Based on the 3M instance ( Chapter 2, De Wit & A ; Meyer ) , does 3M seem to follow the outside-in or inside-out position? Explain. Which of Treacy & A ; Wiersema ‘s “ three generic competitory advantages ” ( Strategy Synthesis ) does 3M appear to prosecute? Explain. Based on the instance, infer: is 3M more in alliance with the portfolio organisation ( SBU ) position or with the integrated organisation ( core competency ) position? Explain.
I. 3M followed the wrong-side-out position. This was because 3M ever devoted itself to constructing up a strong resource base. It emphasized on resources over markets. First, it invariably developed new merchandises. It encouraged every employee to develop new merchandises. It besides provided sufficient fiscal and material resources to back up their new thoughts. Its concern was really flexible. It good developed sidelong thought that its engineering designed for one concern can be used in another concern. Second, it positioned itself based on its new merchandises. It had entered into many new markets through developing new merchandises. It earned 30 per centum grosss from its new merchandises. It besides changed the regulations of the bing markets. Third, 3M built up strong dynamic capablenesss. Its merchandises were difficult to copy. Therefore, 3M built up a strong competitory place and created imitation barriers through supplying advanced merchandises.
two. 3M appeared to prosecute the merchandise leading synthesis. 3M did non prosecute operational excellence or client familiarity synthesises. This was because it applied itself to supplying advanced merchandises. It did non stress on supplying standardized and low-priced merchandises or constructing up closer relationships with clients. 3M pursued the merchandise leading because it engaged in changeless merchandise invention. Furthermore, its full organisation was a R & A ; D section. It provided sufficient fiscal and material resources to promote every employee to develop their new thoughts. It built up strong dynamic capablenesss that its merchandises were difficult to copy. Furthermore, there was a close coaction between its selling section and R & A ; D section. 3M had entered many new markets with these advanced merchandises and taken up the taking place in many countries.
three. 3M was more in alliance with the integrated organisation position. Its nucleus competence was changeless merchandise invention. It emphasized on synergism over reactivity. Every section and employee in 3M engaged in merchandise invention. Every employee was free to work on their new thoughts. 3M besides provided sufficient fiscal and material resources to assist them develop new thoughts. Furthermore, each section in 3M was tightly related to each other. The inter-disciplinary venture squad was responsible for analyzing each advanced thought and seting possible thoughts into pattern. It entered many new markets with these advanced merchandises. It was celebrated for sidelong thought because it was able to use one engineering developed for one concern to the other concern. It had taken up the taking place in merchandise inventions in many different industries.
See the Merck short instance ( Chapter 7, De Wit & A ; Meyer ) . Use any tow drivers of industry development to explicate why there is increasing coaction among companies in the pharmaceutical industry. Use any four of the six inhibitors of industry development to explicate why Merck is happening itself as a “ regulation ledgeman ” in its refusal to prosecute in more coaction. Should Merck prosecute in more coaction and why?
i. First, the competition within the pharmaceutical industry became more and more intensive. Because the generic drug companies lost their patent protections, a big measure of new smaller drug industries entered the market with similar merchandises at lower monetary values. Furthermore, developing new merchandises were dearly-won and time-consuming. However, the smaller drug companies were more specialised and they were able to develop specialised new merchandises more rapidly and less dearly-won. Second, authoritiess put monetary value ordinances on the pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, the health care organisations and insurance companies tried to put force per unit area on pharmaceutical monetary values and clamp down their outgos. This greatly increased the bargaining power of purchasers.
two. a‘? . Underliing conditions: With the progressively ferocious competition in the pharmaceutical industry, most of the large drug companies cooperated with specialised little biotech houses in order to obtain economic systems of graduated table and vie on monetary value. However, Merck refused to prosecute in more coaction and continued to put more in its R & A ; D. It held that coaction would non better its public presentation.
a‘µ Industry integrating: In the early yearss, large drug companies took up the monopoly places in the pharmaceutical industry because of patent protections. However, it became more and more hard for them to regenerate their patents. Their merchandises were easy imitated by smaller drug makers. Therefore, they chose to join forces with those smaller companies. However, Merck was able to obtain patents at the lowest costs. Therefore, it did non follow the industry tendency to join forces with others.
aԦ Power constructions: Because of the loss of patent protections, more and more large drug companies chose to join forces with little biotech companies. They spent a considerable sum of money and attempt in the coactions. They saved 10 per centum to 20 per centum costs in their R & A ; D investings. Large companies became sellers and distributers for their spouses. If they changed the regulation, they would lose a batch or even travel bankruptcy. However, Merck merely collaborated with several houses which can better its engineerings.
a‘· Risk averse: Changing the regulation was rather hazard for the large companies who had collaborated with others. They preferred to go on their coaction procedure. However, Merck refused to make so because it believed that it was able to better its public presentation through internal growing.
three. Merck should prosecute in more coaction in future. It is of import for Merck to transport out its hereafter development and to keep its prima place in the industry. Developing a new drug is dearly-won and time-consuming. Many little houses were specialized and they were able to bring forth the drugs rapidly and less dearly-won. It is helpful to greatly cut down its concern hazard by join forcesing with little biotech houses. Furthermore, it besides can diminish its R & A ; D investings by a big sum. In this manner, it is helpful to heighten its competitory place in the full industry and better its bargaining power.
