree with the list g5”; whole. Please keep in mind that this list may not be entirely indicative of your organization exclusively. I am composing a list that is broad enough in content to encompass ski organizations in general. If you have any questions and/or need clarification, call Claire or myself at l-517-353-5415 or 1-517-882-3832 anytime COLLECT. Once again, thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Floyd G Hilloughby Enclosures 62 63 Below are listed potential sources of information for organizational decision-making. Read the list £§_£_whole and then circle the number on the scale that corresponds to how much you agree or disagree with the list in its entirety. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 disagree neither agree agree or disagree SOURCES OF INFORMATION Internal ‘ Owners * Employees * Reports * daily * weekly * monthly * yearly * Mailing Lists (generated from guest registration) External * Consultants * Vendors/Suppliers * Customers * Competitors } Friends/Acquaintances * Government Official It News media people * Ski magazines * Trade journals * Travel agencies * Airlines * Commuter transportation * Tourist associations * Chamber of Commerce * Heather service * School/college/universities bulletins/schedules * Hailing lists (externally generated) *Professional organizations * Clubs 64 Below is a list of how ski organizations 251 measure organizational performance. Read the list £§’£_whole and then circle the number on the scale that corresponds to how much you agree or disagree with the list _i_ni_t£ entirety. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 disagree neither agree agree or disagree * present costs (daily, weekly, monthly, season) versus budget * present revenue (daily, weekly, monthly, season) versus forecast * costs versus revenues (by service) '- occupancy rate versus historical * present lift receipts (daily, weekly, monthly, season) versus historical * present lift receipts versus competitors * present market share versus competitors * present market share versus historical * present growth in volume versus industry growth * overall bottomrline financial profits 65 Below are listed environmental factors existing outside the organization but_are hypothesized to affect the strategy of the organization. Read the list §§_£ whole and then circle the number on the scale that corresponds to how much you agree or disagree with the list inhigg entirety. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 disagree neither agree agree or disagree PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Hill * Elevation '- Vertical DrOp (elevation top of hill - elevation bottom of hill) * Direction majority of slopes face ’ Surrounding physical attributes (natural or man-made that affect the resort's ability to make and/or maintain snow, i.e., lake, reservoir, steel mill) Local Community * Population of community * Proximity of community to resort * Economic base of community (tourist, residential, industrial) GOVERNMENT * DNR * Township/county * Legal liability ASSOCIATIONS * State/local associations 66 Below is a list of possible market segments within the total pOpulation of prospective ski customers. Read the list §§_§_whole and then circle the number on the scale that corresponds to how much you agree or disagree with the list in $55 entirety. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 disagree neither agree agree or disagree SKIER SKILL ACCOMODATIOH NEED * Expert/Advanced * Day skiers * Intermediate * Destination skiers ‘ Beginner * Condo owners SOCIAL UNIT INCOME BRACKET * Single(s) * Upper * Couple(s) * Upper Middle * Family(s) * Middle GROUP OCCUPATION * Social * Student * Professional * Professional * Club SKIERS' SCHEDULE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA * Weekday * National * Weekend/holiday * Regional 67 Listed below are facilities, services, and activities that a ski resort may have to offer. Read the list a§_£_whole and then circle the number on the scale that corresponds to how much you agree or disagree with the list ig_its entirety. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 disagree neither agree agree or disagree FACILITIES SERVICES ACTIVITIES Alpine Skiing Ski Refinishing/Repair Races/sanctioned Cross-Country Skiing Ski Rental Races/fun Telamark Ski Instructions Festivals Ice Skating Ski Checkroom Theme Nights Sled Runs Sleigh Rides Family Fun Days Restaurant Day Care Cafeteria Baby-Sitting Bar/Lounge Nightly Entertainment Snack Shop Videotaping (ski instruction) Game Room Videotaping (of crowd) 01ft Shop Shuttle Bus/Limo Service Ski Pro Shop Movie Theater Lodging * room * chalet * condo Indoor Pool Outdoor Pool Racketball Courts Indoor Tennis Sauna Airstrip APPENDIX B ._“..,...q_._...cafes“...