1. 1
Uncertainty Management by SMEs in Mature Industries: a main vs. minor
positioning of companies using a portfolio analysis.
Aouatif El Fakir and Aurélie Delemarle
Laboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés (LATTS)
Marne-la-Vallée, France.
Introduction:
Seeing that companies operate under uncertainty becomes commonplace. Globalization,
new technologies or industrial mutations increase uncertainty and thus the demand of
effective concepts, frameworks and tools to manage it. We define uncertainty here as
unknown issues (but potentially knowable) about the technology, the market or the
business system that prevent forecasting verifiable outcomes. Courtney et al. (1999)
classify, on the basis of past works, uncertainty into 4 level: 1) a clear-enough future; 2)
Alternate future; 3) A range of futures; 4) true ambiguity. Their analysis offers ways to
handle uncertainty for each of the situations showing that there are not only two situations
“no uncertainty” or “uncertainty” but a large variety of situations, each situation requires a
specific management, a portfolio of actions which called strategic postures. “A posture is
not a complete strategy. But, it clarifies strategic intent but not the actions required to
fulfill that intent” (1997: 74). By and large (including Courtney et al.’s analysis), research
about uncertainty management focuses on large companies and high-tech industries while
the majority of companies are small operating in mature businesses. SMEs do not have the
resources and/or means to bear the risks the same way large firms can. Moreover in a
mature field the possibilities to create a new market or to develop a whole new technology
are much less possible. Both cases reduce the range of actions that an SME can take.
In this paper we attempt to figure out how small companies manage strategically
uncertainty, whether they take options to maintain their competitiveness and how they
manage to shape their sector and whether this management materialize at projects and
portfolio levels. Our hypothesis is that the management of uncertainty, that can be
followed by studying strategic postures, is highly different in large firms and in SMEs: the
set of actions should be different. We develop an original analytical framework on the basis
of theories and concepts that scholars built previously and that can tackle, in our opinion,
the question of strategic management of uncertainty in SMEs. We use the notion of
innovative projects portfolio rather than considering innovation as a whole.
Our study mainly contributes to highlight the way SMEs build their strategic
postures. Our study shows that innovative projects i.e. development of new
products progressively build the portfolio of SMEs and allow them to acquire
know-how and master a given technology. These three elements (portfolio,
technology and know-how) allow SMEs to build their strategic postures. Our
study shows also that innovating is the way for SMEs, with limited resources, to
test new directions and to assess opportunities of changing.

2. 2
Our second contribution is the tool that we developed (to understand strategic
postures building) and that could be a strategic tool for SMEs to check whether
their innovative projects are strategically relevant to maintain their
competitiveness or not.
In section 1, we point out how literature focuses on large companies and high-tech
industries to build concepts and tools to manage uncertainty. Section 2 contains our
analytical framework and methodology. In section 3, we put forward and discuss our
findings. We conclude with new research questions that our survey gives rise to.
1. Literature review:
Theorizing and research about uncertainty try to answer mainly three questions: what is
occurring or what is likely to occur in company task domain (State uncertainty)? Given
what is occurring in the task environment, how is this likely to affect the company (Effect
uncertainty)? And how should the company respond to what is happening in the task
environment (Response uncertainty)?
On the basis of empirical observations, Courtney (2001) points out three strategic postures
under which one can put all strategies to manage uncertainty. The strategic posture was
defined by Courtney et al. as “the intent of a strategy relative to the current and future
state of an industry” (97:73):
Shaping posture
strategies
Adapting posture
strategies
Reserve the right to play
(options) strategies
Imposing company’s
preferred technology or
business system as the
industry standard.
Following a potential
shaper’s lead
Growth options that provide
a preferential position to
reinvest in the future (build
on existing commitments)
Introducing fundamental
product, service, or
business system
innovations into the market
Hedging against future
market uncertainty
Insurance options that
provide a preferential
position to divest in the
future (change strategic
direction)
Restructuring the industry
to reconfiguring its
structure to strengthen the
company’s position
Probing through continuous
experimentation in
products, services and
business systems
Learning options that
provide a preferential
position to invest in the
future (launch altogether
new strategies)
Replicating existing
business systems in new
markets
Building a flexible
organization to adapt
quickly to their changing
environment
Influencing the uncertain
competitors’ actions
Table 1: strategic postures. The authors based on Courtney (2001).
The credit of Courtney (2001, 1997) taxonomy is to summarize what scholars has already
made out. Porter (1980) assumed that ‘firm may choose to try to cause the most
advantageous scenario to occur if it has resources; or it may be forced by limited resources

