The Technology-Strategy
Nexus – Leveraging
Ajit Prasad
Ajit Prasad is Professor, International
Management Institute, New Delhi.
ajitprasad@imi.edu
IIMB Management Review, December 2006
Market Imperfections
T
he nexus between innovation, technology and strategy has been well
established. However, a point hitherto ignored has been the dual role
that technology can play in defining strategy. Technology can have
two inputs: defining business strategy and defining corporate strategy. The
roles, requirements and responsibilities of technology can thus be vastly
different, depending on how we use technology.
The two roles of technology imply vastly different processes in both strategy
formulation and implementation. Technology, in relation to business strategy,
would look at generic strategies of product differentiation. Technology, in
relation to corporate strategy on the other hand, would look at strategies of
cost leadership and thereby of product development. Corporate technology
would also most likely be more expensive than business technology, implying
more stringent return on investment (ROI) decisions1. This paper however
will look at using Porter’s framework2 in the context of single business firms.
In our analysis, the role of technology needs to be understood in terms of
three broad parameters: product differentiation, product development and
cost leadership. The role of strategy too needs to be understood in a context
beyond the Porterian assertion3 that strategy is about positioning: positioning
in a market segment in which the balance of the forces would be more
favourable to the firm.
One of the little known uses of the Five Forces model4 is that it suggests
guidelines for market entry decisions. In a producer’s utopia, all the five
forces would be ‘low’, ie the bargaining power of buyers and suppliers both
would be low, the threat of potential entrants and substitutes module would
365
 Exhibit 1 The Strategy Clock
? (2)
Price BB, Aeroflot
Royal
Jordanian
Value
Source: G Johnson and K Scholes, 2003, Exploring Corporate Strategy, 6th Edition,
Prentice Hall.
be low, and the jockeying for position would be also at a low
intensity level. Thus questions of diversification and/or market
entry decisions can be looked at from this rule: Improvement
in competitive position implies moving towards a ‘low’
intensity of forces. However, the desired intensity of forces
cannot be a fait accompli. Firms must actively work towards
making sure that the intensity of forces is kept at a low level.
The ability of a firm to keep the forces at a low level over a
period of time would result in sustained competitive
advantage.
The point may be illustrated with an example from the
aviation industry. In the standard ‘Strategy Clock’ diagram5
(Exhibit 1), given the value on the x-axis and price on the y-
axis, it is clear that the following map can be constructed for
existing players in the international civil aviation industry. At
the high value-high price position we have players like Virgin,
KLM and Lufthansa. At the low price-low value position we
have Bangladesh Biman, Royal Jordanian, and Aeroflot.
If we were to consider a hypothetical expansion of Aeroflot,
entering into the ‘high-price, high-value’ proposition may not
be advisable, therefore the two options are the other two
corners represented by ?(1) and ?(2). The decision of which
to enter would basically depend on the level of industry
attractiveness. Porter’s model would suggest that the segment
of the market in which the balance of forces6 is such that the
intensity of each is low would be the most attractive. This
would vary for different market structures, with all the forces
being high under perfect competition and being zero or low
in a monopoly7.
366
Lufthansa
KLM
Virgin
? (1)
The Central Thesis
The central thesis of this paper will revolve around the fact
that the purpose of strategy8 is to convert market perfections
into market imperfections, and thus to leverage the
imperfections to provide us with a sustainable source of
competitive advantage.
From the point of view of the consumer, utopian market
conditions would consist of a large number of producers,
undifferentiated products, the inability of individual
producers or consumers to fix prices, the technology being
constant returns to scale (an important factor in the
managerial decision making process), and symmetric
information flows. However, these constitute the worst
market conditions from the viewpoint of the producer. The
entire objective of the producer will be to find ways and
means to corrupt this system, to introduce imperfections in
the market that can be taken advantage of. The most effective
way to introduce these imperfections is through the use of
technology (Exhibit 2). The essence of strategy thus would be
in the use of technology to convert market perfections into
market imperfections.
The Propositions
The interventions in Exhibit 2 would give rise to the following
propositions.
Proposition 1: Given the market characteristics of a large
number of producers, imperfections are introduced by
The Technology-Strategy Nexus – Leveraging Market Imperfections
 Exhibit 2 Market Perfections to Imperfections through the Use of Technology

Sn Market Under Perfect Utopian Use of Technology Examples from the steel Industry
Attribute Competition (desired)

