2 Business Topics 2

Be GREEN, or be SQUARE!

Posted on by suhanip301s12

More and more customers now are looking for companies to be transparent, but it’s kind of hard to be competitive and sustainable at the same time.  Companies are now using value chain processes to get the job done fast.  They are not only focusing on suppliers but also taking into account By-Product-Synergy, which is “taking waste from one part of the production process and using that waste in order to generate a new product.” But how can companies become more sustainable if only “80 percent of management uses just 20% of the available opportunities?!”  The remaining 80 percent is where management needs to focus the rest of their energy.

It’s crucial for management to set goals and assess their risks, thereafter they can easily seek out opportunities for future improvement.  The first step to become a transparent company is to implement a sustainability program, and of course to develop a strategy.  The next step is to identify the companies “main processes and map data throughout the value chain.”  By using life-cycle-assessment software, the companies will have a more clear idea of how to lower their costs.

A similar approach was taken by ThyssenKrupp (FWB: TKA), a German elevator company.  Since ThyssenKrupp uses a considerable amount of steel in the manufacturing process, they thought the operational aspect had the greatest environmental impact. To their surprise,  the “company’s elevators themselves left a greater carbon footprint then their manufacture or any of the company’s other operations.”

As a result, ThyssenKrupp dramatically changed their product line after implementing a sustainability program.  They made the following changes to their products and services:

  • Elevators use LED lights which reduce energy consumption by 80%, and automatic fan and light shutoff which reduces CO2 emissions by 193,000 tons per year.
  • Getting rid of harmful chemicals used to manufacture the elevator.
  • Using petroleum based biodegradable fluid, with a vegetable-based option called “enviromax.”
  • Elevators are equipped with regenerative technology, meaning that the energy generated from the braking system is put back into the building.

In a way the article gives motivation to other companies who are taking their first steps towards becoming a transparent company.  It gives them few ideas and pointers on “unlocking supply-chain opportunities.” It’s important for different industries to decipher various ways to be more environmental friendly.  After all, there is more to being sustainable than just showing off your environmental initiatives.

Do you think ThyssenKrupp can take additional measures to make their company more sustainable?  Or better yet, are there any companies that you want to see become transparent in the near future? How would they need to change there operations?

Links:

http://www.thyssenkruppelevator.com/Sustainability/products-services

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/04/26/whirlpool-thyssenkrupp-supply-chain-transparency?page=0%2C1

https://opsmgt.edublogs.org/2012/06/28/transforming-waste-into-profit/

 

UPS: The Industry Leader in Quality?

Posted on by frankr301s12

            The United Parcel Service (UPS) has been recognized as an industry leader when it comes to quality for quite some time. In fact, in 2010 they were recognized in the third spot of 10 for top companies for quality only behind Disney and Intel. [1] They have always been concerned with being the best in the industry of their product, which is actually a service that is delivering packaged goods across the globe. UPS delivers 16.3 packages daily only losing less than 1% of those packages yearly.[2] UPS was one of the first companies to have tracking on their packages and more recently with the ever-growing use of smartphones was the first to have an app that allows senders and receivers to track their packages through their app, a first for the industry. With its excellent track record overall especially for on time deliveries one would think UPS has quality under control. Recently, however; the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) fined UPS $4 Million for failing to make required repairs on their aircraft, maintaining proper records, and flying unsafe aircraft (due to the failed repairs.)

One would think a company that has such a great track record for delivering goods on time and in good condition would have every aspect of their business including the quality and condition of their fleet on trucks, cars, and aircraft. Clearly the FAA does not think UPS is doing such a great job in that department. In thinking about the reasons why they may not be maintaining their aircraft, a few ideas come to mind. First, aircraft repairs take time and money. With profits of 5.8 billion dollars last year, it is safe to assume cost was not the issue.[3] Time is the single biggest thing UPS has to deal with. When providing their service, shipping, they are guaranteeing that package will arrive its destination at a particular time. If an aircraft is being repaired, it cannot fly. If it is not flying, packages are not being delivered. Packages, those are not delivered or not delivered on time is simply bad for business. It is easy to see the domino effect that ensues thereafter. Perhaps there has been a cutback in mechanics and/or inspectors and so there were many oversights. It is also possible that they did make repairs but failed to keep adequate records, which is also alleged by the FAA. Finally, maybe this is all a big misunderstanding.