3. 3
or great uncertainty to maintain flexibility’. Wernerfelt and Karnani (1984) argued that
companies can also ‘wait and act only after the uncertainty is removed’. It is what
Copeland and Weiner (1990) call flexibility or options strategy. In their works and notably
their book ‘The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity
in an Age of Uncertainty’, edited in 2000, McGrath and MacMillan identify main strategies
under uncertainty that we can rank amongst the three postures: Redesign of products and
services; Redifferentiation of products and services; Reshape the market; Creation of new
competitive advantages.
However, Courtney based its taxonomy on large companies and there is actually not much
literature about small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Concepts and tools are mostly
designed on the basis of large companies’ behaviour and are supposed to be relevant for
other categories. But, SMEs have limited financial, human, organizational and technological
resources and their strategic behaviour is possibly different. The few empirical works about
SMEs strategic management date from the late 1980s and 1990s. Dilts and Prough (1989)
analyse the behaviour of 201 SMEs in the retail travel service industry in USA and conclude
that “small firms differ substantially from larger ones in the strategies managers perceive
as effective”. Small firms’ managers carry out fewer and different strategies than their
larger counterparts notably because they lack of expertise, information and financial and
human resources. They also operate on fewer markets and have less power. Shrader et al.
(1989) study shows that “most small business planning is done by the top manager alone.
The top managers plan alone because they think planning is costly and time consuming”.
On the basis of the study of 177 firms, Matthews and Scott (1995) argue that “When faced
with an inability to predict or to understand the environment because of lack of
information…small firms respond with less sophisticated strategic planning”.
The other works about uncertainty management by SMEs focus on dynamic high-tech
industry. Therefore, uncertainty corresponds mainly to technological issues and scholars
focus on R&D activity. They point out that limited resources and capabilities of SMEs make
them facing several pressures in their R&D and innovation efforts and pursuing different
strategies than large companies (Winch and Bianchi 2006). Those strategies comprise
alliances (Barnir and Smith 2002) and even co-opetition to create economies of scale,
mitigate risks and leverage resources together (Morris et al. 2007). Gnyawali and Park
(2009) argue that the best strategy for SMEs under uncertainty is to be flexible all the
time.
In short, few empirical studies point out that SMEs behave differently but; the literature
focuses mainly on large companies and high tech industries. A large part of reality is
insufficiently studied as the strategic management of uncertainty by SMEs in mature
industries is still an unexplored area. In this paper, we attempt to explore it by testing the
Courtney’s concept of strategic postures. This concept is very interesting as it explains that
there is a supra level determining strategies under uncertainty. Our main enquiry is
whether strategic postures are built in the same way in SMEs. Courtney (2001) explains,
for instance, that shaping strategy can be achieved by imposing a preferred technology or
business system, introducing fundamental innovations, reconfiguring the structure of the
industry or influencing the uncertain competitors’ actions. All of these examples suppose
that the company has significant resources; which is not the case of SMEs.
Furthermore, if we consider a review of literature about new product development (see for
a good review Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001) four perspectives are taken:
- a marketing one in which a product is a bundle of attributes that would fit on a
market;
- an organizational one, in which a product is the result of an organizational process;

4. 4
- an design engineering one in which a product is a technical artefact resulting from a
complex assembly of components;
- an operation management one in which a product follows a sequence of steps from
development to production.
Each of these approaches intrinsically maps the locus of innovation in one point of the
organization. In the marketing approach for example, the choice of developing a new
product relies on the observation that some customers’ needs are not satisfied on the
market, while the engineering perspective points to new functionalities to be introduced on
the market. The major drawback of these literatures is the focus on single projects while
the strategy literature often points to the portfolio of activities of companies.
We make the hypothesis that an SME strategic posture would be shaped by the
combination of the technology that it uses, the know-how that it has and the
portfolio that it develops. In other words, by developing new products, the SME
masters the technology in use, acquires more or less specific know-how and
defines its main position on the market. On the basis of these elements, the SME
outlines its strategic posture: head the sector, take options or just follow the
leader. So, how we can test this hypothesis?
2. Analytical framework and methodology:
To test our hypothesis, we choose to study the way SMEs developed new
products i.e. their innovative projects to identify patterns of innovation, if any,
that build particular portfolios and determine strategic postures that SMES can
have.
On one hand, by questioning companies on their innovative projects, we intend to identify
how SMEs innovate: to solve which problems/ to satisfy which demand? With who the
SMEs innovate? How is innovation carried out internally? Do they use any network? And
what is the output of the innovation process strategically speaking?
On the other hand, we make a distinction between innovative projects linked to the main
position of SMEs on the market and those revealing minor positions. The main position
reflects the core of SMEs activities: related innovative projects are less risky because the
SMEs master their core technology and know the markets. Minor positions are more risky
either on the technological or the market dimensions. We suppose here that minor
positions are trials/tests of new directions or milestones on the path towards a new main
position. The output can be fostering the main position of SMEs or shaping new one. Here,
the framework that we developed for this survey:

5. 5

6. 6
Figure 1: Interview guide figures.

