General Electric vs. Westinghouse in Large Turbine Generators (A)

Michael E. Porter

Case | HBS Case Collection | January 1980 (Revised August 1986)

General Electric vs. Westinghouse in Large Turbine Generators (A)

Abstract

Describes the U.S. large turbine generator industry in early 1963, a period of severe price cutting and depressed industry conditions. Presents data to allow a structural analysis of the industry and an analysis of the strategies of the major players since 1946. The major teaching issue is the process of competitive rivalry in an oligopoly market, particularly the problems of deescalating in a situation of market warfare. This industry is one where the conditions for avoiding warfare are difficult. Subsidiary teaching issues include the structural analysis of capital goods markets and strategy for the market leader in areas like pricing, rate of technological change, and customer focus. After understanding the industry structure, the discussion should turn to what GE can do to extricate itself from the disastrous price cutting afflicting the industry.

Keywords: Transformation; Customer Focus and Relationships; Machinery and Machining; Cost Management; Price; Management Analysis, Tools, and Techniques; Marketing Strategy; Industry Structures; Competition; Manufacturing Industry; United States;

Format: Print

15 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Porter, Michael E. "General Electric vs. Westinghouse in Large Turbine Generators (A)." Harvard Business School Case 380-128, January 1980. (Revised August 1986.)

Since its establishment in 2005, Hamburg’s Martini Klinik had single mindedly focused on prostate cancer care with a commitment to measure long-term health outcomes for every patient. A wholly owned subsidiary of the University Hospital Hamburg, Martini Klinik was a “hospital in a hospital” in close proximity to other medical departments and services. By 2019, Martini Klinik had become the largest prostate cancer treatment program in the world with 8,000 outpatient cases and more than 2,500 surgical cases annually. Patients came from all over Germany and from around the world. A new and expanded facility was under construction to have the capacity to manage more patients with prostate cancer.

Currently, few health care providers measure and report their patient outcomes, which leads to several problems. Attempts to introduce price transparency without outcomes transparency could trigger a “race to the bottom.” Should Medicare coverage be expanded to non-elderly populations, its much lower reimbursements will create pressure on providers to lower their spending in ways that produce even worse outcomes. Even without Medicare expansion, the lack of systematic outcomes measurement has made the migration from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursements, especially bundled payments, less effective and more difficult to implement. Hidden variation in outcomes prevents providers from learning from others how to produce better outcomes for their patients. We propose that the Congress elected in November 2020 mandate the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to begin requiring outcomes measurement by all providers reimbursed under government Medicare and Medicaid programs.

We are entering a new stage of understanding of the linkage between investment performance and social impact. Previous approaches, such as socially responsible investing and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) screening, have obscured the opportunities for higher growth, profitability, and competitive advantage that come from creating shared value: addressing social and environmental issues as integral to a company’s core strategic positioning. A shared value approach to investing can deliver superior shareholder returns, but capturing that value will require very different practices on the part of both corporate leaders and investors.

Faculty & Research

General Electric vs. Westinghouse in Large Turbine Generators (A)

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author