1 Number of Large Small and few Lower the Average Cost Nucor’s introduction of the Thin Slab
players curve Caster

2 Number of Large Managing the Differentiate, then segment The US steel industry’s response to the
buyers tradeoff between through product EU quota imposition through VRAs
communication development/ differentiation (voluntary restraint agreements)9
and brand and then focus
loyalty

3 Ability to fix Nil High Using technology to convert In 1992, SAIL and TISCO cartelised
prices cost leadership to price and were able to fund a price war that
leadership drove Lloyds Steel to financial
bankruptcy

4 Information Symmetric and Asymmetrical Open internally, restrict The E-commerce initiatives by the steel
flow full and limited externally so as to allow majors, using the Vickrey Auction
consumers’ surplus to be technique
minimised

5 Commodity Homogenous Heterogenous Differentiate partially The service element, offered by TISCO
attribute compared to SAIL

6 Presence of Within the group Totally absent Differentiate extremely The threat from plastics — use the bio
substitutes degradability trump card

7 Rent-seeking Nil Substantial Restrict supply, create The industry practice of clubbing slow
behaviour contribution to barriers to entry, increase with fast moving items
profits monopoly power

lowering the average cost curves, and erecting entry barriers. and other legal means to prevent other firms from copying
this technology, and (2) adopting technologies that have a
A large number of producers implies the existence of
‘lumpiness’ effect10 and the associated impact on the
competition among them. Technology can be used in two
increasing returns to scale.. In the steel industry for example,
ways to reduce the level of competition. First, technology
the adoption of the Blast Furnace-Basic Oxygen Furnace
may be used to look at ways to lower the Average Cost (AC)
(BF-BOF) technology route as opposed to the Direct
curve. If this happens, the ability of the firm to either make
Reduction - Electric Arc Furnace (DR-EAF) route ensured
super normal profits in the short run, or to depress the prices
that the increasing returns to scale (IRS) associated with the
in the future will ensure that the bulk of the firms that cannot
lumpy investment in the BF route was so strong that this itself
match the new average cost (AC ) curve will leave the market.
intruded entry barriers in the industry. With a small number
With reference to Exhibit 3, in a profit maximising condition,
of firms, the rent seeking behaviour of existing firms became
equilibrium would be established at the point where marginal
more pronounced.
costs (MC) are equal to marginal revenue (MR). Since firms
are price takers, average revenue (AR) will equal the marginal Proposition 2: Given the market characteristics of a large
revenue (MR) giving us a perfectly elastic demand curve. It number of buyers, imperfections are introduced by
can be seen that any attempts by the firm to lower the AC segmenting the market through product differentiation.
curve through technical progress will result in the generation
The homogeneity of the products introduced through the
of supernormal profits. Thus there will be an increase in the
course of growing competition stands in the way of firms
concentration ratio and the monopoly power.
wanting to realise additional profit over and above the industry
Second, technology may also be used to prevent and to erect average. To do away with this homogeneity, firms use
entry barriers. This may be done by resorting to (1) patents technology to differentiate the product. The advantage of

IIMB Management Review, December 2006 367

 Exhibit 3 The Determination of Super Normal Profits

Price MC AC
Super - Normal AC'
Profit

P0 AR=MR

P1

Quantity
Q1 Q0

AC : Average Cost; MC : Marginal Costs;

MR : Marginal Revenue; AR : Average Revenue

multiple differentiations is that it will eat into the consumers’
surplus that would have grown over a period of time. Thus
the same product, differentiated in different ways, would
attract different target segments, at different prices.
The Marshallian concept of consumers’ surplus11 can be used
effectively to explain the use of technology in not only product
differentiation (physical or perceptual) but also in controlling
information flows (Proposition 4 below). With reference to
Exhibit 4, the traditional intersection of the downward sloping
demand and upward sloping supply curve to determine
quantity and price leaves out one very important management
tool for managers: viz the group of people sitting on the upper
section of the demand curve that were actually willing to pay
much more, but because of market perfections, have benefited
by paying a lower price. Marshall referred to this as
‘Consumers’ Surplus’, which is a good thing for consumers,
but for producers represents a loss of revenue. To mop up
this surplus, firms will introduce imperfections in the market
through segmentation and product differentiation.
The use of technology in product differentiation comes out