7. 7
2.1 Profile of new products: technology and know-how:
The competitive advantage of a company on a market is based on its ability to master a
technology better than competitors. It includes the ability to pre-empt rare assets and
complementary assets (Teece, 91). Thus, a technology can be simple to master, which
puts the company at risk on a market as it can be easy imitated. But, the possession of
strong complementary assets such as distribution channels or privileged links with
customers prevent imitators to take large market share.
The ability for competitors to imitate a technology also depends on the degree of tacitness
of technical knowledge. A technology can be considered as simple but a company can
acquire specific know-how while competitors do not. Then, it has unshared assets that feed
its competitiveness. To take these elements into consideration we map each product on
figure 1.1 in figure 1. In addition, we asked the interviewees to place the company (main
position) on the figure to confirm/infirm our idea of it (based on our documentary analysis
of its environment and competences) and to check the existence/absence of minor
positions.
2.2 Innovation process: problem-solving or new demand:
Once we defined the profile of products that companies developed, we focus on the process
of the innovation. New products always face some degree of uncertainty in their
development process, which will be solved differently based on the resources of
companies. On one hand, internal companies resources are mobilized differently depending
on the kind of problems to be solved: they can be familiar or novel (Blackle, xx)1
. On the
other hand, Pitt and Clarke (1999) argue that problem solving and the way to handle them
rely on the forms of knowledge development activities in organizations (personal initiative
vs. collective initiative). However, SMEs do not always have the resources, to solve
themselves problems, and they must find them outdoor. Kline and Rosenberg’s (1986) and
Chesbrough’s (2006) specify that the injection of exterior resources (knowledge,
information, skills) can occur at any stage of innovation process.
We thus identify the nature of problems that SMES solve and assess their ability to solve
them internally or to find partners to solve it for or with them (figure 1.2). This figure and
the next one allowed us to better understand the difference between the main position and
the possible minor ones.
2.3 Innovation process: partners mobilized for each innovative project:
Considering that a company may look for solutions outside of its boundaries, there is a
need both to know what kind of partners are mobilized and at what stage of the process.
We use as insight Kline and Rosenberg’s chain linked model to specify at which stage they
intervene in figure 1.3. We add the figure 1.4 to specify the kind of partners (university,
suppliers, machine tool providers, clients etc).
1 Taking a resource-based view perspective, learning capabilities and routines are considered as
resources.

8. 8
2.4 Innovation process: company’s organization:
This step allows us to establish whether SMEs have a formal structure devoted to
innovation (ex: an R&D lab), or an informal structure related to projects that will evolve, or
no structure and innovation relies on individuals (Pitt and Clarke, 1999). The formalizing or
non-formalizing of the innovation process at the company level has consequences on the
approach used to solve problems and the creation of routines, knowledge and know-how.
The second element rests on the network of partners and its nature, in a different
perspective than figure 1.4 uses.
Previous steps allowed us to understand how companies developed new products. We
could thus move out from a project perspective to a company one. Indeed if projects may
be different, they build all together the main position and the strategic posture of the
SMEs.
2.5 Company’s strategy:
By mapping innovative projects and retracing innovation process, we discuss with the
SMEs in figure 1.5 their orientation (more technologically or market oriented) and their
strategic postures (shaper or adapter).
2.6 Methodology:
We choose to achieve our survey in the French industry of technical textiles. In fact, this
industry witnessed many technological changes that modified manufacturing process as
well as applications. But, technologies in use seem standardised and mature; and
innovations are likely incremental. France is the second larger producer of technical textiles
in Europe after Germany. The industry produced 600,000 tons and accounted for 3,9 €
billion in 2006 (27% of the whole French textile production and 17% of European
production). Though, this industry generates more added value (40% of benefit in textile
industry by 2006) price competition as well as progress in biotech, electronics or nanotech
can induce uncertainty (DGE 2006).
The first step of our survey consisted in probing the 63 members of CLUBTEX, an industrial
association of technical textiles accounting for 3300 employees and € 500 millions and
covering the whole industrial chain (www.clubtex.com). We focus on CLUBTEX members
because we think that their membership means that they are looking for information,
networking and cooperation. We selected 30 companies among them regarding different
positions within the industrial chain, employment, turnover and markets. The second step
focused on the exploration of the 30 selected companies’ communication (commercial
documents, websites, etc.), local and national press and literature on the industry (books,
reports). We looked for different strategic postures (shaping, adapting or options). We
forwarded a cover letter, setting up the content and purpose of our research, to each CEO
of our sample. This was followed two weeks later with a phoning in order to obtain an
appointment.
The third step consisted in deep interview of executives of selected companies (2 hours or
more). We used our analytical framework to study 45 projects in 12 companies as
followed:

9. 9
Table 2: Interviewees within the industrial chain.
3. Findings:
Here we relate the results of our study of 45 innovative projects in 12 technical textiles
companies.
3.1 Innovative projects:
The first phase of our analysis focuses on products that each SME manager spoke about.
First, we examine the 45 products regarding which technologies companies used and what
know-how they mobilized. Second, we look at the nature of problems companies solved
and with whom.
3.1.1 New products positioning and SMEs main position:
When positioning each company's projects on figure 1.1, we note a large variety of
situations. Products of all companies but company 5 are positioned in more than one
quadrant.

