Allan Mulally Fort CEO and Savior

Image

Hallo everybody, right now  I want to describe about Allan Mulally. He is the person who has save Ford Company from  struggling during the late-2000 recession. Allan Mulally was born in Oakland, California on August 4, 1945. But he grew up in his mother hometown Lawrence in Kansas. He said he found himself motivated when he was 17 after he listening about the challenge of President John F. Kennedy about sending a man to the moon.

In education side he can be considered a successful person after having graduated from University of Kansas in 1969 with Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in aeronautical and astronautical engineering. He is also an alumnus of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity. He also received a Master’s degree in Management (S.M.)  from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1982.

Career:

Boeing

Because of the many degree and prestige he received in his study it was not a strange thing that after graduate from college he immediately hired by Boeing as an engineer and then contributing on many project such as project 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 projects. He was later named as Vice President of Engineering for the commercial airplane group and in 1994, promoted to senior vice president of Airplane Development. In 1997, Mulally became the president of the Information, Space & Defense Systems and senior vice president. He held this position until 1998 when he was made president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

When Harry Stonechiper Chief Executive of Boeing is forced to resigned in 2005, Mulally is one of the possible candidate to replace him but eventually Mullay was passed and he decide not to remain in the company.

Ford

Mulally was named the President and CEO of Ford Motor Company on September 5, 2006.

One of Mulally’s first decisions at Ford was to bring back the Taurus nameplate. He said that he could not understand why the company previously scrapped the Taurus, which had been one of the company’s best sellers.

Mulally took over “The Way Forward” restructuring plan at Ford to turn around its massive losses and declining market share. Mulally’s cost-cutting initiatives led to the company’s first profitable quarter in two years. In 2006, Mulally led the effort for Ford to borrow US$23.6 billion by mortgaging all of Ford’s assets. Mulally said that he intended to use the money to finance a major overhaul and provide “a cushion to protect for a recession or other unexpected event. This decision prove to be correct as Ford is saved from bankruptcy during the automotive industry crisis of 2008–2009. 

In May 2009, Ford chairman William Clay Ford, who hired Mulally, said that “Alan was the right choice [to be CEO], and it gets more right every day”. This sentence is proven to be the correct word to simbolize the success of Allan Mulaly. He’s proven to be a leader that dare to take risk and didn’t let failure such as his failure to be Boeing CEO to impede him.

By: Ammes 32412055

Strategic Management at Honda

20130403-215622.jpg

PARADOX OF DELIBERATENESS AND EMERGENCE

Henry Mintzberg (1987) made a distinction between deliberate strategy and emergent strategy. Emergent strategy originates not in the mind of the strategist, but in the interaction of the organization with its environment. He claims that emergent strategies tend to exhibit a type of convergence in which ideas and actions from multiple sources integrate into a pattern. This is a form of organizational learning, (from its environment) in fact, on this view, organizational learning is one of the core functions of any business enterprise (See Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990).)

Deliberate strategy on the other hand is involves intentional planning and predetermined outcomes based on internal and external analysis at a current point in time. Such analysis also involves the study of the historical trend of the organization and industry performance. A flawed assumption where the predetermined outcomes are derived from is that the future will behave as in the past and the macro environment will remain relatively stable. Such is not the case with the magnitude, velocity, frequency and abruptness of change reaching new unprecedented levels daily in the business landscape across the world.

The paradox of deliberateness and emergence is whereas deliberate strategies provide an organization with a sense of purposeful direction, emergent strategies imply that the organization is learning from its environment incrementally. This has led to dichotomies of strategies. However Mintzberg and Whittington says that this is not necessarily so, in fact Mintzberg advocates that firms in today’s highly turbulent business landscape need to be purposeful and resourceful simultaneously. In this sense he coined the term “deliberately emergent”. Whittington is in agreement as he classifies deliberate strategies under the classical school and emergent strategies under the evolutionary school both of which share the same outcome of profit maximization. The strategies may be different but the philosophy behind the strategies are in fact the same.