«in» a... this ....:....,...._.,..1s. I .. . e ; is: . ;. APPENDIX B UNITED STATES DOWNHILL SKI INDUSTRY REGIONAL DIVISIONS WEST NORTH CENTRAL NORTHEAST 68 APP END IX C APPENDIX C MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUAH Ml as NJSINFAS ADMINISWATTON WAmFN'I Of MANAGEMFA‘T PAS-I LANSING ' NILHIOAN ' “24 September 1982 Organization Code: Dear General Manager: 1 am doing academic research through the Graduate School of Business, Michigan State University. Ski resorts in the United States have been chosen as a sample. My bottom-line is to be able to predict with accuracy the conditions and the organizational strategies necessary for success within the ski resort industry. Your participation is important. Taking the time to fill out this questionnaire will help provide data which will result in a feedback report useful to your organization. A good response rate will enable me to give your organization insights into how to make the most of your facilities and which strategies are most successful. lhlike the industry surveys sponsored by Skiing magazine and the National Ski Area Association this research should give you more insight into the industry and will cost you nothing except a little of your time. Absolute security and confidentiality of your responses are guaranteed. Upon receiving your completed questionnaire, I will indicate on the coding list that you have returned the completed questionnaire and whether you desire a copy of the feedback report, load your responses into the computer, and then secure your questionnaire and the coding list in a locked filing cabinet to which only I will have access. Only data aggregated across the entire national sample or regional samples will be reported. Even though your organization may have year-around operations, this questionnaire asks only about your ski rations. Questions are asked about skier markets, marketing strategies,—331 y Operations, the physical and business environments, and how your organization measures its performance. Please be brutally honest and answer all of the questions to the best of your ability. I am hoping to receive your completed questionnaire within two weeks. Should you have difficulty with this request or questions regarding the questionnaire, please don't hesitate to contact me. This research is totally supported by my own funds and not affiliated with a consulting firm or national association. I greatly appreciate your time and effort. Please indicate below if you desire a copy of the feedback report. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Floyd c Willoughby (517) 353-5415 Would you like a copy of the feedback report? YES NO 69) This section asks about your organization's skier markets, the growth potential of skier markets. and the growth potential of the industry as a whole. Skiers may be classified by skill level, who they visit the resort with. when they visit the resort. or by particular skiing interests. Even though the nine skier classifications below may overlap. they should be fairly similar to how your resort sees its skier markets. Please refer to these nine skier claSsifi- cations as you answer the questions in this section. E522££ Skiggs (Skiers with high skiing skill; including advanced skiers.) §jgglg S5135; (Unmarried; unattached skiers.) Eemllx.§£i£:s (Married couples with or without children and single parents with children.) E3222 §kiggs (Skiers whose visits are primarily with a group.) weekday Skiers (Skiers visiting the resort on weekdays/evenings.) Heekend S5155; (Skiers visiting the resort on weekends/holidays.) Vacation Skiggs (Skiers whose visits primarily exceed 3 days.) X-Country Skiers (Skiers participating primarily in cross-country skiing.) Recreational Racers (Skiers participating in competitive skiing events.) For the following two questions, please circle the number on the scale that best answers the question for each of the nine skier markets listed. 0 To what extent does your organization currently appeal to the skier markets listed below? HINDU. SLIOIILV IIIIATEU ”STU (mam Expert Skiers Single Skiers Family Skiers Group Skiers Weekday Skiers Weekend Skiers Vacation Skiers X—Country Skiers _a a... .4 —l—l-l—l—l N NNN 70an N W to (a) u (a) u U.“ u 15 & J: h b h «b b h m 0'1 I." U‘ WW I” I." 01 Recreational Racers 71 continue: main menu seat-arm mm mmu Travel costs - l 2 3 4 5 Ski resort technology (snow raking, etc.) 1 2 3 4 S Owner(s') ideas and/or input l 2 3 4 5 0 who are your primary competitors? Please list below. There is no required number. o Considering these competitors g§_g_whole. how does your organization compare to them? Please circle the appropriatETFUfiber for each item listed below. WIND WING not I I IS A “S I IS U IV! 4 I“: A "$11K? SLIM MIT"! SLIM DISTIICT was: “All“! nova-net man ”All“ Direction of slopes 1 2 3 4 5 Length of slopes l 2 3 4 5 Steepness of slopes l 2 3 4 5 Moguled slopes l 2 3 4 5 Crowding on slopes l 2 3 4 5 Lift capacity l 2 3 4 5 Lift line waiting l 2 3 4 5 Accessibility of resort l 2 3 4 5 Travel time for skiers l 2 3 4 5 After ski entertaiment l 2 3 4 5 Lodging -- resort l 2 3 4 5 Lodging -- nearby l 2 3 4 5 Prices -- lift ticket 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of packages offered 1 2 3 4‘ 5 X-Country skiing l 2 3 4 5 Recreational racing events I 2 3 4 5 Rapport with nearby community 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of obtaining finance capital 1 2 3 4 5 Debt/Equity ratio 1 2 3 4 5 Unit costs 1 2 3 4 5 Unutilized capacity 1 2 3 4 5 72 For the following six questions. please circle the nunber on the scale that best answers the question for each of the nine skier markets listed below. 0 How important do you think Quality (quality oj'reeort; including restaurants, lodging and entertainment) is to each of the following skier markets? 07 U7 '0' "In!“ 1 man 1mm Infill mun $31.21 Expert Skiers Single Skiers Family Skiers Group Skiers weekday Skiers weekend Skiers Vacation Skiers X-Country Skiers Recreational Racers d—l—l—Id—l—l—J-fi NNNNNNNN wwwwwwuwu bbhbhbhb UIUIU'IU'DU‘MU'IWU'I N b a Hall important do you think crowding (crowding of lift lines and on slopes or trails) is to each of the following sk er markets? 