10. 10
Unique
know-
how
Shared
know-
how
Complex
technology
Simple
technology
Company 7
Company 1
Company 12
Company 6
Company 10
Company 4
Company 8
Company 11
Company 5
Company 9
Company 2
Company 3
Figure 2: New products and companies positioning regarding the technology and the know-how.
Unique
know-
how
Shared
know-
how
Complex
technology
Simplee
technology
Comp2/ 2
Comp5/ 2
Comp2/ 4
Comp2/ 3
Comp2/ 1
Comp5/ 1
Comp5/ 3
Comp7/ 3
Comp7/ 2
Comp7/ 1
Comp3/ 4
Comp3/ 3
Comp3/ 5
Comp3/ 2 Comp3/ 1
Comp9/ 1
Comp9/ 2Comp9/ 3
Comp1/ 6
Comp1/ 2
Comp1/ 4
Comp1/ 5
Comp1/ 3
Comp1/ 1
Comp12/ 1
Comp12/ 3
Comp12/ 2
Comp12/ 4
Comp6/ 1
Comp6/ 3
Comp6/ 2
Comp10/ 1
Comp10/ 2
Comp4/ 1
Comp4/ 2
Comp4/ 4
Comp4/ 3
Comp8/ 2
Comp8/ 3
Comp8/ 1
Comp11/ 3
Comp11/ 2
Comp11/ 4
Comp11/ 1
9 PRODUCTS
20
PRODUCTS
6 PRODUCTS
10
PRODUCTS
Comp7/ 4
Legend: Company N°/ product N°

11. 11
The combination of simple technology and shared know-how seems to be a real
uncompetitive trap. Four companies have the majority of the discussed projects in this
quadrant. Entry barriers are low which attracts competitors and especially producers from
low cost countries. To face competition, thus companies diversify the portfolio, preserve
monopoly in raw materials or make economies of scale. Reputation is also an important
asset that can serve to hinder entries. But, all of them actually want to escape from this
position. They are carrying out two strategies with this end: acquiring more exclusive
know-how or using more sophisticated techniques in order to diversify their portfolio or
produce more specialized items.
Companies who use complex technology but have shared know-how with competitors are
more preserved. Technology complexity prevents high competition while their know-how is
more or less unshared and allows them to stay competitive.
The more comfortable position seems to be using complex technology and having unique
know-how. All of the companies in this position try to preserve it by developing innovations
(products, processes and even uses) in specific niches. Lead users and end users take
always part in the innovation process or problem solving. Products are expansive and are
distributed on specific channels. Design, manufacturing and network competences are
critical for these SMEs.
Companies, using simple technology and having unique know-how, carry out incremental
innovations and try to price optimally. Leaders are first to move or keep exclusive
techniques secret to protect themselves from imitation. They always look for new ideas
allowing them having a monopoly during a given period. Some of companies in this
position try to exit while the others prefer to foster their position.
At the level of the whole company, the majority of the companies declared having unique
know-how and 29 from the 45 quoted products have been developed on the basis of
unshared skills and knowledge indeed. However, one company can declare having unique
know-how though listed products are based on shared know-how. We suppose that when
managers speak about unique know-how it is at the level of the company. It could be
organisational or technical know-how enabling the company to design innovative solutions
even if competitors can acquire the same know-how. We can also suppose that companies,
moving to niches to face competition, acquire more specific know-how. Surprisingly, many
products are based on complex technologies though companies declared using simple
ones. We suppose that managers have spoken about ‘flagship products’ while the rest of
the portfolio consists in common products or that ‘by dint of using’ their technologies,
companies forget their complexity.
3.1.2 Innovation process:
Once we discussed the profile of products and SMEs positions, we consider how they build
them based on figure 1.2. We would expect that when a company has a unique know-how,
problem solving would be organized internally for familiar problems. For new ones, it can
be organized internally or externally, depending on the availability of resources to solve the
problem in the company's environment. Also, we would expect that when a company has a
shared know-how, problem solving can be organized internally or externally whichever the
type of problem. We expect that the complexity of the technology will be the major driver.