Exhibit 4 The Dynamics of Consumers’ Surplus

Price
Supply
Consumers'
Surplus

P1

Demand

Quantity
Q1

368 The Technology-Strategy Nexus – Leveraging Market Imperfections

clearly in the case of the steel industry. In the 1980s, Tata Iron
and Steel Company (TISCO)’s introduction of high carb
chromium metals in its TS423 series, took out the products
from the Joint Plant Committee12 net, which attracted
independent pricing. TISCO was therefore able to (a) distort
the market, and (b) extract consumers’ surplus. This for a
long time gave TISCO its competitive advantage.
Proposition 3: Given the market characteristic of the
inability of either producers or consumers to influence prices,
imperfections are introduced by allowing cost leadership to
be translated into price leadership through the back-up of
reserves and surpluses.
While Porter is very clear about the generic strategies13 to be
followed by firms,, the three strategies of cost leadership,
product differentiation and focus represent different levels
of inferior choice. It may be argued that cost leadership may
not always be looked upon as strategy, as it ultimately depends
on how cost leadership is used. While it is clear that cost
leadership will result in an increased accrual to the reserves
and surpluses (R&S) account of the balance sheet through
the increased margins, it may be prudent to look into what
the firm is expected to do with these increased accruals. To
our mind the increased accruals can be used in two ways:
one, it can be used to fund a price war, a case of cost leadership
being converted into price leadership (resulting in a depletion
of the R&S), or it can be used to fund R&D activity to support
product differentiation, resulting in higher margins, again a
return to price leadership (resulting in a further accrual to
the R&S).
Proposition 4: Given market characteristics of symmetric
information flows, imperfections are introduced by allowing
asymmetric information flows to develop through the use of
technology (Internet).
An important way of introducing imperfections in the market
is to attack the symmetry of information flows. As pointed
out above in Proposition 2, the basis of the consumers’ surplus
rests on the fact that in the market every one knows what
price is being paid. Perfect information thus leads to
consumers concealing their preference orderings.
Sameulson’s work on Revealed Preference is a case in point14.
The Vickrey Auction15 is another way in which exact
consumer valuations can be ascertained by distorting
information flows. Because the consumer is exceedingly
intelligent, he must be tricked into revealing his preference
and thus his true valuation of the product. The consumer
may be ‘tricked’ through product differentiation, a point that
has been discussed earlier. Technology can also induce
IIMB Management Review, December 2006
An important way of introducing
imperfections in the market is to
attack the symmetry of information
flows. The basis of the consumers’
surplus rests on the fact that in the
market every one knows what price
is being paid. Because the
consumer is exceedingly
intelligent, he must be tricked into
revealing his preference and thus
his true valuation of the product.
‘consumer alienation’ to prevent information from being
symmetric. The Internet is a good example. Any one who has
gone through the process of booking a hotel room knows
that there is no standard price. You eventually land up ‘bidding’
for the room, and if the hotel finds your bid acceptable, you
get the product. This is asymmetric information at its best;
you have no idea of how much the next door neighbour has
paid for the same room16.
The role of technology thus gets established in terms of its
ability to disrupt information flows, and to introduce ‘noise’
into the system.
Proposition 5: Given the market characteristics of
homogeneous goods, imperfections are introduced by
differentiating the product, either physically or perceptually.
In a seminal work, Levitt introduced the concept of the core17
and the augmented product. The definition of the core product
envisaged the generic need that has to be fulfilled. In the
augmented product, the characteristics by which one firm
competes with another get emphasised. In terms of Porter’s
Five Forces model18, the ‘jockeying for position’ would be
determined by the augmented product., while the threat of
substitutes would be defined more on the basis of the core
product. We have discussed earlier that in the case of
homogeneous goods, the bargaining power of the buyers
would be high. To curtail and reduce this bargaining power,
commodities must be converted into products, either
physically or perceptually. Once we are in the domain of the
‘product’, then the firm can rely on brand loyalty to introduce
irrationality in the market, leading to sustainable advantage.
Here again technology can play an important role in achieving
this transition. R&D and other activities can mould the product
369
so as to have a greater appeal to one dominant market
segment. Technology can also play a role in altering the
perceptual map, by making the same product available to
different market segments (the Internet, once again), with
supporting advertising, which can realise the same advantage.
Proposition 6: Given the market characteristics of cross
elasticity of substitution (CES) equal to infinite (perfect
substitutability), imperfections are introduced by making the
CES equal to zero (zero substitutability) through product
development (differentiation).
One of the key tenets of perfect competition is the fact that as
the goods in question are of a homogenous nature, consumers
are willing to pick up as much as is available of the good
supplied at a price that is fixed. Changes in price will not
change the quantity of goods demanded by the market. The
demand curve thus will be perfectly elastic. This is also because
of the assumption of perfect substitutability, in the sense that
if the producer tries to increase prices, the consumer will go
to some other producer who while not having the same
commodity, is able to satisfy the consumer’s generic need
perfectly.
It can be argued that strategy based distortions must include
how to convert the perfectly elastic demand curve into a
relatively elastic demand curve and so on.
As can be seen from Exhibit 5, the key to the transition from
perfect competition to monopolistic competition lies in the
clockwise swing from AR to AR’. This swing while leading to
