If the Rival That Owns the Cement Plant Answers: War-Gaming a Precast Producer's Specialization Against Its Likeliest Counter-Moves
Student Name
American College of Education
MGMT5663: Innovation and Strategic Management
Module 5 Assignment
Instructor Name
May 29, 2028
The Move Being Tested
In Module 3, Tallis Precast chose to stop bidding highway barriers, move those casting beds to engineered culverts and bridge sections, hire engineers, add another crane crew and sell counties one service covering design, supply and installation. Within three years the plan was projected to lift annual operating income by roughly $2.5 million. Module 4 added a staged move to a lower-carbon mix. Those projections assumed that rivals would carry on as before, which no strategy should assume. A plan that works only if competitors stand still is a forecast about competitors, and it should be tested as one.
The move becomes visible to the market this spring, when Tallis stops bidding barriers and begins offering the design-and-set service to its eight largest county customers. This paper asks who is most likely to answer, how and at what cost to Tallis.
Which Rival Will Respond
Chen (1996) proposed that the likelihood of competitive attack and response between two firms depends on two things: market commonality, the degree to which they meet in the same markets and those markets matter to both, and resource similarity, the degree to which they hold comparable strategic resources. Firms high on both are the most likely to see each other as rivals and to respond. Chen also connected these conditions to three drivers of response: awareness of the action, motivation to answer it and capability to do so.
Applied to Tallis's three rivals, the framework points clearly to one. Norhaven Precast and Ostrander Precast, the two family-owned firms, sell mostly standard products and have thin engineering; Tallis's exit from barriers helps them, and neither can match a design-and-set service, so their motivation to attack and their capability are both low. Corbel Materials' precast division is different. Its Iowa plant sits 90 miles from Tallis's and serves 31 of the 71 counties in Tallis's market, it already sets its own products, and its parent owns a cement plant. It is high on market commonality and high on resource similarity, and it will be aware of the move within weeks because it bids the same county lettings.
Four Counter-Moves, Ranked
Chen et al. (1992), studying competitive actions and responses among airlines, found that actions with greater competitive impact drew more responses, while strategic actions requiring heavy commitment and effort drew fewer and slower responses than tactical ones such as price changes. That pattern predicts the order in which Corbel is likely to act.
The most likely response is tactical: cutting prices on engineered bids in the 31 overlapping counties. It is fast, cheap to reverse and, for Corbel, partly funded by the margin its parent earns on cement. The second, less likely because it is harder to carry out and carries legal risk, would be to tighten cement allocation or pricing to independent precasters in the peak season. The third is strategic and slow: building an engineering group to match the design-and-set service. Module 2 showed why that takes years. The time compression diseconomies described by Dierickx and Cool (1989) apply directly here: approved designs accumulate one reviewed and installed project at a time, and a rival that doubles its spending does not halve the wait. Corbel would need three to five years to offer a comparable service across the market. The fourth is the most damaging and the least predictable: buying Norhaven, whose owners want to sell, which would give Corbel a second plant and a larger base from which to cut prices.
Sizing the Likeliest Response
Suppose Corbel cuts its engineered bid prices by 8 percent in the overlapping counties for two years. Those counties account for about 40 percent of Tallis's engineered revenue. On projects where Tallis's engineers were consulted during design, which Module 2 found Tallis wins 61 percent of the time, the effect should be modest, because the design and installation advantages are worth more to the county than the price gap. On open bids, which Tallis wins about 22 percent of the time, the effect would be larger. Assuming Tallis matches no prices outside the overlap and holds its consulted-project prices, the estimated loss is about $1.1 million a year of operating income in the first two years.
That is a serious cost but not a fatal one. It takes the expected gain from specialization from about $2.5 million to about $1.4 million a year during the price war, and it costs Corbel far more in absolute terms, because Corbel would be cutting prices on a larger volume of work in those counties. A price war is therefore unlikely to last beyond two bidding seasons unless Corbel's purpose is to drive an independent out of the market altogether. Tallis's family owners should know that this is the scenario to watch for, and that the signal would be price cuts spreading from engineered products into standard ones.
Adjustments That Keep the Strategy Sound
The analysis supports the direction with four adjustments. First, Tallis should move the design-and-set service from project-by-project offers to three-year service agreements with its eight largest counties before Corbel's price cuts take hold, because an agreement signed in the first season is worth more than a price cut offered in the second. Second, it should not follow Corbel into price cuts on open bids; it should hold price where its consulted-design advantage applies and accept a lower win rate elsewhere. Third, it should reduce its exposure to the second counter-move by signing a three-year supply agreement with the independent cement plant in its market and by moving forward with the slag mix pilot from Module 4, which cuts cement purchases on every section converted.
Fourth, and most important, Tallis should respond to the fourth counter-move before it happens. If Norhaven sells to Corbel, the market acquires a second integrated competitor, and the case for specialization weakens. Tallis cannot afford to buy Norhaven outright, as Module 3 showed, but it can open talks on a narrower arrangement, such as buying Norhaven's small engineered product line or a joint cement purchasing arrangement structured with counsel, which would make Norhaven less attractive to Corbel and more useful to Tallis.
Does the Direction Survive?
The direction survives, but with a narrower margin of safety than Module 3 suggested. Against the likeliest response, a two-season price war in the overlap counties, specialization still adds value, and the design library gives Tallis three to five years before Corbel can offer a comparable service. Against the least likely but most damaging response, the purchase of Norhaven, the strategy holds only if Tallis has already locked in its largest counties and its cement supply. The Module 6 recommendation should therefore treat the county agreements and the supply contract as first-year priorities rather than later refinements, and it should name the purchase of Norhaven by any integrated rival as the trigger for a formal review of the strategy.
References
Chen, M.-J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100-134. https://doi.org/10.2307/258631
Chen, M.-J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1992). Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses. Management Science, 38(3), 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.3.439
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504
How this MGMT 5663 Module 5 example is structured
MGMT 5663 Module 5 typically tests the chosen direction against a competitor's likely counter-move; your classroom's instructions decide how many rivals and responses to consider. This example first decides which competitor matters, using a published framework rather than intuition. It then works through each plausible response in the rival's own terms, sizes the most likely one against the gains the strategy was expected to produce and ends with specific adjustments rather than a general call for vigilance.
MGMT5663 Module 5 questions, answered
What does MGMT5663 Module 5 usually ask for?
MGMT5663 Module 5 often asks students to test a chosen strategy against the likely responses of a key competitor and to adjust the plan in light of them. Your classroom's instructions decide how many competitors and responses to analyze.
How do I decide which competitor is most likely to respond?
Look at how much the two firms overlap in the markets that matter to both and how similar their strategic resources are. Research on competitor analysis finds that rivals high on both dimensions are the most likely to notice and answer a move.
Do I need to put numbers on a competitor's response?
It strengthens the paper. A rough estimate of what the most likely response would cost, set against the gain the strategy was expected to produce, shows whether the direction survives rather than only saying that it might.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.