12. 12
But, in fact, firms with a unique know-how, solve their familiar problems, by relying on
external partners to a vast majority, whichever the complexity of the technology. For new
problems, the situation is more diverse. Some SMEs interact with external entities to
identify the problem to solve (with clients), to test solutions (by consultants) or to ask for
specific inputs (from suppliers). They are able to invent solution and/or produce analytical
design internally. Others SMEs have lower capabilities and have to find competences
elsewhere and develop thus network capability. The higher proportion of collaborative
projects in this case can be explained by the market orientation and the necessity to
interact with clients. We suppose also that SMEs move perhaps towards new markets and
face new problems to solve.
Figure 3: problem-solving approaches.
Unique
know-
how
Shared
know-
how
Complex
technology
Simple
etechnology
Comp2
/
2
Comp5/ 2
Comp2/4
Comp2/ 3
Comp2/1
Comp5
/
1
Comp5
/
3
Comp7
/
3
Comp7/ 2
Comp7/1
Comp3/ 4
Comp3/ 3
Comp3/ 5Comp3/ 2 Comp3
/
1
Comp9
/
1
Comp9/2Comp9/ 3
Comp1
/
6
Comp1
/
2
Comp1/ 4
Comp1
/
5
Comp1/ 3
Comp1
/
1
Comp12/ 1
Comp12/ 3
Comp12/ 2
Comp12/ 4
Comp6
/
1
Comp6/ 3
Comp6
/
2
Comp10/ 1
Comp10/ 2
Comp4
/
1
Comp4
/
2
Comp4/ 4
Comp4/ 3
Comp8
/
2
Comp8/ 3
Comp8/ 1
Comp11/ 3
Comp11/2
Comp11/ 4
Comp11/ 1
9 PPRODUCTS
20
PRODUCTS
6 PPRODUCTS
10PRODUCTS
Comp7/ 4
Legend: Company N°/ product N°
Comp2/2
Comp5/2
Comp2/4
Comp2/3
Comp2/1
Comp5/1
Comp5/3
Comp7/3
Comp7/2
Comp7/1
Comp3/4
Comp3/3
Comp3/5
Comp3/2
Comp3/1
Comp9/1
Comp9/2
Comp9/3
Comp1/6
Comp1/2
Comp1/4
Comp1/5
Comp1/3
Comp1/1
Comp12/1
Comp12/3
Comp12/2
Comp12/4
Comp6/1
Comp6/3
Comp6/2
Comp10/1
Comp10/2
Comp4/1
Comp4/2
Comp4/4
Comp4/3
Comp8/2
Comp8/3
Comp8/1
Comp11/3
Comp11/2
Comp11/4
Comp11/1
9 PRODUCTS
7 PRODUCTS
17
PRODUCTS
12
PRODUCTS
Collaborative
approach
Novel
problems
Familiar
problems
Individual
approach
Comp7/4
Legend: Company N°/ product N°

13. 13
3.2 Portfolio: diversified, differentiated, specialised or
dominant designs.
Once we understand how SMEs carry out innovative projects, we try to typify various
portfolios by examining the content of SMEs portfolios of our sample; we identify four kinds
of portfolio:
- Diversified portfolio in SMEs using simple technology but having unshared know-how.
This portfolio contains incremental innovations for various markets.
- Differentiated portfolio in SMEs using complex technology but have not unique know-how.
They develop new applications for niches to differ from the leader.
- Specialised portfolio in SMEs using complex or simple technology but shared their know-
how with competitors. The portfolio includes incremental innovations for specific niches.
- Portfolio of dominant designs for SMEs that they lead their market. The portfolio contains
radical innovations for specific niches.
It is worth noticing that innovative projects, quoted above, benefited from previous
experiences and from interspillover learning in many cases. It aims to improve previous
products and activities thanks to what companies learned by solving new problems or
setting up new activities2
. Also, we observe that some SMEs develop new products by
using only their current production technology while other explore new ones.
4. Discussion:
By comparing what companies declare about their current and intended strategic postures
and the way they develop products and build their portfolio, we identify 4 various
configurations as following (for more details see appendix 4):
2
Interspillover learning is a concept developed by Ouchi and Watanabe (2008).

14. 14
Figure 4: Shaping processes of strategic postures.
So, the study validates our first hypothesis as the innovation pattern (how the innovative
projects are carried out) of an SME gives arise to a particular portfolio and then to a
particular strategic posture.
Many companies of our sample are aiming to change their main position mainly to hinder
competition while others prefer to foster their current competitive position. However, not
all companies are able to trigger the process to change strategically their main position.
Regarding our second hypothesis, our study shows that there are companies that are able
to maintain or change their main position strategically. To do so, they take a strategic
decision to set up minor positions (achieve innovative projects) with the same production
technology or new one. Managers know what is their objective and how to achieve it and
they take strategic decision with that in mind. Unlike this first category, some Companies
want to change their main position but are unable to do so mainly because their minor
positions are set up with the same production technology. Finally, there are companies
who change their main position but not strategically because they don’t have unshared
know-how to do so. Thus, they change along with opportunities. Here a figure to illustrate
these cases:

15. 15
Figure 5: Innovative projects shaping versus. fostering major positioning.
In this paper, our main argument is that because of limited resources, small firms behave
differently. Our study of SMEs in French technical textile industry confirms that. Compared
with Courtney’s shaping strategies; interviewees mainly ‘introduce fundamental product,
service, or business system innovations into the market’. However, the only way for
shaping seems to be positioning in niches whatever the orientation is (techno versus.
market). To shape the future, all SMEs focus on specific niches and want to develop
innovative products, processes or technologies within them. Some of them try to build
technological barriers to preserve their innovation rent for a given period.
The adapting strategies in our sample correspond to Courtney ones. Some companies try
to ‘hedging against future market uncertainty’ by diversifying their products portfolio or
distribution channels. Others Probe ‘through continuous experimentation’ of products,
processes or treatments as well as technological watch. Again, adapting strategies for
SMEs is achieved on niches. Finally, there are no obvious options strategies in this
industry. We suppose that limited resources prevent SMEs to ‘run after many hares’.
Thus, as Winch and Bianchi (2006) pointed out, the adoption of a deep-niche strategy it is
likely to be greater and greater importance in small and very small firms. We can conclude
that either in high-tech or in mature industries, this focus on niches arises from limited
resources and presence on market of SMEs.