Exhibit 5 Converting Commodities to Products
P1
P0
MR'
Q1 Q0
AC : Average Cost; MC : Marginal Costs;
MR : Marginal Revenue; AR : Average Revenue
370
a fall in the output from Q0 to Q1 will lead to an increase in
the market price from P0 to P1. The increase in the price
realisation will definitely lead to a drop in total revenue19, as
the monopolist will tend to operate on the inelastic segment
of the demand curve: this however gets compensated with
the trade off between revenue and profits20.
Technology thus facilitates the market manager’s dream of
converting commodities into products and allowing brand
loyalty to emerge through enabling differentiation of the
product and the creation of brand loyalty.
Pr oposition 77:: Given the market characteristics of the total
Proposition
absence of super normal profits, imperfections are introduced
to result in super normal profits not only in the short run, but
also in the long run through rent seeking behaviour.
Under the normal assumptions relating to the prefect market,
super normal profits cannot exist in the long run. The
assumptions about free exit and entry take care of this. With
one firm making super normal profits, the industry
attractiveness will increase, and more and more firms will
enter the market. This will lead to oversupply and thus a fall
in the AR=MR curve. Super normal profits will thus be wiped
out.
There are different ways in which firms can retain the ability
to make super normal profits. Growth Dynamics21 suggest a
sequential process by which firms move from exploiting
strategies of product development to market development
and vice versa. Diversification would be last on the list of
AC
MC
AR=MR
AR'
The Technology-Strategy Nexus – Leveraging Market Imperfections
growth options, unless of course the product life cycle (PLC)
for the existing product has been wiped out totally. It is clear
that the strategy of product (differentiation) and market
development will lead to the extension of the PLC, a feature
akin to firms getting into rent seeking behaviour. In the long
run, every firm will try to exploit the limited elasticity of supply
in a relatively inelastic demand oriented market, leading to
the establishment of economic rent, or firms trying to establish
rent seeking behaviour. It is this situation that is at the pinnacle
of the firm’s ability to generate profits over and above the
firm average.
Technology again plays an interesting role here. Starting from
the patent issues of product development to controlling the
flow of information, we find technology increasingly being
used to support the existence of super normal profits. In the
steel industry, there exists ample evidence of product
development22, technology development to establish and
exploit increasing returns to scale, and monopolistic
behaviour in limiting the supply schedule: all ultimately aimed
at establishing rent seeking behaviour23.
Conclusions
In this paper an attempt has been made to look at the strategy-
technology nexus. We have asserted that the purpose of
strategy is to introduce a sense of competitive advantage, and
this can be done by the pro-active approach of a firm, which
wants to move away from the market characteristics of
perfect competition to the market characteristics of
monopoly. The deliberate distortion of market conditions
does not naturally favour the consumer, but it definitely
favours the producer, who uses this as an opportunity to
increase his profits in the short term and initiate his process
of rent seeking behaviour in the long term. It can be argued
that this also may not be conducive to the long term interests
of the firm, as rent seeking behaviour will obviously encourage
complacency in the organisation. This then is the classic
dilemma between short term tactical response, which is
basically in the nature of a reflex reaction, and the long term
strategic positioning, which the manager will have to resolve.
The paper then looks at the role of technology in supporting
the firm’s efforts in introducing distortions across various
parameters, be it in buyer behaviour, supplier behaviour, or
growth patterns followed by companies or even facilitating
the firm’s unending quest for rent seeking behaviour.
Managers must understand that acceptance of short run
IIMB Management Review, December 2006
The purpose of strategy is to introduce
a competitive advantage, and this can
be done by the pro-active approach of
a firm which wants to move away from
perfect competition to monopoly. The
deliberate distortion of market
conditions does not favour the
consumer, but it definitely favours the
producer, who uses this to increase his
profits in the short term and initiate rent
seeking behaviour in the long term.
reflex reactions by using technology adversely to alter the
competitiveness of the industry structure may not be the
long term solution.
Despite the fact that there may be a ‘Nash equilibrium’24
preference for the short term solution, firms need to realise
that strategies dealing with the different constituents of the
markets (buyers, suppliers etc) cannot be uniform and must
change according to the market distress signal that is sent.
Firms cannot and should not have uniform strategies (or
tactical) responses across the industry.
In the context of the ever changing technology, the role of
information (a)symmetry is going to be critical. The Internet
has already addressed this in terms of breaking down the
bargaining power of buyers and suppliers by geographical
isolation. Among the generic strategies specified by Porter, it
is probably only product differentiation that will be sustainable
in the long run (unless of course cost leadership is made
synonymous and sequential with price leadership). Finally, it
is very easy for firms to sink into the luxury of rent seeking
behaviour. But its impact on creativity will limit the firm’s
ability to redefine itself in the long run.
The importance of technology in supporting strategy thus
cannot be underestimated. Especially with the shortening of
the PLC, technology will play an increasing role in defining
the strategic basis of competitive advantage. Firms that have
been able to harness the use of technology will be the firms
that will emerge as survivors in the next shakeout. Technology
strategy, or strategic technology, whichever interpretation that
may appeal to the firm, will be the imperative for tomorrow’s
market place.
371
References and Notes
