The automobile industry value chain analysis

The automobile industry value chain analysis Section 2: Following on from your analysis in Question 1, discuss the competitive postion of General Motors Europe (GME) at the time of the case. Threat of Entry The automobile industry is facing the mature stage, although the high barriers to entry considering the huge amount of capital required for companies to manufacture and design their cars and the very low switching costs consumers face when changing cars;however it doesnt mean there are no new entrants to Europe for instance Asian automaker as Toyota Nissan and others to be actively present in the market. Threat of Rivalry There is a very high threat of rivalry within the industry, as automaker should always be updated with new technologies, innovation and come out with new models and design. Moreover for GME the exit barrier is relatively high due to investments made throughout the past decades. With the emergence of Asian carmakers in Europe there had been a diversification considering models and prices, in other words it is a diversity of rivals. Threat of Substitutes Substitutes within the industry are more or less depending on consumers and their preference of commuting and travelling, it incorporates cycles, buses, underground and also could be planes and just walking. Consumers arent offended by taking public transports within the most European countries, also traffic jam in some places are reason for not using a car, which decrease the switching cost., plus the high price of gas play a major role. Threat of Suppliers As automakers manufacture their cars so the threat is considerably low, as there are a big number of suppliers GME can choose from, which make suppliers give more discounts, also cars elements are more or less standardised. Most of the time car companies attach with one supplier and there is no forward integration as suppliers are small comparing the automaker and in contrary GME can integrate backwardly the supplier or in some cases they create an alliance to reduce the costs. Threat of Buyers Except big companies buying lots of cars, solobuyers represent an insignificant threat but at the same time its bargaining power is high as the customer has plenty of different brands, models and prices to choose from. The large number of consumers are facing as said before low switching costs and the loyalty brand isnt very high which means that GME has to attract and retain consumers by incentives for example due to price sensitivity, as consumers are looking for the best deals concerning quality/price. Value chain analysis: Primary Activities: The Primary activities for GME are the followings: Product Designing, Resources purchase, Production, Marketing and Distribution and finally Customer Service. Product Designing is becoming of the key features within the industry. As nowadays cars are almost standardised, so with the right tools GME cars have already an image of strength and power. GME is at the same trying to offer cars that are not only powerful but also less fuel consuming. Resource purchase: the purchase of the right material is very important, as seen in Porters Five Forces, suppliers have very low power on GME in other words the organisation can almost select its preferable price over the supplier. Production: GME was the largest manufacture of cars in Europe; the production reached its peak in the early 1990s. However, its methods have showed an inadequacy, as they have been producing more than the demand. GMEs Marketing Distribution efforts havent done an efficient job of pleasing the public. This could be by displaying cars in showrooms, announcement etc. in order to get automobiles GME uses trucks and trains to deliver them to dealers. Customer Service Support: generally supporting the customers after a sale. GME has an 800 number so if customer needs help or have an enquiry they can call for free. Support Activities sustain the daily operations of GME but are not directly implicated in the manufacturing process of GME vehicles. These activities include Human Resources, communications and Consumer crediting. Section 3: Assess the performance improving options taken or proposed by GME at the time of the case. General Motors Electric knew that it could only improve from within (internally) as Macro economic factors like exchange rate, inflation rate etc are beyond their reach. All successful businesses have mainly two aims; cut costs increase sales In GMs case increased sales was not an accessible option, so therefore the company had to focus on performance improving options, here below is what GM proposed at the time of the case. GM reduced its workforce by 20% in an attempt to boost productivity and reduce costs by $600 million Use competitive pricing and offer additional services GME formed a strategic alliance with Fiat SPA in 2001 a restructuring plan called Project Olympia was produced to again reduce costs and decrease production capacity by 15% Closing down Luton plant to again reduce costs Moving production to cheaper areas in this case a German plant was closed down and manufacturing transferred to Poland Integration