Philips versus Matsushita Case Synopsis Two major competitors in the global consumer electronics industry, Philips of the Netherlands and Matsushita of Japan, both have extensive histories that can be traced back more than a century. They have each followed different strategies and have had significant capabilities and downfalls along the way. In general, Philips built its tenured success on a portfolio of responsive national organizations. On the other hand, Matsushita based its global strategy on a centralized and efficient operation through Japan. As they developed and reorganized their international strategies, each company was forced to undertake its strategic posture and restructuring as its competition position fell. During the 1990s, each company experienced specific difficulties to their market share. Both companies struggled to reestablish themselves in the global consumer electronics world. As the year 2000 came around, new CEOs at both companies came up with even more complicated initiatives and reorganizations. Outsiders wondered how each company’s internal changes would affect their endless competitive battle in the industry. The case illustrates how global competitiveness depends on the organizational capability, the difficulty of overcoming deeply rooted administrative heritage, and the limitations of both classic multinational and global models. Study Questions 1. How did Philips become the most successful company in its business during an era when scores of electrical engineering companies were being formed? What impediments and disabilities did Philips' strategic and organizational capabilities bring with them? Philips made a strong push to developing new technologies starting in the 1950s and 1960s. Upon doing so, the company also wanted to translate these technologies into products while adapting, producing, and selling these products within individual national markets. During this time period, most of the companies in the electrical products market were bring formed and racing to diversify. However, Philips decided to stick with what they knew best. They made only light-bulbs. In doing so, their strong focus enabled the company to create significant innovations. Continuing on, Philips also became a leader in industrial research by creating physics and chemistry labs to address both production and scientific problems. The labs developed a tungsten metal filament bulb that brought great commercial success. Philips simple structure and significant innovations gave them the financial support they needed to compete in a time period where competitors were seeking major growth.
Roth was in charge of emergency of Nortel, be that as it may it was affected by both individuals and capital business sector forms. Roth settled on the choice to change Northern Telcom to Nortel and put resources into the web notwithstanding doubt and uncertainity from numerous individuals. The Board of Directors of this organization didn 't know about the money related status of the association which demonstrates that the executives, Roth as CEO, and workers didn 't know about great business hones. Business includes a system of human communications (Collins, 2011). The ascent of Nortel was to some degree from the consideration the organization got from the media and the financial specialists. This consideration affected the choices that Roth
Q1. How did the competitive environment change for John Deere Company between the 1970 and 1980?
During his absence, with John Sculley in power, the focus shifted to maximization of profit, and product design suffered. Steve Jobs theorized that is was one of the reasons companies decline. “My passion has been to build an enduring company where people… make great products… the products, not the profits, were the motivation. It’s a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything”.
This paper will compare and contrast two CEOs that led technology companies through difficult times. Michael Dell CEO and founder of Dell Computers and Andy Grove former CEO and cofounder of Intel each provided quality leadership as their companies faced challenges in the fast-paced computer technology industry. This paper will introduce each man and describe their contributions to their company and the field of management, resistance they encountered, similarities in their professional lives and how they differed. The information about these two success CEOs comes from Jeffrey Krames (2003) book What the Best CEOs Know: 7 Exceptional Leaders and Their Lessons for Transforming Any Business.
Achieving world class business performance is a major challenge in today’s society. Manufacturing companies continue to face increased competition and globalization from its competitors. (1, p. 148). The automotive industry is one of the most volatile manufacturing industries that we have, which was evident in the 2008 – 2010 automotive industry crisis. (2) This global financial downturn served notice to the American automotive manufactures to raise the bar, in order to achieve word class business performance. General Motors, one of the country’s largest automotive manufactures, had to receive a government bailout to survive. During this time many with the corporation asked themselves, if we were a world class business, would we be facing this pending crisis. The answer was a resounding “NO”. General Motors has come out of bankruptcy and is focused on being a world-class business organization.
Stringer aimed to unite cutting-edge technology with entertainment content while reviving Sony’s electronic business. To combat the price drops of rivals Stringer streamlined Sony, unveiling a sweeping restructuring plan that cut 10,000 jobs, shed a number of unprofitable divisions and products and attempted to centralize decision-making (Palmer, 2006).
How does this case illustrate the threats and opportunities facing global companies in developing their strategies?
In order for Matsushita to succeed in displacing Philips in the consumer electronics company, the company also had to engage in becoming a multinational enterprise, and this was achieved in 1960 when Matsushita “opened their first overseas brand in America,” (Bartlett, 2009). This coincided with the birth and rise of the VCR which Matsushita began producing in plants, and as other companies, including Philips outsourced to them, which in turn, boosted their popularity. Strategies that Matsushita executed to differentiate themselves from their competition included a broad product portfolio, a centralised structure, and human resource management.
O'Grady, J.D. (2008). Recent Titles in Corporations That Changed the World. In Apple Inc... Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood. Retrieved from http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/reader.aspx?isbn=9780313362453&id=GR6244-4
Porter, M. E., 1999. The Five Forces that Shape Competitive Strategy. Harvard business review, p. 80.
ABC and High Technology: A Story with a Moral." Management Accounting, March 1996, pp. 37-40. 17. Smith, R.B. "Competitiveness in the '90s."
N.V. Philips (Netherlands) and Matsushita Electric (Japan) are among the largest consumer electronics companies in the world. Their success was based on two contrasting strategies – diversification of worldwide portfolio and local responsiveness for Philips, and high centralization and mass production for Matsushita.
...e in which larger companies joined together in order to be able to introduce a new technology into society after the failure of the gas refrigerator, this case highlights the difficulty of introducing a new technology to society, something that still exists in contemporary societies (Schwartz Cowan, 1985, p.212). “If for no other reason, it is important for us to achieve a clearer view of these matters then has been our habit so far” (Winner, 1986, p.39).
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard business review, 25-40.
- Volberda, H. Morgan, R. Et al. 2011, “Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization”, Cengage Learning EMEA ,Pg 244-258