1 Liebenstein, H,1966, ‘Allocative Efficiency vs X-efficiency’,
American Economic Review, Vol 56, No 3, pp 392-415.
2 Porter, M E, 1979, ‘How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy’,
Harvard Business Review, March-April, Vol 57, No 2, pp
137-145.
3 Porter, M E, 1996, ‘What is Strategy?’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol 74, No 6, Nov-Dec, pp 61-78.
4 Porter, M E, 1980, Competitive Strategy, The Free Press.
5 Johnson, G, and K Scholes, 2003, Exploring Corporate
Strategy, 6th Edition, Prentice Hall, pp 319-21.
6 As such the literature has not been able to come up with
cardinal measures for the intensity of forces. Decision of
market entry thus must be heuristic.
7 Duopoly is the only market structure form in which the 5-
Forces model may not be applicable. Because of the presence
of relational expectations (output of x will be determined by
price of y and vice versa), the linearity assumption relating
to bargaining power may not necessarily lead the system
into convergence (a’ la the ‘Cobweb Theorem’ — Kaldor, N,
1934, ‘A Classificatory Note on the Determination of
Equilibrium’, Review of Economic Studies, Vol I, February, pp
122-36.
8 This is in essence the difference between the study of
economics and the study of strategy: economics teaches you
how to live with imperfections; strategy teaches you how to
take advantage of imperfections.
9 In the 80s, following a glut in the steel industry (this was the
same period that Nippon Steel scrapped over 30 mt of steel
capacity) the EU imposed quotas on the import of American
steel. The US responded by adopting Voluntary Restraint
Agreements on the import of certain special steels from
Europe. Steel producers in Europe, in order to beat the
system started to differentiate the ‘garden’ varieties of steel,
so as to escape out of the VRA/ Quota regime, and much of
the differentiation was cosmetic. In India, TISCO followed
the same strategy to escape out of the JPC net (in the pre
1991 period steel production, pricing and distribution came
under the administered régime through a Joint Plant
Committee).
10 Cooper, R, J Haltiwanger, and L Power, 1999, ‘Machine
Replacement and the Business Cycle: Lumps and Bumps’,
American Economic Review , Vol 89, pp 921-46. The
‘lumpiness of capital’ refers to the attribute of perfect
indivisibility. Thus while it may be possible to set up a million
tonne steel plan for US$ 500 million, it may not be possible
(or even desirable) to set up a one tonne steel plan for US$
500! The lumpiness of capital would also depend on the
minimum economic size of investment.
11 Marshall, A, Principles of Economics, English Language Book
Society, London, 1969 (8th Edition 1920: 1st edition 1890).
12 It may be recalled that during the 1980s, most of the
integrated steel producers, came under the Joint Plant
Committee (JPC) net, wherein, not only the prices of the
(homogenous) products were controlled by the Ministry of
Steel, but also their supply: a strict rationing system was
372
being followed. Obviously, by adding a few alloys, the
chemical composition of the steel could be changed, and this
would land it outside the JPC net. Scope of using technology
to map not only physical differences but perceptual
differences (most of the time, the added alloys contributed
little to the physical strength of the product), increased
profits.
13 Cost Leadership, Product Differentiation, and Focus — Porter,
M E, 1985, Competitive Advantage, Free Press.
14 Samuelson, Paul A, 1948, ‘Consumption Theory in Terms of
Revealed Preference’, Econometrica, Vol 15, pp 243-253.
15 Vickrey, W, 1961, ‘Counterspeculation and Competitive
Sealed Tenders’, Journal of Finance, Vol 16, No 1, pp 8-37.
16 We also see ample evidence of this in the airline industry
17 Levitt, T, 1980, ‘Marketing Success through Differentiation
— of Anything’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 58, No 1, Jan-
Feb, pp 83-91. This is not to be confused with the ‘core product’
as introduced by Prahalad and Hamel.
18 Porter, ‘How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy’.
19 This also links up to the concept of strategy as inferior choice
(Prasad, A, 2002, Issues in Strategy — Some Debates of
Irreverence, Global Business Review, Sage, Vol 3, No 1, pp 25-
38). By converting the product (elastic demand curve) into a
commodity (relatively elastic demand curve), the producer
has actually reduced his market. This action obviously has
associated risks. The newly segmented market may not value
the basis of the segmentation, and more important, the very
basis of segmentation can itself vanish through technological
change. These are risks upfront, but the payoff is that if this
segment can be isolated, the resulting brand loyalty will
yield additional profits. Communication costs too would be
lower.
20 This is the classic assumption that the monopolist’s aim is
not to maximise sales but to maximise per unit profit. Also,
the more he is able to restrict the sales, the greater is the per
unit profit that he will make.
21 Ansoff, I A, 1965, Corporate Strategy, McGraw-Hill. It is
interesting to note that the sequencing for the four quadrants
would be different for consumer goods vs industrial goods.
For the former, the sequencing would be: product
development – penetration - market development -
diversification. For industrial goods the sequencing would
be: market development – penetration - product
development and then diversification. This would be
essentially due to the fact that product development in
industrial goods would be more R&D and capital-intensive
process than that in consumer goods.
22 It would be interesting to search for empirical evidence of X-
efficiency (Liebenstein, ‘Allocative Efficiency vs X-efficiency’),
wherein we could possibly correlate the pace of product
development to the extent of competition there in the
market. The causal relationship would also yield interesting
results.
23 This of course may not always be a good thing. Rent seeking
behaviour would introduce complacency, never a good thing
in industry. The collapse, if market conditions change, would
come much faster.
The Technology-Strategy Nexus – Leveraging Market Imperfections
24 Nash, John F, 1950, ‘Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games’, Collis, D J, and C A Montgomery, 1998, ‘Creating Corporate
Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. Advantage’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 76, No 3, May-June,
pp 70-83.