3 m V!" "III!" t L7 mun won Expert Skiers "3"" "”"4'" 4'" mm Single Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Family Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Group Skiers l 2 3 4 5 weekday Skiers l 2 3 4 5 weekend Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Vacation Skiers l 2 3 4 5 x-Country Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Recreational Racers l 2 3 4 5 o How important do you think ricin (prices of lift tickets, lodging, restaurants, and entertainment) is to each 0 t e following skier markets? ”I D? Vt" "It?!“ “MU two-Tun "0mm woenun tmm IWIMI Expert Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Single Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Family Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Group Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Heekday Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Heekend Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Vacation Skiers l 2 3 4 5 X-Country Skiers l 2 3 4 5 LRecreational Racers l 2 3 4 5 73 For the following six questions. please circle the number on the scale that best answers the question for each of the nine skier markets listed below. a To what extent has your organization directed its price changes toward each of the following skier markets? not at ALL SLIGHTLT InotlATtLY IDSTLV tlTlRtLv Expert Skiers 5 Single Skiers Family Skiers Group Skiers Heekday Skiers Weekend Skiers Vacation Skiers x-Country Skiers Recreational Racers d d—l-J-J—l—D-J—l NNNNNNNNN wwwwwwwwu bbhbbhbé QU'IMU'IU'IU'IU'I b 5 e To what extent has your organization directed its package changes toward each of the following skier markets? '7” ALL SLIM“ “MT!“ my MIHU Expert Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Single Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Family Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Group Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Heekday Skiers l 2 3 4 5 weekend Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Vacation Skiers l 2 3 4 5 X-Country Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Recreational Racers l 2 3 4 5 a To what extent has your organization directed its promotion changes toward each of the following skier markets? ml? ALL SLID‘TU muttu ”STU ENTIREU Expert Skiers Single Skiers Family Skiers Group Skiers Weekday Skiers weekend Skiers Vacation Skiers X—Country Skiers Recreational Racers d—J-J-J-dd—l-l—l NNNNNNNNN wwwwwwwuu ##5##bbbb mmmmmmmmm 74 a To what extent has your organization directed its service changes toward each of the following markets? ”MILL SLIM“ mum! DST“ (ITIIEL' Expert Skiers l 2 3 a 5 Single Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Family Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Group Skiers l 2 3 4 5 weekday Skiers l 2 3 4 S Heekend Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Vacation Skiers l 2 3 4 5 X-Country Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Recreational Racers l 2 3 4 5 a To what extent has your organization directed its facility changes toward each of the following markets? DI IT in SLIM?“ mu“ 0371.? will“ Expert Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Single Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Family Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Group Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Heekday Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Weekend Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Vacation Skiers l 2 3 4 5 XeCountry Skiers l 2 3 4 5 Recreational Racers l 2 3 4 5 e To what extent has your organization directed its activity changes toward each of the following markets? ”It?“ SHOW" mun m' WIRE“ Expert Skiers Single Skiers Family Skiers ‘ Group Skiers weekday Skiers weekend Skiers Vacation Skiers X-Country Skiers Recreational Racers ul-l-l—Oc-l-l—l—J—l NNNNNNNNN wwuwwwwww abbbbbbbb mmmmmmmwm 75 a How important do you think slopesltrails (slope or trail quality, difficulty and variety) lS to each of the following skier markets? Expert Skiers Single Skiers Family Skiers Group Skiers Heekday Skiers weekend Skiers Vacation Skiers X—Country Skiers Recreational Racers 0 How important do you think travel (travel time from home to resort) is to each of the following skier markets Expert Skiers Single Skiers Family Skiers Group Skiers weekday Skiers Heekend Skiers Vacation Skiers x-Country Skiers Recreational Racers 0 How important do you think activities (special events, festivals, eta.) are to each of the following skier markets? Expert Skiers Single Skiers Family Skiers Group Skiers Heekday Skiers Heekend Skiers Vacation Skiers x-Country Skiers Recreational Racers m mun d-‘d—‘ddd-‘d ”I m d—l—l—J—‘d-‘dd UT mm 1 l l l l l l l l .7 rm mm NNNNNNNNN w wwwuwwww #bbbbbbh § mm? mv incur! mm mun 01413030141341.4134” U1 .7 V!" mmr mu 3mm infill mm mm NNNNNNNNN m «I? Imiflfl' N NNNNNNNN (a) wwwwwwww m TIL? MY mm mm [mm wwwwwwuuw hb-bb-b-bbbb h hbbbbbbb U'DMU'IU'IMU'IU'IWU'I mmmmmwmmm '76 0 Considering your organization's established and new skier markets, mark an “X” on each curve below where you think revenues in those markets are currently located. Established Markets New Markets Revenues Revenues S growth! maturity; decline growth: maturityi decline a Hhat percentage of your l98l-82 skiing season customers were repeat customers? percentage of repeat customers is t a Hhat does your organization consider its laggest geographical market? (Circle the most appropriate answer) l. Local 2. Regional 3. National 0 what is the closest metropolitan area (population 100,000 or greater) to your resort? a How many miles away is this metropolitan area from your resort? approximately miles This section concerns the ski resort industry in general. You are asked about the current revenue position of the industry, the basis of your opinions, and what influences the ski resort industry. 