of operations Abandon cost incurring practices like using different parts and wiring for different cars Strategically GME have achieved both some success and failure in its operations to improve the situation in Europe, for example the reduction of employees and closures of unproductive plants are fully justified as the business cant continue to record huge losses year on year, in fact these decisions should have been made faster reflecting GM poor management structure unable to make quick decisions in a ever changing market. GM was also correct to cut out the practice off using different parts and wiring for different cars as this reduces overheads as any loss making business must cut costs at every opportunity. However there are also strategic failures GM implemented for example a strategic alliance with an Asian manufacturer would have been more beneficial then with Fiat as this alliance could have given GM access to superior management and technology resources, in return GM could have offered some concessions to the US market. Another example of poor strategic decision making is th e use of competitive pricing which a loss making business should never implement as good marketing could over time allow for premium prices. GM should have offered extended warranties as this actually costs the company very little in real terms, in the USA GM offer warranties for 100,000 miles over 5 years perhaps this could be implemented in its European business model. General thoughts on how GM can improve their European performance Change management team in Europe Form strategic alliance with Japanese manufacturer with superior manufacturing techniques Focus on the lucrative segment of the European market Reduce investment in the EU, until the economic situation improves (short-term vs. long-term ) Change EU business model e.g. produce smaller cars which are now popular Offer additional features to their cars Used money saved and invest more in RD Launch long term strategy to recapture market share Conclusion General Motors is the largest automaker in the world and has been an industry leader for 77 years yet it finds its European operations in all kinds of trouble. Huge financial losses, a dissatisfied customer base, competitors with superior management and production techniques to name a few. All of these problems are due to GM having a poor corporate strategy plan, GM become reactive rather then proactive and in strategy you can never rest on your laurels, the company missed clear trends within the market such as a demand for smaller cars, cars with less CO2 emissions, cars with additional features etc. This case is a good example of strategy as it shouldnt be done; strategy requires successful firms to seek feedback from their customers, for firms to have clear and set goals at all time and how to get there, strategy requires firms to ever excel and always be ambitious to seek new and rewarding risks. The main findings of the report suggest that GM didnt have the right business model or structure to cope with sudden change this is slightly understandable due to GM size and decision making tends to be slower amongst large companies due to the amount of management layers, but one would expect a company with manufacturing facilities in 35 countries and sales in 200 countries to at least get the basic rights. GM was guilty of not paying enough attention to the Macro environment were political changes were gearing towards reducing CO2 emissions, GM also underestimated the threat from Asian car companies and as a result quickly lost market share and sales.

MGT

Comprehension State the dilemma's main problem: -The dilemma's main problem is whether you should report that your coworker Careen's breath smelled like alcohol to a man named David Chain, or not report the instance. This is a dilemma because of the fact that you do not like to ‘rock the boat' and you do not like to be ‘disloyal to your coworkers', Identify at least three points (more Is better) the dilemma makes to highlight the main Idea.Some points that the dilemma makes to highlight the main idea is: Karen is often late to work Karen is not someone you can count on Karen can be unprofessional with coworkers Karen is not your favorite person to work with What are some significant points presented In the dilemma?Some significant points that are presented in the dilemma are: You could conform to David that you did smell alcohol on Careen's breath By doing so you could ruin any relationship or any chance of a friendship/relationship with Karen You could label yourself as a ‘tattle tail' or a ‘whistler's' to other coworkers You could give yourself a sense of guilt for being a person to point fingers You could add stress to our own life because of this complicated situation You could decide not to tell David about the alcohol breath By doing so, you could be dodging an attempt to solve this problem You could cause more harm to Karen by not helping her You could stress yourself out by knowing you did not help You could have helped contribute to more suspicion and gossip in the workplace by not confirming anything You could walk away and live your life