PORTER’S 5 FORCES ANALYSIS OF THE GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

1. Threat of New Entrants.
In most major western economies with established automotive industry, the threat of new entrants was low in the 1970s and 1980s. In North America for example, it was thought that the Big Three (GM, Ford & Chrysler) were safe. But this did not hold true when Honda Motor Co. opened its first plant in Ohio. The emergence of foreign competitors with the capital, required technologies and better operations management skills began to undermine the market share of North American companies. This was also true when Honda took the risk to enter the British and European markets.

2. Power of Suppliers.
The automobile supply business is quite fragmented (there are many firms) throughout the many regions in the world. Many suppliers rely on one or two automakers to buy a majority of their products. If an automaker decided to switch suppliers, it could be devastating to the previous supplier’s business. As a result, suppliers are extremely susceptible to the demands and requirements of the automobile manufacturer and hold very little power because the manufacturers order in volume.

3. Power of Buyers.
Historically, the bargaining power of automakers went unchallenged. Most customers however, became disenchanted with many of the national car makers and began looking for alternatives with better fuel economy, more stylish designs and better technology. Foreign cars provided these attributes. On the other hand, while consumers are very price sensitive, individually, they don’t have much buying power, as they never purchase huge volumes of cars.

4. Availability of Substitutes.
Besides the threat of someone buying a different car we need to consider other modes of transportation as alternatives or substitutes. We need to look at the likelihood of people taking the bus, train or airplane to their destination. The higher the cost of operating a vehicle, the more likely people will seek alternative transportation options. The price of petrol has a large effect on consumers’ decisions to buy vehicles. Trucks and sport utility vehicles have higher profit margins, but they also guzzle gas compared to smaller sedans and light trucks. When determining the availability of substitutes the following should also be considered; time, money, personal preference and convenience in the auto travel industry. The trend today is towards more fuel-efficient, safe and environmentally friendly cars that are affordable to the increasing global middle class.

5. Competitive Rivalry.
Highly competitive industries generally earn low returns because the cost of competition is high. The auto industry is considered to be an oligopoly, (which helps to minimize the effects of price-based competition. The automakers understand that price-based competition does not necessarily lead to increases in the size of the marketplace; historically they have tried to avoid price-based competition, but more recently the competition has intensified – rebates, preferred financing and long-term warranties have helped to lure in customers, but they also put pressure on the profit margins for vehicle sales.

Created by : stefani ( group 3 )

Convenience Store – Circle K


53710“What else do you need?” .. This is the slogan of the circle k

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, founded in 1951, in El Paso, Texas, United States. It is owned and operated by the Canadian-based Alimentation Couche-Tard.

Since the 1980s, Circle K has been the largest company-owned convenience-store chain (i.e. of non-franchised stores) in the U.S. It was second in overall number of U.S. stores to 7-Eleven. However by 1989, it faced strong competition from convenience stores owned by oil companies, and Circle K declared bankruptcy in 1990.[2] By July 2010, Circle K had dropped to fourth rank in number of stores (3,455), then behind BP (4,730 stores) and Shell (4,630 convenience stores).

Hmm.. How about the management???

Circle K has marketing and merchandising programs are strong in meeting customer needs by understanding the patterns of thought, behavior, work and shopping patterns of customers in outlets Circle K.

In addition, close cooperation with supply partners to provide attractive prices for customers franchises Circle K. In success-owned big names Circle K, the franchisor also participated in site selection by doing market analysis, site selection, sales forecasting models and market strategy planning.

Do you know about the mission and vision??

At Circle K, the mission are “Creating a pleasant shopping experience through a selection of promotional products, creative activities, and create a safe and comfortable shopping.Creating an integrated work processes among the functions of the organization and continually improve human resource capabilities.

Continue reading

Management and Leading of Nestlé

With over 265,000 employees worldwide and factory locations in more than 85 countries, Nestlé is a truly multinational, multicultural company. Considering that and their ill name of being an ‘aggressive company’ Nestlé should focused on Human Resources Management. And not only on appropriate tools of recruitment and derecruitment but mostly on managing workforce diversity, compensations and training.