0 Considering revenues for the ski resort industry as a whole. mark an "X" on the curve below which (in your opinion) represents the current industry revenue position. Industry Revenues growth} maturityi decline 77 a To what extent is your opinion of the industry revenue position based on the information sources listed below? Please circle the number on the scale that best answers the question for each information source. I?” w. IIG‘YU mm? ”51'“ III!!!“ Your own experiences l 2 3 4 5 Talking with competitors l 2 3 4 5 Presentations/articles by industry l 2 3 4 5 experts/consultants Studies of skier volume published l 2 3 4 5 by associations 0 Ill your opinion, what accounts for the present position of the industry? Please circle the number on the scale that best answers the question for each category. ‘7 ‘7 an ”JCT“ mm! MY WISH Inflation l 2 3 4 5 Changes in population demographics l 2 3 4 5 Economic conditions l 2 3 4 5 Government regulation/intervention l 2 3 4 5 Changes in consumer attitudes l 2 3 4 5 Changes in marketing strategies l 2 3 4 5 Changes in the types of facilities, l 2 3 4 5 services and activities offered Changes in industry capacity l 2 3 4 5 Changes in demand l 2 ‘ 3 4 5 Actions of environmental groups l 2 3 4 5 Increased transportation costs l 2 3 4 5 Energy conservation awareness l 2 3 4 5 Increased land use awareness l 2 3 4 5 Attitudes of financial institutions 1 2 3 4 5 This section asks about the physical environment of your organization and other factors outside your organization which affect it. a what percentage of your facilities (including slopes) is on state or federally owned land? Please circle the appropriate percentage. 0% lo: 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 701 80% 901 100: a which direction do most of your slopes face? Please circle the appropriate direction. 5 SH N NH N NE E SE 78 a In your region. which direction is the 1gpp1_direction for slopes to face? a Hhat is the maximum comfort capacity of your slopes? ______ persons a How far away is the cannunity closest to your resort? __ miles a To what extent does your organization depend on the closest conmunity to provide the following? Please circle the number on the scale that best answers the question for each category. UT 1? ML SLIM?“ mun US?“ ”It“ Lodging l 2 3 4 5 Restaurants 1 2 3 4 5 After ski entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 Skiers l 2 3 4 5 e To what extent have the decisions of your organization been influenced by the following? Please circle the appropriate number for each item below. .‘l’ ”M sums mun m1 mam United States Forest Service State Department of Natural Resources Competitors Closest comnunity/municipality Finance institutions Envirorlnental groups County governmental bodies Economic conditions Changing papulation demographics Gas shortages Heather Slope terrain Physical site limitations Energy conservation Other Federal agencies (EEOC. EPA. etc.) Other State agencies (Health Dept. etc.) State lift inspection agency Federal tax laws State tax laws Real estate developers Local organizations offering auxillary services and facilities Customer comments l Marketing/consulting reports 1 2 3 4 5 _a N b dd—l-l—la—D—ld—l—Dc-l—O-J-l—l—l—ld-J-l NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN wwwwwuwwwwwwwwwwwuwuu bbbbbbbh-fibbbbbbbbh-bb mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm N (A! b 79 This section asks about your customers' perceptions of your resort. o How do your customers see your resort? Keep in mind this question is not asking how you would like your customers to perceive your resort. but how you—think they actually perceive your resort. Please answer by marking a "D" denoting weekgpy customers. and an "E" denoting weekend holiday customers for each of the items listed below. You may mark a “D" an an “E" in the same position if you feel both types of customers have very similar perceptions of the item. Example: Assume you work in an office that is warm on weekdays but chilly on weekends. Your answer to the question "Hhat temperature is the room?“ would look like: Room Temperature cow_=._E._=__=__=_._=.2_:_ nor Steepness of Slopes STEEP : : ____: : ____ : : ____ LEVEL gpguls N0 MUCHLS : : ____: ____: ____: : MANY MUGULS Crowding on Slopes CROWDED __=_3_3_:_3_=_UNC'ROVDED Varyipg slope difficulty GREAT VARIANCE __ : __ 3 _ = _3_ 3 __ 3 __ LITTLE VARIANCE Restaurant Selection LIMITED SELECTION __3_ 3 _3__3_:_3___ HIDE SELECTION Lift Lineggpiting SHORTVAIT__3__3__:_3_3__2_L0NGUAIT After Ski Entertainment VIDEVARIET)’_=_:_3_:__‘__3_L1MITEDVARIETY Lodging at Resort NOTADEQUATE __:__:_:__.3__=_2 ADEQUATE Lodging--Nearby ADEQUATE__:_=_=_3_:_=__N0TADEQUATE Price--Lift Ticket EXPENSJ'VE_=_:__3_.:_=_3__INEXPENSIVE Price--Lodging INE’XPEWSIVE__:_3_._:__3__=__1___EXPENSIVE Price-—Food/Liquor EXPENSJ'VE_3__3___3__3__3_3_INEXPENSIVE Travel Time LESSTHANdes_3___:_3__1___3___3__M0RETHAN4HRS X-Country Skiing DULL _ : __ : __ : __ : _: : PEAK EXPERIENCE Recreational Skiipg CHALLENGING _ 3 __ 3 _ 3 __ 3 __ 3 I __ UNCHALLENGING 8() The purpose of the following questions is to determine the size of your organization. the particular arrangement of tasks and authority. and how your organization conducts day-to-day operations. Most of the questions ask for your estimates about what generally occurs wnthin your organization. so when answering think about what is generally pp; case rather than specific instances which may be contrary to the noun. Considering the operations of your resort durin the ski season. how many full-time paid members do you employ? (If an employee works more than 35 hours/week for most of the season. count him/her as a full-time employee.) employees How many people in the following categories work full-time. part-time. pp are volunteers (receive no monetary payment for their services) during the season? FULL-TIME PART-TIME CATEGORY EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES VOLUNTEERS Ski Patrol Management/Supervisors workers (lift o rators. ticket takers. groomers. etc. Functional Specialists (advertising and/or marketing people. accountants. mechanics. plumbers. etc.) Think about the longest chain-of-authority within your organization. Hhat is the total number of positions in that chain? “ Example: Owner 4 General Manager 4 Dept Head + Supervisor + Morker . 