as If It never happened You could decide not to tell David and talk to Karen on your own By doing o you have a chance of confronting the issue in a private matter You might be able to get an honest answer by showing genuine feelings You could avert any more stress towards anyone by solving the issue You could make Karen feel as if she has been violated of her privacy What have you learned from the textbook that correlates to this case?Some things that I have learned from the textbook that correlates to this case is: that emotional intelligence can be used to form harmonious teams you could use your El to help inspire others alluding social awareness can help you identify with Karen emotions and feelings An ongoing negative emotion can result from dissatisfaction, leading to burnout Affect-driven behavior may cause you to respond to people in a certain way Being unfairly treated by your boss or coworkers can cause you to behave negatively towards others Affective Events Theory says events can cause people to behave differently A certain work even could motivate some, while it Just discourages others Negative emotions linger around much longer than positive emotions Negative emotions can result from undesired events including not having your opinion heard, a lack of control over your environment, and unpleasant interactions with coworkers or customers Those with a strong s ocial support network are less stressed that those without one A USN can buffer the effects of stress Karen might not have a USN Factors such as diet, sleep, timeliness, work/life balance, and personal life situations are main contributors to stresses Summary [25%] What are the main lessons from this dilemma for leaders in a business organization? -The main lessons from this dilemma for leaders in a business organization is how o approach a situation like this one. A leader of a business organization does not want to rush to Judgment or conclusion especially when it comes to something like alcohol on one's breath. There could be a million explanations about alcohol on ones breath and many causes as well.Making the right ethical decision involves discretely approaching the situation and try to understand the cause and effect of the problem. What does this dilemma fundamentally teach you about Organizational Behavior and why does it matter? -This dilemma fundamentally teaches me that in Organizational Behavior, it takes team to move forward. You truly are as strong as your weakest link. Linked with this situation, gossip and pointing fingers is only going to make the situation work. It takes a caring and understanding person to help prevent this issue from going any further. It matters because it is good for the organization and it is good for your employees and customers. Give an overall impression of this dilemma. Is it effective, useful, confusing, informative, etc.?Explain why you are characterizing the article as you are. Point to specific features or details to validate your impression. Overall I thought this was a confusing dilemma. First off, it is a very brief dilemma in which a lot of detail is left out. For example, you work at a paper company but your role is not stated, Careen's role is not stated, and neither is Davit's. For all I know David could be a random stranger that sells me hotdogs right outside of work. Even if David is a coworker, if he i s not upper management, it is none of his business to confirm gossip or not. Without specifics, it is hard to come to a conclusion about how to approach a situation like this one.

Alexander III

â€Å"In terms of both personality and policies, Alexander Ill did not posses the qualities necessary for a successful ruler of late 19th-century Russia† – to what extent to you agree with this Judgment? Whilst the Judgment could be considered well-founded, its validity is a matter of opinion, depending on how one defines the qualities of a ‘successful ruler' of Russia in the late sass, which policies contribute to this success and what, overall, makes a Tsar a success or a failure (if the matter can be categorized so dictatorially).Disregarding the technicalities of the Judgment, although Alexander Ill may not have assessed all the qualities that would have classed him as a successful Tsar, he was not entirely lacking in them – nor in his policies – therefore meaning that the statement is not entirely correct. Before discussing what made a successful 19th century Russian autocrat, it must be ascertained what ‘successful' entails: in this case, it would be achieving the aims of the autocrat/autocracy.The primary aim of an autocrat in the sass would be to preserve or extend the autocracy and its power both internally and internationally, meaning that there would be few or no concessions of power and that the Tsar would appear as a forceful, formidable figure to both its allies and enemies and in the eyes of citizens of the Russian Empire in both the motherland and its annexes. This was obviously extremely important to Alexander Ill, given his ‘Manifesto of Unshakeable Autocracy in April 1881.Secondary aims may have varied from Tsar to Tsar but for Alexander these were: the rejection of