16. 16
The analysis of portfolios shows that SMEs manage to implement their strategic planning
despite their limited resources. Managers are quite able to identify their current position,
opportunities and threats and to define required strategy. Once the strategy defined,
managers (may be thanks to small size) set up necessary internal organization or
reorganization and partnerships. With few exceptions, companies develop new products to
achieve their stated strategy and to shift from one position to another.
it is worth noticing that the technical textiles industry is a B to B one; which can explain
the high interdependency of industrialists, strong interactions with users and the co-
development trend. Scholars assert that co-development and even co-opetition are a
relevant strategy for SMEs as they face the same challenges, possess relevant resources
and capabilities to cooperate and have ‘high market commonality’ as well as similar
resources. Gnyawali and Park (2009) argue that co-opetition creates common benefits and
preserves private benefits. However, they focus on high-tech industry and our study shows
that the co-development and co-opetition in mature industry aim instead to preserve
common know-how and private competitiveness.
Finally, our study enlightens an obvious trend of co-development in technical textile
industry and this for two main reasons. On one hand, the extinction of much industrial
know-how, as specialized companies dye, pushes the majority of companies to co-develop
products and processes with their suppliers, sub-contractors or competitors to preserve
quality and performances. A bigger interdependency dominates the industry as
downstream companies need upstream ones to survive and grow. On the other hand, the
pluridisciplinary nature of innovation justifies the co-development; which corresponds to
concepts as co-opetition or open innovation. Beyond classical products testing by external
offices, companies must solve complex problems that they do not master entirely, use
unfamiliar technologies and cover more and more areas.

17. 17
Conclusion:
Our study contributes to show that SMEs postures for managing uncertainty are different
to certain extent. Therefore, concepts and toolkits of strategic management that scholars
and consultants develop on the basis of large companies are questionable. Our study
shows also that strategies differ regarding orientation toward technology or market. The
sample small size makes our study an exploratory one and we cannot generalize our
conclusions. Future surveys must be achieved with larger sample to verify our findings and
to foster our analytical framework.
The other contribution of the study is the analytical framework that we developed which,
explicates how SMEs build their strategic postures. This framework could be a strategic tool
for SMEs to check whether their innovative projects are strategically relevant to maintain
the same position/path or to change them and thus their competitiveness or not. Indeed,
strategic tools exist for large companies but are often not meant for SMEs and are thus
then often irrelevant. The ability to offer such a tool requires its validation theoretically and
empirically.
Also, future research must concern also other industries as uncertainties can affect
differently them and give arise to different responses. Technological uncertainty may affect
more SMEs in high-tech industries while those operating in mature industries cope with
uncertainty coming form competition. Responses also differ as SMEs carry out market and
budget planning, strengthen human resources and so on.
It was interesting to find one R&D company in technical textile industry that cross-fertilizes
textile and non textile technologies to develop new applications. The R&D Company’s CEO
speaks about bringing missing elements in the innovation process to technical textiles
industrialists. He chooses this industry because it provides many innovation opportunities.
His objective is to develop innovations that will be dominant designs. His business model
bases on a network of subcontractors that manufacture products designed by the
company, on integration with producers for small batches and on creation of technological
barriers. The existence of this R&D Company that brings new technologies in this industry
gives rise to some questions: why this company appears in the industry? Can this company
be a ‘shaping agent’? Does it provide options to producers with optimal costs? Further
comparative studies can answer these questions.
In addition, our study shows that the co-development and co-opetition in technical textiles
industry aim to preserve common know-how and private competitiveness. It is question of
survive. So, does the difference come from the dichotomy dynamic (high-tech) industries
and mature medium or low tech industries?
Finally, we observed that companies don’t use obligatory tools that public authorities
create for them. For instance, there is a specific cluster for the technical textiles funded
and supported by public authorities, which is not yet operational. However, many
industrialists are member of CLUBTEX that allows them to achieve technological watch,
networking, etc. Are these tools inappropriate for industrialists are small? Are fashionable
concepts as clusters or open innovation, which shape public policies, misleading? Future
research on the subject should address this issue.