5. longest chain-of-authority within your organization Think about the arrangement of tasks and responsibilities within your organization. Is your firm organized by function or by services? Please read the examples below and circle either example ll or example 42. FUNCTION J fl I l . | Mznfiftggg Maintenance Purchasing SERVICE I '2 i—Ll i+ ] 5“” Lod in a t t 5“ rations 9 9 es auran Rental TL, . i a If your organization is organized neither by function nor service please explain. 81 For these questions, please read the description at each end of the scale. Then circle the number on the scale that best answers the question. a To what extent are job descriptions. rules. and procedures within your organization written? » nonmc IS alumina IS lama uni-m l 2 3 4 5 e To what extent does your organization have formal training programs for any of its employees? wt new: no room wt um remit munno names mmwt «cows to: an ootovus l 2 3 4 5 e To what extent are jobs within your organization narrowly or broadly defined? Example: A narrowly defined Job is a waiter/waitress who only serves the customer and computes the bill. A broader Job definition would give the waiter/waitress the added tasks of bussing dishes. resetting tables. preparing salads. etc. ransom atrium. host Jon: ncwot can a lemon otriwto. JOBS ucwot mwr "RICO rtv uses “5‘5 l 2 3 4 5 a To what extent must the members of your organization. who work in different service operations (slopes. restaurant. ski rental shop. etc.). communicate with each other to make your total operation run smoothly? communal?! calcium to am not tom om- srmwc smxccs emu age 900va mm no: r mm. mm 1 ac» om- so no con- ‘ IOU I.“ L mulCMION ls NECESSARY 1 2 3 4 5 o Hould you say the members of your organization have a great deal of freedom to make decisions pertaining to their Jobs. or is the decision-making restricted to a few people within your organization? a m mm was: now or m otcxstons tvmont IS EIPECTtD ro want DECISIONS limit: I Tut SCOPE or mm ooa 2 3 4 5 a In general. as members of your organization go about doing their assigned tasks. to what extent do they encounter gpusual situation_s_? was: «no: , " auosi ALL or rut mt l 2 3 4 5 a To what extent are the unusual situations similar or is every situation completely new requiring a unique solution? WSML "NATIONS A" SIFIW AD 0' tvuv WSUAL SITUATIDI IS am no mums a st some or “No union: SOLUle nut in as? sawm- l 2 3 4 5 82 a In seeking solutions to unusual situations. to what extent are the members of your organization likely to follow each process below? Please circle the number on the scale that best answers the question fOr each category. . at AT au. atom mini norm mum Use their own Judgement and past experience 1 2 3 4 5 to come up with solutions on their own. Seek information by informal cmunication l 2 3 4 5 with fellow organization members at the same organizational level. Consult written standard operating 1 2 3 4 5 procedures Seek guidance from their innediate superior l 2 3 4 5 a To what extent does your organization make budgets and revenue estimates? Please circle the number on the scale that best answers the question for each category. an ear in: AT ALL APPROXIMTIDNS DETAIL weekly budgets and revenue estimates l 2 3 4 5 Monthly budgets and revenue estimates l 2 3 4 5 Yearly (seasonal) budgets and revenue l 2 3 4 5 estimates Multi-year budgets and revenue estimates 1 2 3 4 5 a How often do you compare your performance to budgets and estimates? Please circle the appropriate answer below. Never Yearly Monthly Heekly Daily This section asks questions about the performance of your organization for last season (1981-82). Anticipating your sensitivity to some of the questions. I again would like to assure you that your responses will be strictl confidential. At no time will any of this information be known to anyone But myself. The quality and usefulness of the feedback which you receive from me and the usefulness of the information which you have already given depends on the completeness of the questionnaire. I am not asking for specific figures. only ratios. a Please give the following ratios for your organization regarding the 198l-82 season. Operating Profit 4 Gross Fixed Assets 1 Income Before Taxes e Equity ' Net Profit After Taxes 0 (Assets - Liabilities - Intangible Assets) 2 T°t°1 Skier VISItS * (Skier €4P4C1ty per day x number of day in _____;l l981-82 season) Total Revenue 4 Total Skier Visits S Total Operating Costs 4 Total Skier Visits S ——- 83 a Hhat is the type of ownership of your organization? Please circle the answer below that best describes your organization. Sole Proprietorship Public Corporation Partnership Cooperative Private Corporation Municipal Ownership 0 Please feel free to use the remaining space for any additional cements. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT PLEASE FOLD YWR COIPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE AND HAIL IT IN THE STAMPED ENVELOPE PROVIDED. THANK YOU. APPENDIX D APPENDIX D MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL or susmess AoMlmsnAnON EAST LANSING ~ MICHIGAN - «mam DEPARTMENT 0| MANAGEMENT Ism assism November 1. 1982 Dear General Manager: Earlier this month I sent you a questionnaire and a postage paid envelope. The purpose of the questionnaire is to learn about the conditions and strategies necessary for success within the ski resort industry. Your response is important. The better the response tram each region. the better will be my feedback to your organization and the better my dissertation will be. Even if you have discontinued your ski operations for this coming season or are contemplating discontinuing your ski operations. would you please fill out the questionnaire and return it to me as soon as possible? Please remember that the absolute confidentiality of your responses is guaranteed . If you have misplaced the questionnaire, please contact me at 517—353-5415 or 517-321-4537 and I will send you another one. Thank you for your tine and consideration. Sincerely, flea #- Ployd c Milloughby HSU in an A/lrmslvw Adana/Equal Opportunity Instilulion 84 m m n APPENDIX E Amov Ho. Amov 0H.I meow co. :8 38 33 zuflommmo wmuaawusa: mufi:=EEoo annmmz :uH3 anomawm mucw>m wcflomm Hmcofiummnumm wcwfixm Anucsouux 0H.I 0N.- mo Aeov Anew Ammo aflov no. OH. «N.I om. muwonH uwfiq mo moowum Aoov Aoev Romy Ammo Aamv ma. Ham. NH.IHHM.I ma. HmwocmCHm Acme Anov Acov Aaov Aeov Ammv HH.I Ha. on. «0.- ma.: mo.I mucouwoofiaoou< Aeov Anew meow Aaov Aeov Ammv Aqov oH.I om. wo.I mH.I om. oo.. «o. muflaflbfimmoou< Away Aoov Acme Amov Amov Aoov “may Amov NH. 50.- mo. mo. co. mo. so. No. wcfio3ouo Amov nqov Amov Aoev Amov Ammv Aeov Anew Accv co. HoN.IHNN. co.nmmq.u «H.I ma. 0H.I mo. mmaoam 0H m w n o n e m N onbmHum> COHuHmom mmocfimsm mo macaumfiwuuouuwuaH Him anmH 85 86 Table E—Z Intercorrelations of Shaping Factors SHAPING FACTORS .NI 2 3 Slope Attributes 391 362 33 73 Ave Ann Snowfall 623 32 10 11 2 Fat on Gov’t Ld Miles 4r Metro Area Dist to Cl Comm Lift Capacity L910 Ft EE’S Form of Ownership Psych of Mkt Segs Dep on C/C for F,A Dep on C/C for Skr p<.05 p<.01 p<.081 4 O9 17 32- 16 69 5 05 51 43 27 10 51 -02 49 6 392 59 '11 32 -O4 59 -08 57 '-17 45 7 e 9 733 -16 04 64 68 46 37 19 94 23 31 19 25 312 -e4 64 68 46 ~14 17 29 63 64 44 07 -27 -05 46 47 33 402 -11 ea 54 55 35 -443 03 59 43 -1e 43 84 72 17 33 72 20 68 16 51 -08 58 ~14 63 362 67 B3 46 11 '27 72 01 33 i7, 72 O9 68 09 51 ~24 58 -4O 63 33 67 17 46 27 71 87 Table E—3 Intercorrelations of Current Market Positioning Strategies 2 I 600 Flt use 2 D1-IExper1 Skrs 3 m-SIngle Skrs 4 lie-Family Skrs 5 O1-Brnup str- 4 D1-floslday Skrs 7 chum-nu Elf! I mwacauon Skrs 1 DI-x Country Str- I. 91-03.: Racers ll Expanslon [Her-u I2 Price Changes 13 Package Changes I! Changes oi P,S,F,A I: Changes on Io HS Id Prices 17 "It. Sir Canola- In Nail 0‘ 9.3.. I' Length 04 Season 20 Olyl ed Heck Open 2! Him! Slllnq Ova” 22 “unsung Can I 90.! 2 p<.l a p<.44I 3.1 7. a .d 7. .9 72 6 7 I: —44 74 69 362 4I 72 7I 25‘ 24‘ 72 7I II 25 72 7x 34' -14 72 7I -Iv 7I 4 9 I4 II I2 473-44 44 23‘ 332 67 44 6e 44 74 27‘ —44 22 332 271 7I 74 74 44 2 -II -27 -45 II 45 M 74 74 44 72 2I 14 ~47 2I 46 7| 7| 7. 66 72 I4 -II -44 23 47 n 74 74 44 72 -43 -4I 272 271 74 74 44 72 -I4 24'—I5 74 44 7I Ie 4| 2: 44 47 47 45 7I 44 -24 Is 74 44 74 III In 44 74 I6 44 13 26‘ 67 24‘ 7| I8 71 15 7| I. 71 I, 7! '05 7| 2. 7. 14 :III 47 01 69 I? 69 I: I4 25 ‘4 52 Is as? :4 52 16 II 24 52 I6 2I 47 52 I4 -44 27 52 I4 2: 29 32 16 44 as 52 I4 I. 2I :2 I4 47 -4I :2 I 34 1-2s 52 I6 44 3 :9 31 I5 34 ‘ —4I 52 I6 53 3 24 :2 I! 44 3 I7 :2 I4 zI I2 I I7 III I7 24 2I 27‘ 5|3 32‘ 34' -44 I 4 7I 7I J I Is 4I 22 :4 -47 72 72 44 72 72 -I: -4I 44 I2 I4 44 72 72 I4 I4 24 I4 -I: 72 72 44 72 72 I7 I7 -I2 241 I7 72 72 44 72 2 z 3 3I 34 I: :4 I5 7 72 44 72 72 -4I -I4 —43 4I ‘-44 7I 7I 43 7I 7I 2I 44’ :271 43 -I7 7I 7I 43 7I 7I 44 49 I4 -I2 -49 74 74 42 74 74 24 I5 22 -4I 46 74 74 42 74 74 34? 332 271423 44 44 241 33 z 44 31 Is 72 72 64 72 72 1 303.63261‘8 II 7I 7I 43 7I 7I 31‘513392l03I5 ‘9 67 ‘1 ‘, " s41 36 z 22 4x 2-44 :2 :2 46 :2 =2 43 :3 ‘-I2 591-" I4 I6 13 6 I4 46 3 36 z 43 5‘ I2 73 73 73 44 3 3: J-II 4s 73 7a 271-"; 4s 4s 0‘ 73 88 Table E-4 Correlations of Business Position Variables with Shaping Factors SHAPING FACTORS BUSINESS POSITION UARIABLES IN- Slps Crud Aces Acom Fin PoLT XCS RRE RapC UCap. Slope Attributes 21 12 ~23 19 13 ~08 ~04 271 ~07 20 64 66 65 65 60 65 62 64 66 65 Ave Ann Snowfall ~10 ~502~12 ~15 572-01 ~03 ~14 ~03 17 30 31 31 31 26 31 29 30 31 31 7. Fac on Gov’t Ld ~01 ~241~13 ~14 34 2 16 ~08 ~11 03 02 64 66 65 65 60 65 62 64 66, 65 Miles fr Metro Area 02 02 ~25 I~12 ~14 ~09 24 19 ~27 1~15 61 63 62 62 57 62 59 61 63 62 Dist to Cl Comm 21 ~15 ~28 ~21 16 10 ~08 ~08 ~13 20 45 46 45 46 40 46 43 45 46 45 Litt Capacity 22 30‘] 14 11 02 02 09 16 ~07 11 55 56 55 56 51 55 52 55 56 55 L610 Ft EE’s 14 17 20 35" 21 ~01 ~09 17 ~01 22 59 61 60 60 55 60 57 59 61 60 Form of Ownership -22 -19 15 -33 2 e4 22 -41 -13 15 -15 59 61 60 6e 55 6o 57 59 61 60 Psych of Hkt Segs ~12 21 25 ~05 08 ~19 ~01 41 ~06 ~09 40 42 41 41 37 42 39 41 42 41 Dep on C/C for F,A ~24 ~11 ~18 ~23 14 05 ~25 ~03 ~03 02 63 65 64 64 59 64 61 63 65 64 Dep on C/C for sup -17 -3512 20 -22 -04 36 2 05 10 26 1-13 63 65 64 64 59 64 61 63 65 64 I p<.05 2 p<.01 3 p<.001 89 Table E-5 Correlations of Business