democracy and the reversal of Alexander SIS liberalism, which fitted neatly with the preservation of autocracy; the removal of opposition that had arisen during Alexander SIS reign, including crushing the threat of revolution; and the economic and industrial modernization of Russia, moving it towards becoming a ‘Great Power'.And of course, he would have to possess the support of the majority Russian people, though this was generally a given, as even – if not especially – those who had never seen the Tsar were convinced of his positions as ‘gods anointed' and their ‘Little Father'. Depending on how high a regard the Tsar is held in, it could be suggested that humanitarian aims were present however, for the purposes of this essay, this will not be included, as an overview of Alexander Ills reign suggest that whilst he made some inclusion for his workers and subjects, many freedoms and rights were compromised to further the ‘greater good'.Autocracy generally protects the autocrat from criticism of personal traits, though, if in possession of some or lacking in others, it may make the autocrat's rule easier or harder. To be both a highly autocratic ruler and to be successful, one would have had to appear as both ruthless and honest, likeable yet formidable, as the ‘little f ather' to the peasants whilst also appearing as working to protect the upper class and as incredibly patriotic, though not to the extent that it would disadvantage the country.An well rounded education in militarily, state and economic matters, though not technically a personality trait, would also be beneficial for a Tsar to possess, allowing him to be thoughtful and therefore to curb any headstrong impulsiveness he may have had. In terms of policy, depending on the Tsar's aims, how well they supported of achieved those aims and how well they were received helped his achievement of prosperity in his role as successful and popular policies make for a successful and popular rule.Despite this, it must be noted that although a Tsar had the potential to cake or break the country, advisors often tempered him, especially if those advisors had previously been influential in his life, meaning a Tsar's successfulness could be down to more than Just his personality or the policies he made. In terms of preserving the autocracy, and reversing the steps towards democracy his father had taken, Alexander Ill was arguably very successful, especially in his dealings with revolutionary groups and opposition in the sass and sass.After his fathers assassination by members of the terrorist group the ‘People's Will' – ‘Normandy Volta' – the Tsar ruthlessly cracked down on groups and organizations hat opposed him through the return of rigid censorship, exiles to Siberia and executions, such as the hanging of Alexandra Llanos and four others in 1887.The policy that allowed his authorities more power in pursuing opposition groups was the 1881 Statute of State Security, which gave the state the power to declare an area of the country under ‘extraordinary protection' and to therefore impose what essentially amounted to martial law: the banning of public meetings could be banned, the closing and restriction of schools, the extension of powers of the police especially the Koruna) and the arrest of anybody who was deemed ‘liberal' or in opposition to the regime.Furthermore, whilst the restrictions of censorship were resented by many (especially the revolutionaries, liberals and those calling for social change) it certainly did slow the spread of anti-tsarist ideas that had contributed to the dislike of autocracy and later the assassination of Alexander II. The combination of the restrictions on physically forming opposition groups and the restrictions on the spread of ideologies made it difficult for revolutionaries to even arm groups, let alone for them to actually perform any revolutionary actions.Whilst the methods through which Alexander Ill kept control of Russia were radical, conservative and incredibly harsh, they were no less effective for that and ensured a fairly stable, though oppressive, reign for him making him successful in his preservation of autocracy and the removal of the threat of revolution in his time. Econom ically and industrially, Russia was lagging behind Europe in the late sass.Alexander Ill intended to change that through a protectionist economic policy, imposing customs duties on imported goods to recover Russian's economy and allowing rapid industrial and infrastructural growth – the latter intending to an increase in the number of workers in industrial areas – and was fairly successful in the matter. He was also successfully frugal in accounting in state finances, though Russian's expenditure on debt was still fairly high.With his ministers Bungee, Witted & Yesterdays he achieved his aim of a major boost of progress both economically and industrially, whilst also attempting to improve agricultural production – evidence of this success being the 8% per annum Roth in Russian's economy. Antithetical to the progress made was the social conditions that went along with it. Living conditions in towns and cities were mostly poor and often