Other Works
Brian Arthur, W, 1996, ‘Increasing Returns and the New World
of Business’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 74, No 4, July-Aug, pp
100-109.
Grove, A., 1996, Only the Paranoid Survive , Currency
Doubleday,
Robins, Lionel, 1931, An Essay on the State and Nature of
Economic Science, Cambridge,

Reprint No 06405

Statement of Ownership of IIMB Management Review

The following statement about ownership and other particulars of IIMB MANAGEMENT REVIEW is
published in accordance with Rule 8 of Newspapers (Central)Rules, 1956
Form IV
1. Place of Publication Indian Institute of Management Bangalore,
Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560 076
2. Periodicity of Publication Quarterly
3. Printer's Name Prof Amarnath Krishnaswamy
Nationality Indian
Address Indian Institute of Management Bangalore,
Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560076
4. Publisher's Name Prof Amarnath Krishnaswamy
Nationality Indian
Address Indian Institute of Management Bangalore,
Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560076
5. Editor's Name Professor B Mahadevan
Nationality Indian
Address Indian Institute of Management Bangalore,
Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560076
6. Name and addresses of individuals who own the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore,
newspaper and partners of shareholders holding Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560076
more than one percent of total capital
I, Amarnath Krishnaswamy, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

(Sd.)
Bangalore Amarnath Krishnaswamy
December 8, 2006 Publisher, IIMB Management Review

IIMB Management Review, December 2006 373