Position Variables with Current Market Positioning Strategies CURRENT MRKET POS1T10N1NG STRATEGIES BUSINESS POSITION UhR1ABLES 'N' Slps Crud Aces Atom Fin PoLT XCS RRE RapC UCap Geo n21 Area 362 24 ~47 24 ~43 ~24 ~47 22 ~24 22 63 65 64 64 59 64 61 63 65 64 Oi-Expert Skiers 23 11 ~01 15 ~01 1~02 06 23 ~10 ~06 64 66 65 65 60 65 62 64 66 65 Cfl-Single Skiers 01 ~02 24 ~01 ~10 ~07 ~03 00 06 ~17 64 66 65 65 60 65 62 64 66 65 D1~Faln11y Sk1ers ~21 13 12 12 13 13 00 ~10 ~03 09 64 66 65 65 60 65 62 64 66 65 CHbGroup Skiers 13 17 44 34‘ ~17 -29‘ 44 16 ~14 14 64 66 65 65 44 65 62 64 66 65 m-Neekday Sk1ers 24 00 20 19 17 ~10 03 16 ~20 ~09 64 66 65 65 60 65 62 64 66 65 CH-Heekend Skiers ~14 ~11 05 ~01 ~21 01 ~12 ~19 ~01 ~11 63 65 64 64 60 64 62 64 65 64 CH-Uacatlon Skiers 10 20 ~311 22 ~03 04 10 12 ~14 22 64 66 65 65 60 65 62 64 66 65 CH-X Country Skrs ~10 07 ~00 ~02 ~06 20‘' 713 ~09 02 ~09 62 64 63 63 59 63 61 63 64 63 131-114: 34 ‘ Racers ~44 15 ~41 ~16 12 13 31‘ 43 ~22 62 64 63 63 59 63 61 63 64 63 1 Expansion Efforts 14 24 ~44 16 43 ~49 ~14 43 ~29 24 59 60 59 64 55 59 57 64 64 59 Price Changes 14 21 ~01 03 00 ~14 17 12 ~13 01 64 66 65 65 64 65 62 64 66 65 Package Changes 16 16 42 473 16 ~15 44 17 15 45 63 65 64 64 59 64 61 63 65 64 Chgs o4 Pr,S~5Fc,At 47 29‘ 45 342 13 13 ~47 34‘ ~46 24 63 64 63 64 5s 63 64 63 64 63 Chgs Dir to "Rt 89s 06 27 10 26 12 16 ~02 10 12 12 49 50 49 50 45 49 47 50 50 49 Prices 33 ~45 49 23 ~44 ~37 43 ~33 ~44 602 15 16 16 16 15 16 14 16 I6 16 Price Str Omplsty ~41 41 13 25‘ 44 06 44 17 ~41 46 64 66 65 65 64 65 62 64 66 65 Ava11 oo Sv,Fc,Act 14 17 ~47 322 49 41 47 26‘ 44 43 64 66 65 65 64 65 62 64 66 65 Length 04 Season 02 01 -10 03 22 26 06 12 ~01 03 54 64 59 59 54 59 56 5s 44 59 Days 41 week Open 43 19 23 24‘ 19 ~43 ~47 43 ~11 12 64 66 65 65 64 65 62 64 66 65 Night Skiing Avaii ~43 14 322 44 ~17 45 ~44 42 ~16 ~16 64 66 65 65 64 65 62 64 66 65 Snonnakin c. 49 14 21 441 ~44 ~42 41 ~43 47 46 9 p 64 66 65 65 64 45 62 64 66 65 1 p(.05 2 p<.01 3 p<.001 90 Table E-6 Correlations of Shaping Factors and Current Market Positioning Strategies CURRENT MRKET P08 1 T 1 m 1 N6 STRATEGI ES Geo Hkt Area D‘l-Expert Skrs CH-SingIe Skrs D1-Fan11y Skrs m-eroop Skrs 121-4133.); Skrs CH-Nkend Skrs O1-Uac Skrs CH-X Ctry Skrs CH-Rec Racers Expan‘ Eff’ts Price Changes Pkg Changes Chgsy P,S,F,A Chgs Dir; H 8 Prices PC 521‘ Cmplxty Await; S,F,A Length of Sea Days/Nee! Open Ngt 8&1 Ava11 Snouakg Cap 1 p<.05 2 p<.01 3 p<.001 Shtt 6A8! ZFac 573 14 ~43 71 32 71 433 ~44 47 72 32 72 42 ~46 ~15 72 32 72 13 34 45 72 32 72 19 ~14 ~24 72 32 72 393 15 13 72 32 72 ~251 ~21 ~19 71 31 71 473 13 12 71 31 71 43 14 22 74 31 74 17 ~19 ~43 74 31 74 352 ~19 ~43 66 33 66 312 ~42 12 74 32 72 342 ~45 45 71 32 71 423 ~47 49 69 32 69 311 ~22 12 52 25 52 47 ~45 ~29 16 16 16 373 47 13 73 33 73 713 44 21 73 33 73 553 673 362 65 33 65 36? ~16 43 73 33 73 ~241 ~42I ~12 73 33 73 ~15 ~673 ~22 73 33 73 Hfflh DC/C LCap LFQE Faun Psfls 13 ~46 69 54 41 ~43 63 54 ~251 ~21 63 54 43 12 43 54 ~45 49 63 54 ~15 ~41 43 54 ~13 15 67 49 352 41 67 49 15 ~45 66 49 43 ~43 66 49 ~16 47 62 47 47 ~45 63 53 ~25 ~26 67 54 ~11 ~49 65 43 ~34‘ ~23 54 33 ~36 ~27 14 13 44 43 69 51 ~43 ~47 49 51 ~41 412 62 43 ~29I 41 69 51 44 ~25 69 51 ~312 ~23 69 51 32‘ 53 15 50 ~00 50 ~00 50 20 50 291 50 ~23 57 3.1 57 ~44 56 04 56 412 53 ~07 50 24 57 433 57 17 44 45 13 19 59 463 59 23 57 433 59 ~23 59 20 59 SMRPING FACTORS 56 3~34‘ ' 64 66 5113-43 3 64 67 49 ~44 64 67 14 ~43 64 67 24 ~362 64 67 413-16 64 67 ~13 ~42 43 66 29‘ ~16 64 46 44 12 42 65 34 2 ~37 2 42 65 373-313 54 61 393-12 64 67 413 ~34 2 63 66 553 ~34 2 61 44 351 ~24 43 43 732 ~42 15 16 332 ~24 64 63 743 ~25I 64 63 563 ~21 53 61 573 ~33“ 44 63 ~15 ~44 64 63 14 ~21 44 63 17 45 17 46 19 46 19 46 21 46 27 46 ~02 46 ~01 46 05 46 ~01 46 10 45 13 46 ~12 46 10 44 16 35 ~22 11 ~00 46 ~07 46 06 46 05 46 ~05 46 ~00 46 D/FA 3/53 41 ~413 74 74 ~13 ~21 71 71 ~22 47 71 71 ~16 ~46 71 71 ~33 3 ~22 71 71 ~44 ~41 71 71 42 41 74 74 44 ~24 74 74 ~15 49 69 69 ~45 ~44 49 69 44 ~34? 65 66 43 ~332 71 71 ~12 ~291 74 71 ~16 ~39 3 64 63 45 ~14 52 52 ~54 ~59! 16 15 45 ~11 72 72 ~14 ~443 72 72 49 ~15 64 64 ~24] ~32? 72 72 ~14 45 72 72 ~13 ~19 72 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldrich, Howard E. and Pfeffer, Jeffrey, "Environments of Organiza- tions," Annual Review of Sociology, 1976, g, pp. 79-105. Aldrich, Howard E., Organizations and Environments, Prentice-Hall, 1979. Ansoff, H. Igor, "The Changing Shape of the Strategic Problem" in Strategic Management, Dan E. Schendel and Charles W. Hofer, Little, Brown and Company, 1979, pp. 30-44. Bain, J. 8., Industrial Organization, Wiley, 1959. Berg, N., Corporate Role in Diversified Companies, Working Paper No. 9—371—523, Harvard Business School, 1971. Barnard, Chester, Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, 1938. Best, Roger J., "An Experiment in Delphi Estimation in Marketing Deci- sion Making," Journal of Marketing Research, November 1974, pp. 447-452. Bower, J. L., Metamanagement: A Technology and a Philosophy, Unpub- lished Manuscript, Harvard Business School, 1972. Cameron, Kim S. and Whetten, David A., "Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness over Organizational Life Cycles," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 29, pp. 525—544. Carmines, Edward G. and Zeller, Richard A., Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage, 1979. Caves, R. E. and Porter, M. E., "Market Structure, Olig0poly, and Stability of Market Shares," Journal of Industrial Economics, 1978, _2_6_, ppe 289-3134 Chandler, Alfred D., Strategy and Structure, lst ed., MIT Press, 1962. Child, John, "Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice," Sociology, 1972, pp. 1-22. Cronbach, L. J., "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests," Pschometrika, 1951’.l§’ pp. 297-334. 