The urgent issue is Nestlé’s policy of employment in developing countries. Customers assume, implicitly or explicitly, that “made by Nestlé” means made by Nestlé workers in Nestlé facilities directed by Nestlé management directly accountable to Nestlé’s corporate headquarters. This assumption on the part of consumers is what justifies their faith in the brand – and their willingness to pay. But to a growing extent, Nestlé is not employing thousands of the workers making Nestlé products. For example, in the important growing Indonesian market, only 44% of the workers making Nestlé branded products in four factories and one warehouse are permanent Nestlé workers. This is typical of Nestlé in Asia and other poorer regions of the world. And in Europe over 10% of workers in Herten Germany, for instance, are agency workers making Nestlé Herten product but not working for Nestlé. In Hungary (Diosgyori) over 20%, in Portugal (Avanca) over 25% and in the UK (York) almost one in eight workers are not permanent Nestlé employees. The use of third party producers (“co-packers”) will increasingly mean that the branded product for which consumers often pay more will come out of a non-Nestlé, “non-branded” factory, often a local one with no global brand or reputation to protect, but still with recognisible logo. Nestlé should take a close look at their employment practices so they can guarantee that branded Nestlé products are made in Nestlé facilities by Nestlé workers and managers on decent and permanent Nestlé work contracts.

20130402-095844.jpg
An example of management which noticed the importance of diversity may be Nestlé in USA. The are using a strong Supplier Diversity Program. They claim to selecting only those suppliers who can successfully meet Nestlé’s regional and international needs, which allows them to develop a strong, flexible and competitive supply base, and pass those improvements on to the customer. Not ignoring minority, woman and veteran-owned businesses tend to hire diverse employees. In supporting these business Nestlé support a growing segment of consumer community and gain their loyalty. And by retaining qualified, diverse suppliers, they can gain a distinct competitive advantage that can significantly impact bottom line.

And this is the advertisement from Nestlé

Created by : Lisa Maritseda (group3)

About Intel

20130401-135648.jpg

Intel’s Vision and Global Strategy
Intel vision is to create and extend computing technology to connect and enrich the lives of every person on earth, by focusing on the following key strategic objectives:
• Grow the PCnand data center business with new users and uses.
Extend Intel’s PC platform leadership and develop exciting innovations to deliver new user experiences; and lead the transformation to open data centers and cloud computing.
• Extend Intel solutions into adjacent markets.
Transform the embed- ded industry with Intel® architecture (IA) in new market segments; and launch and ramp IA solutions in smartphones, tablets, smart TVs, and vehicles.
• Create a continuum of personal computing.
Expand IA differentiation with new capabilities across devices; excite leading software developers to create the best user experiences and applications on IA; and deliver new usage models with multi-communications connectivity.
• Care for our people and the planet, and inspire the next generation.
Cultivate a workplace where employees can thrive both on the job and in their communities; develop technology solutions to address major global problems while reducing our environmental impact; and accelerate educa- tion transformation worldwide through technology, program, and policy leadership.

Corporate responsibility management structure
CEO and Board-Level Oversight
The Board of Directors’ Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee receives briefings from our Corporate Responsibility Office twice a year, in addi- tion to updates on specific corporate responsibility issues as needed. Our CEO receives regular corporate responsibility updates from executive management.

Management Review Committees (MRCs)
MRCs bring together senior executives from across the company to review performance and set strat- egy in specific areas. For example, our Corporate Responsibility MRC reviews emerging issues across a range of focus areas, and our Eco-MRC reviews Intel’s approach to environmental management.

Business Group and Cross-Functional Teams
Multiple business groups have dedicated teams that address corporate responsibility issues within their organizations, helping to develop plans and set goals in support of Intel’s overall strategy and objectives. Those groups include, but are not limited to, Environ- mental Health and Safety, Eco-Technology Program Office, Ethics and Compliance Program Office, Corpo- rate Affairs, Global Public Policy, Human Resources, Corporate Diversity, Supply Chain, and Information Technology. In addition, cross-functional teams coordinate efforts that span business groups. For example, our Eco-Stakeholder Council brings together representatives from across Intel to develop clear and consistent strategies for improving our environmental performance and engaging employees.

Intel – Stories of Innovations in Technology

Created by: Catherine Pritania (Group 3)