18. 18
Reference:
Barnir, A. and Smith, K.A. (2002). ‘Interfirm Alliances in the Small Business: the Role of Social Networks’. Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 40 Issue 3, pp.219-232.
Copeland, T. and Weiner, J. (1990), ‘Proactive management of Uncertainty’. McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 4, p133-
152.
Courtney, H. (2001), ‘20/20 foresight: crafting strategy in an uncertain world’. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Courtney, H., Kirkland, J. and Viguerie, P. (1997), ‘Strategy under uncertainty’. Harvard Business Review,
Nov/Dec97, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p67-79. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10174798 Accessed 4 January 2009.
Dilts, J. C. and Prough, G. E. (1989). ‘Strategic Options for Environmental Management: A Comparative Study of
Small vs. Large Enterprises’. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p31-38.
Gnyawali, D.R. and Park, B-J. (2009), ‘Co-opetition and Technological Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises: A Multilevel Conceptual Model. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 47 Issue 3, pp.308-330.
Matthews, C.H. and Scott, S.G. (1995), ‘Uncertainty and Planning in Small and Entrepreneurial Firms: An
Empirical Assessment’. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 33 Issue 4, pp.34-52,
McGrath, R.G and MacMillan, I.C. (2000), ‘The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating
Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty’. Harvard Business School Press.
http://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=we7-g9YGbgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&ots=tX0Zm5Mgg2&sig=7yX-d0r3dlF-
bnZjLFP3Iiek5QQ. Accessed 20 January 2009.
Milliken, F. J. (1987), ‘Three Types of Perceived Uncertainty About the Environment: State, Effect, and Response
Uncertainty’. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p133-143.
DGE, Direction générale des entreprises, ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (2006), ‘Textiles
techniques, le futur se tisse en France’.
Brochure.http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/biblioth/docu/dossiers/sect/textileF.pdf Accessed December 2008.
Morris, M.H., Koçak, A. and Özer, A. (2007). ‘Coopetition as a Small Business Strategy: Implications for
Performance’. Journal of Small Business Strategy, Vol.18 Issue1, pp.35-55.
Ouchi, N. and Watanabe, C. (2008), ‘An Analysis of High Profitability Mechanism by Means of Dynamism between
Technological Diversification, Learning and Functionality Development’, in Sherif, M.H. and Khalil, T. (Eds.),
Management of Technology Innovation and Value Creation. World Scientific Publishing. pp.55-72.
Porter, M.E. (1980). ‘Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors’. New York: Free
Press.
Shrader, C.B., Mulford, C. L. and Blackburn, V. L. (1989), ‘Strategic and Operational Planning, Uncertainty, and
Performance in Small Firms’. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p45-60.
Wernerfelt, B. and Karnani, A. (1984), ‘Competitive Strategy Under Uncertainty’. Academy of Management
Proceedings, pp.42-46.
Winch, G.W and Bianchi, C. (2006). ‘Drivers and dynamic processes for SMEs going global’.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/
2710130106.html Accessed January 2009.

19. 19
Appendix 1: Products profile regarding technology in use and company know-
how.
Unique
know-
how
Shared
know-
how
Complex
technology
Simple
technology
Comp2/2
Comp5/2
Comp2/4
Comp2/3
Comp2/1
Comp5/1
Comp5/3
Comp7/3
Comp7/2
Comp7/1
Comp3/4
Comp3/3
Comp3/5Comp3/2 Comp3/1
Comp9/1
Comp9/2Comp9/3
Comp1/6
Comp1/2
Comp1/4
Comp1/5
Comp1/3
Comp1/1
Comp12/1
Comp12/3
Comp12/2
Comp12/4
Comp6/1
Comp6/3
Comp6/2
Comp10/1
Comp10/2
Comp4/1
Comp4/2
Comp4/4
Comp4/3
Comp8/2
Comp8/3 Comp8/1
Comp11/3
Comp11/2
Comp11/4
Comp11/1
9 PRODUCTS
20
PRODUCTS
6 PRODUCTS
10
PRODUCTS
Comp7/4
Legend: Company N¡/produc t N¡
Appendix 2: SMEs and products regarding technology in use and company know-
how.
Unique
know-
how
Shared
know-
how
Complex
technology
Simple
technology
Company7
Company 1
Company 12
Company 6
Company 10
Company 4
Company 8
Company 11
Company5
Company9
Company 2
Company 3
Appendix 3: Innovation process for the 45 projects.
Unique
know-
how
Shared
know-
how
Complex
technology
Simple
technology
Comp2/2
Comp5/2
Comp2/4
Comp2/3
Comp2/1
Comp5/1
Comp5/3
Comp7/3
Comp7/2
Comp7/1
Comp3/4
Comp3/3
Comp3/5Comp3/2 Comp3/1
Comp9/1
Comp9/2Comp9/3
Comp1/6
Comp1/2
Comp1/4
Comp1/5
Comp1/3
Comp1/1
Comp12/1
Comp12/3
Comp12/2
Comp12/4
Comp6/1
Comp6/3
Comp6/2
Comp10/1
Comp10/2
Comp41
Comp4/2
Comp4/4
Comp4/3
Comp8/2
Comp8/3
Comp8/1
Comp11/3
Comp11/2
Comp11/4
Comp11/1
9
20
PRODUCTS
6 PRODUCTS
10
PRODUCTS
Comp7/4
Legend: Company N°/ product N°