91 92 Delberg, Andre L.; Van de Ven, Andrew H.; and Gustafson, David H.; Group Techniques for Program Planning, Scott, Foresman and Com~ pany, 1975. Dill, William R., "Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy," Administrative Science Quarterly, March 1958, 2, pp. 409-443. Emery, Fred E. and Twist, Eric L., "The Causal Texture of Organiza- tional Environments," Human Relations, 1965, lg, pp. 21-32. Evan, William M., "The Organization-Set: Toward a Theory of Inter- organizational Relations," in Approaches to Organizational Design, James D. Thompson (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. Fitzsimmons, James A. and Sullivan, Robert 8., Service Operations Management, McGraw~Hill, 1982. Ford, J. D. and Slocum, J. W., "Size, Technology, Environment and the Structure of Organizations," Academy of Management Review, 1977, 2, 4, pp. 561-575. Freeman, John and Hannan, Michael T., "Niche Width and the Dynamics of Organizational Populations," American Journal of Sociology, Gale, B. T., ”Market Share and Rate of Return," Review of Economics and Statistics, 1972,_§fl, pp. 412-423. Goeldner, Charles R. and Standley, Stacy, Skiing Trends, 1980, pp. 105- 120. Cordon, Robert A. and Howell, James E., Higher Education for Business, Columbia University Press, 1959. Hair, Joseph F. Jr.; Anderson, Rolph E.; Tatham, Ronald L.; and Grablowsky, Bernie J.; Multivariate Data Analysis, Petroleum Publishing Company, 1979. Hall, M. and Weiss, L., "Firm Size and Profitability," Review of Economics and Statistics, 1967, 39, pp. 319-331. Hannan, Michael T. and Freeman, John H., "The Population Ecology of Organizations," in Environments and Organizations, Marshall W. Meyer and Associates, Jossey-Bass, 1978, pp. 131-171. Hatten, K. J.; Schendel, David E.; and Cooper, A. C.; "A Strategic Model of the U.S. Brewing Industry: 1952-1971," Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, pp. 592-610. - Hofer, Charles W. and Schendel, Dan E., Strategy Formulation: Analy- tical Concepts, West Publishing Company, 1980. 93 Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L., The Social Psychology of Organiza— tions, John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Khandwalla, Pradip N., The Design of Organizations, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977. Kotler, Philip, Marketing Management, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, 1976. Leontiades, Milton, Strategies for Diversification and Change, Little, Brown and Company, 1980. Leuschner, William A., Skiing in the Great Lake States, the Industry and the Skier, U.S. Forest Service Research Paper NC-46, 1970. Levine, S. and White, P. E., "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1961, 2} pp. 583—601. Levins, R., Evolution in Changing Environments, Princeton University Press, 1968. March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A., Organizations, Wiley, 1958. Miles, Robert H., Macho Organizational Behavior, Scott, Foresman and Company, 1980. Murthy, K. R. 5., Corporate Strategy and Top Executive Compensation, Harvard Business School, 1977. Newman, H. H., "Strategic Groups and the Structure/Performance Rela- tionship," Review of Economics and Statistics, 1978, 99, pp. 417—427. Nunnally, Jung, Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1978. Pedhazur, Elazar J., Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, G. R., The External Control of Organi— zations, Harper and Row, 1978. Pitts, R. A., Variable Incentive Compensation for Division General Managers in Diversified Firms, Unpublished Doctoral Disserta— tion, Harvard University, 1972. Porter, Michael E., Interbrand Choice, Strategy, and Bilateral Market Power, Harvard University Press, 1976. Schendel, Dan E. and Hofer, Charles W., Strategic Management, Little, Brown and Company, 1979. Scherer, F. M., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Rand—McNally, 1970. 94 Schoeffler, 8.; Buzzell, R. D.; and Heany, D. F., "Impact of Strategic Planning on Profit Performance," Harvard Businggs Review, 1974, 22, pp. 137—145. Sellitz, Claire; Wrightman, Lawrence S.; and Cook, Stuart W.; Research Methods in Social Relations, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. Shepard, William G., "The Elements of Market Structure," Review of Economics and Statistics, 1972, 23, pp. 25—37. Silverman, David, The Theory of Organizations, Basic Books, Inc., 1971. Ski Area Management Magazine, January 1982. Steers, Richard M., "When is an Organization Effective?", in Resource- book in Macro Organizational Behavior, Robert H. Miles (ed.), Scott, Foresman and Company, 1980, pp. 375-385. Steiner, G. A.; Miner, John B.; and Gray, E. R.; Management Policy and Strategy, 2nd ed., MacMillan, 1982. Stone, Eugene F., Research Methods in Organizational Behavior, Goodyear, 1978. Terreberry, S., "The Evolution of Organizational Environments," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1968, 12, pp. 590-613. The Whitebook of Ski Areas, Inter Ski, 1981. Thompson, Arthur Jr. and Strickland, A. J. III, Strategy Formulation and Implementation, BPI, 1980, 1983. Weick, Karl E., The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, 1969. White, R. E. and Hammermesh, R. G., "Toward a Model of Business Unit Performance: An Integrative Approach," Academy of Management Review, 1981, 6, 2, pp. 213—223. llfill/WIWIIWIHWIHUI!'IHilHHl’HllHllHltl‘HUI