factory work paid poorly, l eaving poverty, overcrowding and discontent to fester with the workers.In addition to this, though its efficiency improved, agriculture was exploited to the extent that major famines were caused, the largest in 1891 , as emphasis was placed on exporting the agricultural products, rather than letting peasants provide from themselves with them. High taxes were also placed on peasants to fund the instruction of railway lines, such as the Trans-Siberian Railway, and this furthered the poverty experienced by many in both developed and rural areas, though it did allow for improvement in the internal transportation of goods and of people (another successfully achieved aim).There was a definite lack of basic societal care in Alexander Ill, yet he was not entirely negligent in his role of the ‘Little Father' to his subjects: The Peasant Land Bank was set up in 1883, giving cheap loans to allow peasants to buy their own land; redemption payments were lowered, allowing extremely poor pea sants to move emend subsidence farming; and, in towns and cities, factories were legislated with working hours established and an inspectorate employed.In some ways, his work for the ‘greater good' could be considered more characteristic of a successful Tsar than humanitarianism would be as a Tsar's first duty was to God and his country, meaning that improvement of the country should be attempted no matter what the cost to its people (who were supposed to shared his loyalties, given his adopted slogan of ‘Nationality, Orthodoxy, Autocracy.As far as foreign policy goes, Alexander Ills title as the ‘Peacekeeper' Tsar is perhaps s deserved as his fathers title the Tsar ‘Liberator' was; though his policies successfully kept the peace, it was most likely not for pacifistic, humanitarian reasons (as far as we know, or can deduct) but rather to allow for Russia to improve practically. Evidence of this is that, although diplomatically peaceful, the Tsar opposed doctr ines of peace fairly strongly, preferring the view that a nation must be prepared for war in order to avoid it.No major wars occurred during his reign, and given the problems that the Crimean War had left in its wake, this was a definite success on his part. Ensuring a tentative peace with Germany and Austria-Hungary with the Three Emperors' Alliance with the renewal of it in 1881, Alexander Ill successfully gained security for the first few years of his reign.The circumnavigation of collapse of this from 1885-1887 due to conflict in the Balkans potentially avoided any major problems for Russia and instead left them option to pursue Franco-Russian policy to fill the vacuum left by Russian's estrangement from Germany & Austria-Hungary, earning another success for the Tsar in his foreign policy.Of course, the fact collapse of the Three Emperors' Alliance, along with the tensions n the Balkans (though a continuance from previous Tsar's agendas) could be counted as a failing on Alexande r part, but this is largely negated by his other successes, such his cautious avoidance of conflict with any European or Asian powers whilst gradually expanding Russian influence and power.Contrary to the success Alexander had with his foreign policy, a domestic policy that mostly failed and caused much resentment with in the Russian Empire was Rustication – the attempted unification of the Russian Empire under one ruler, one religion, one language and one culture. In abstract, Rustication would supposedly eave united the peoples of the Russian Empire and wiped out the threat of revolution and made Russia a dominant power in Europe, however all it did in reality was anger those whose cultures, religions or languages were being repressed, and spawn resentment towards the Tsar in all corners of his Empire.Obviously it was a policy that failed, given that it had been intended to quell revolutionary action and unify the state when, instead, it caused further divisions between the myriad of ethnicities present in Russia and actually grew revolutionary movements in areas like Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine. For Alexander Ill to be classed as successful the personal qualities needed for a ruler and the policies that may have been needed to achieve his aims would have been a balancing act of epic proportions – something that only somebody who had been raised to be a ruler could manage to do with any degree of success.As the second son of Alexander II, Alexander Ill was not expected to become Tsar and was educated only to the standard of a Grand Duke of the period, the finer points of ruling a country were not taught to him until his brother Nicolas died in 1865. Despite him being described as a gruff, narrow minded and fairly crude (Queen Victoria described him as â€Å"a sovereign she does not look upon as a gentleman†) Alexander Ill was of true Russian character: a deeply religious, moral & honest man with an imposing figure and fiery temperament .These traits would have fitted the profile of a Tsar fairly well in abstract but, in reality, the coarseness of Alexander character prevented them from being viewed as such. Alexander natural conservatism