20. 20
Appendix 4: products development, portfolio and strategic postures
of SMEs.
Company
Innovative
projects: Products
development
Portfolio Strategic posture
Company 1
Opportunities to set
up various
production
technologies that
shaped company’s
major positioning
Specialized
portfolio benefiting
from interspillover
learning when new
problems are
solved
Unshared
technological
know-how
Market-adapter
toward market-
shaper but minor
positions are not
set up in new
technological
areas.
Company 3
Opportunities to set
up various
production
technologies that
shaped company’s
major positioning
Specialised
portfolio benefiting
from interspillover
learning when new
problems are
solved
Unshared
technological
know-how
Market-adapter
toward market-
shaper as the
company decided
to set up a new
production
technology
Unique
know-
how
Shared
know-
how
Complex
technology
Simple
technology
Comp2/2
Comp5/2
Comp2/4
Comp2/3
Comp2/1
Comp5/1
Comp5/3
Comp7/3
Comp7/2
Comp7/1
Comp3/4
Comp3/3
Comp3/5Comp3/2 Comp3/1
Comp9/1
Comp9/2Comp9/3
Comp1/6
Comp1/2
Comp1/4
Comp1/5
Comp1/3
Comp1/1
Comp12/1
Comp12/3
Comp12/2
Comp12/4
Comp6/1
Comp6/3
Comp6/2
Comp10/1
Comp10/2
Comp4/1
Comp4/2
Comp4/4
Comp4/3
Comp8/2
Comp8/3
Comp8/1
Comp11/3
Comp11/2
Comp11/4
Comp11/1
9 PRODUCTS
20
PRODUCTS
6 PRODUCTS
10
PRODUCTS
Comp7/4
Legend: Company N°/ product N°
Comp22
Comp5/2
Comp2/4
Comp2/3
Comp2/1
Comp5/1
Comp5/3
Comp7/3
Comp7/2
Comp7/1
Comp3/4
Comp3/3
Comp3/5
Comp3/2
Comp3/1
Comp9/1
Comp9/2
Comp9/3
Comp1/6
Comp1/2
Comp1/4
Comp1/5
Comp1/3
Comp1/1
Comp12/1
Comp12/3
Comp12/2
Comp12/4
Comp6/1
Comp6/3
Comp6/2
Comp10/1
Comp10/2
Comp4/1
Comp4/2
Comp4/4
Comp4/3
Comp8/2
Comp8/3
Comp8/1
Comp11/3
Comp11/2
Comp11/4
Comp11/1
9 PRODUCTS
7 PRODUCTS
17
PRODUCTS
12
PRODUCTS
Collaborative
approach
Novel
problems
Familiar
problems
Individual
approach
Comp7/4
Legend: Company N°/ product N°

21. 21
Company 4
Products
development with
current production
technology as well
as with new
technologies
Collaborative
innovation at long
run
Diversified
portfolio:
traditional products
to shape the
market + new
products as
strategic tools to
shape the new
major positioning
Unshared
technological
know-how
Market-shaper
toward techno-
shaper
Company 5
New uses with new
production
technologies
fostering current
major positioning
Portfolio of
dominant designs
thanks to
continuous
innovations and
interspillover
learning
Unshared
technological
know-how
Techno-shaper
Company 6
Products
development with
current production
technology
fostering current
major positioning
Specialised
portfolio along with
market
opportunities
Shared
technological
know-how
Market-adapter
toward market-
shaper but minor
positions are not
set up in new
technological
areas.
Company 7
Products
development with
current production
technology as well
as with new ones
fostering current
major positioning
Specialised
portfolio along with
market
opportunities
Shared
technological
know-how
Market-adapter
Company 8
Products
development in few
niches regarding
clients
specifications with
current production
technology
Diversified portfolio
with Standard
products benefiting
from interspillover
learning from
niches
Unshared
technological
know-how
Market-shaper
Company 9
Products
development in few
niches regarding
Specialised
portfolio benefiting
from interspillover
Market-adapter

22. 22
clients
specifications with
current production
technology
learning from
niches
Unshared
technological
know-how
Company 10
Products
development with
current production
technology as well
as with new ones
fostering current
major positioning
Specialised
portfolio along with
clients demand
Shared
technological
know-how
Market-adapter
Company 11
Products
development with
current production
technology
fostering current
major positioning
Diversified portfolio
along with clients
demand
Shared
technological
know-how
Market-adapter
toward market-
shaper but minor
positions are not
set up in new
technological
areas.
Company 12
Products
development with
current production
technology
fostering current
major positioning
Diversified portfolio
along with clients
demand
Unshared
technological
know-how
Market-shaper