See the Pfeffer and Sutton ‘s article “ Evidence-based direction ” ( on Sakai ) . Explain the chief point ( s ) of the article in your ain words. Now use the penetrations from the article to measure the advice offered by Willie Pietersen in “ The Mark Twain Dilemma ” ( on Sakai ) . In other words, does Pietersen ‘s advice qualify as “ evidence-based direction ” ? Indicate your understanding or dissension with Pietersen ‘s advice – regardless of whether it qualified as evidence-based or non.
I. The article foremost talked about six traditional ways that directors used as groundss for decision-making, including old cognition, past experience, personal strengths, selling, belief and imitation. It used GE forced ranking plan to exemplify how directors should transport out evidence-based direction. It suggested that directors should carefully utilize benchmarks and critically copy the plans of established companies. Furthermore, directors should pay close attending to the negative effects of their public presentations and better their public presentations based on those effects. Finally, it provided four suggestions on how companies conduct evidence-based direction. First, companies should construct up an evidence-based direction civilization and ever utilize groundss and facts to explicate what was traveling on in their companies. Second, companies should pay attending to the logic of direction researches and critically analyze premises and options. Third, companies should continuously carry on experiments and learn from the perennial experiments. Fourthly, companies should pay close attending to real-world observations and promote employees to go on surveies.
two. Pietersen ‘s advice can non be qualified as “ evidence-based direction ” . Pietersen provided six advices on how to cover with leading alterations. He summarized his ain yesteryear experiences and many other companies ‘ illustrations. He used these experiences and some bing theories to back up his advices. However, evidence-based direction suggested non utilizing past experience and old cognition to do determination. Because every company was different from its rivals in size, civilization, background, organisation construction and so on. It was non wisdom to copy the other ‘s illustrations straight. An illustration worked in one company may non work in the other company. In face of the leading alterations, every company should carefully analyse all the groundss and facts in their ain company and critically follow what the other company did in the same state of affairs. Furthermore, they should pay close attending to the negative effects of their public presentation and better their public presentation based on these effects.
See the Mintzberg and Westley article “ Decision-making: It ‘s non what you think ” and Pfeffer and Sutton ‘s article “ Evidence-based direction ” ( both on Sakai ) . Do you see the advice offered in two articles as complementary or contradictory? Be certain to briefly sum up each article, even if you already did in the old inquiry, and to utilize existent universe examples to exemplify the constructs in the articles and to back up your statements.
I. The article “ evidence-based direction ” foremost talked about six traditional ways that directors used as groundss for decision-making, including old cognition, past experience, personal strengths, selling, belief and imitation. It used GE forced ranking plan to exemplify how directors should transport out evidence-based direction. Finally, it suggested companies conduct their evidence-based direction from four positions, including constructing up evidence-based civilization, analyzing the logics of direction researches, every bit good as how to handle their organisation and wisdom employees.
two. The article “ Decision-making: it ‘s non what you think ” introduced three different theoretical accounts of doing determinations, including believing foremost, seeing foremost and making foremost. The writers described the stairss of each theoretical account and analyzed the benefits and restrictions of each theoretical account. It was suggested that it was better to incorporate all the three theoretical accounts together in order to do a better determination.
three. The advice offered in these two articles was complementary. The first article talked about the definition of evidence-based direction and the regular manner of carry oning evidence-based direction. The 2nd article gave a elaborate debut of three different decision-making theoretical accounts used in different state of affairss. It argued that believing first theoretical account did non ever work good in any state of affairss. Therefore, companies had to utilize seeing foremost and making foremost to transport out their concern. It besides suggested that these three theoretical accounts are extremely related and they should be integrated together in order to do a better determination. Thinking first theoretical account was based on facts, seeing first theoretical account was based on thoughts and making first theoretical account was based on experience. It was difficult to acquire the solution all the clip by utilizing believing first theoretical account. Sing foremost and making first can better the evidence-based direction. It was better to incorporate all the three theoretical accounts to happen out the grounds and solutions. For illustration, when a drug company developed a wholly new drug, foremost they had to synthesise the drug by themselves. This was the making first measure. Then they should prove it and pass on across boundaries to better the merchandise. This was the seeing first measure. Furthermore, after bring forthing the merchandise and seting them into pattern, they should roll up all gross revenues figures and market contemplations to further analyse their merchandise. In this manner, they were able to well bettering and marketing their merchandises. This was the thought first measure. By uniting the three theoretical accounts, the company was able to carry on its evidence-based direction really good.