was likely furthered by the assassination of his father by radicals, and by the influence of Photostatted – his reactionary tutor – ND that the dangers that liberalism connoted, given the numerous attempts on his fathers life, and later on his own.However, conservatism obviously was not a bad trait to possess in the late 19th century, as the previous Tsar's liberalism had granted freedoms to those who would wish to end autocracy and in return had been granted a caved in skull. Gruffness of nature was characteristic of Alexander and, whilst it may have looked upon degradingly by the other nobles of Europe, it gained him a certain kind of respect from his people as he gave not only an impression of solidity and strength, UT also one of rough-cut solidarity with his peo ple.For an long period of time, the Romano Tsars had been untouchable, not only as divine, but also in the distinctions of class between them and their subjects, therefore having a Tsar who was relatable, but not ‘soft', as Alexander II may have been thought of as, was highly desirable. As far as being liked or admired as a person, Alexander was well liked by sloppiness and many of the Russian peasants who felt a ruler who was suspicious of the west, highly patriotic and characteristic of the ideal Russian man was one they could purport, and consequently, one who would be successful.On a slightly humorous note, an example of a quality that may have proved endearing to the typical Russian worker was his love of drinking. Even after he was diagnosed with kidney problems and forbidden alcohol by his wife, Alexander continued to drink, using hidden compartments in his boots to store flasks of alcohol that, when his wife left the room, he Jokingly pulled out and swigged from. Alter nately, the lack of education and culture Alexander Ill displayed made him seem rather brutish; two traits that did not sit well with the ‘cultured' gentry who had ivied through the reign of his more cultivated father.Furthermore it seemed to go against autocratic, ruling-class propriety to have a crude, UN-gentlemanly, bear of a man ruling a country that – though tumultuous and uneven in its wealth – produced some of the finest architecture, art, music and literature in the 19th century. The late 19th century was a time when Russia was teetering on the brink of revolution, modernization and industrialization, and in keeping the revolution down whilst advancing the country fiscally was something that Alexander Ill did admirably ell, despite his flaws and failed policies.Though he may not have been a Tsar for the people, nor the ‘Liberator' his father was he, ensured the security of Russian autocracy for his reign (mostly through repression, at the expense o f liberties) therefore making him a successful Tsar overall, contrary to what the statement suggests. Additionally, though conservatism is often painted as a backwards, oppressive political view to hold, it can be argued that for Alexander Ill preserve his rule and economically/industrially bring Russia up to speed – ruling with an iron fist

Jews And Booze By Marni Davis - 1890 Words

In Marni Davis’s book Jews and Booze, she offers readers a well-researched study addressing Jewish immigrant acculturation. Data on Jews, booze, and prohibition is familiar to scholars who study the histories of New York City, Chicago, and New Jersey. Much to her credit, Davis also gathers information from southern locales such as Atlanta and California. In Robert Rockaway’s book But He Was Good to His Mother, he examined Jewish gangsters in the early twentieth century and came to the conclusion that the reason a large number of them worked in the illegal alcohol business was because of the profit caused by prohibition and the intense thirst society developed for alcohol that came with it. When he studied further he realized that these â€Å"gangsters† running illegal operations often were more caring and human than people believed. Incorporated into this review are studies of the real life activity of these gangsters through information that Rockaway was able to recover. As Jewish immigrants found their place in nineteenth and twentieth century America, alcohol was never far from their lips. True, Jews were known for their abstemious drinking habits, but the production and sale of alcoholic beverages offered economic opportunity in the United States as it had in Europe, where some Jews were vintners, brewers, liquor distributors, and tavern owners (Davis). However, if alcohol selling brought prosperity, it also brought the Jews into the world of mobs and gangsters.Show MoreRelatedJews And Booze By Marni Davis1734 Words   |  7 Pages When Prohibition became law in 1920, many Jews became bootleggers. Mob bosses such as Arnold Rothstein and Meyer Lansky operated in New York; Abner â€Å"Longy† Zwillman and Waxey Gordon worked in New Jersey; The Purple Gang was mainly based in Detroit. These mobsters and others made headlines more often than did Jewish federal Prohibition agents like Izzy Einstein and Moe Smith (Davis). Jewish gangsters found that the most money at the time could be found in the illegal alcohol business and so for