A spokesperson for UPS states they will defend themselves for this “unreasonable and unwarranted fine.” He says, “UPS has a long history of operating a safe, compliant airline, there was never a safety issue.” Apparently, this fine is stemming from only 9 repairs out of the thousands of repairs they make. Overall UPS has a pretty good safety record. According to the Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System (SAFER), for the last 24 months UPS has had 0 air accidents and 0 fatalities. [4] Maybe this is just a big misunderstanding and poor reporting. I find it hard to believe that UPS would not properly maintain the very things that drive their business. Aircraft are the very thing that delivers the packages. Without them, UPS has no business. It will be interesting to see how UPS defends themselves. What do you guys think? Can you see a company overlooking the quality of their fleet in order to save time? Do you know of any other companies that actually do this?  Let’s hear them in the comments!

Source of Main Article. 

[1]http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1002/gallery.mostadmired_product_quality.fortune/3.html

[2] http://www.pressroom.ups.com/Fact+Sheets/UPS+Fact+Sheet

[3] http://www.investors.ups.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62900&p=irol-newsearnings&nyo=0

[4]http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov/query.asp?searchtype=ANY&query_type=queryCarrierSnapshot&query_param=USDOT&original_query_param=NAME&query_string=1111792&original_query_string=UPS%20AIR%20CARGO%20INC
*Logo used for Educational Purposes, www.ups.com*

Where is my phone?

Posted on by Dom

The HTC One, High Tech Computer Corporation’s leading phone is currently experiencing worldwide delays. As of April 24th, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile are the sole wireless communications service providers that offer the cell phone for sale. Unfortunately, potential clients will be disappointed upon hearing that the phone will be delayed; potentially for several weeks. Originally the HTC One was scheduled to launch in mid-March, but supply issues have pushed back the release for over a month.

Over the prior year, HTC’s profits have dropped to a record low $2.83 million. This accounts for a 98% drop in profits. The HTC One is the paramount flagship model and in order to turn around the company, it must sell well. In March alone, HTC moved only 300,000 phones to nationwide retailers in three countries as supply bottleneck issues arose. HTC indicated a shortage of camera components as the problem responsible for the mass delays. By the end of April, J.P. Morgan Securities’ supply chain checks forecast 1.2 million phones shipping as well as 2.0 million in May.

Oddly enough, the main competitor of the HTC One, the Samsung Galaxy S4, will also be delayed until April 29th on T-Mobile. The Galaxy S4 will be launching on six carriers, however only T-Mobile has set a definitive launch date. In order to cope with the anticipated sales forecasts, Samsung is currently producing 10 million units monthly. T-Mobile will likely be the first carrier to launch with the Galaxy S4 but is already experiencing delays before pre-ordering is available. Once the five other carriers set their release dates, demand will go up and Samsung may not have enough available phones for the amount demanded.

Anticipated sales forecasts generated for both HTC and Samsung may not be realistic over the next several months as both corporations are struggling to produce enough inventory for the demand. This, however, brings up a question of quality. If HTC and Samsung are rushing to mass produce these phones to clear the backorders, will the quality of the phones suffer, or will crashing methods have to be implemented to speed up project length?

In our class we discussed bottleneck situations and how that may jeopardize the timeliness of the process but this article also brings up forecasting models. Unfortunately forecasts are just predictions. When unanticipated situations arise, these forecasts may not be accurate; as exemplified in HTC’s case. Stock markets also rely heavily on forecasts, thus a company may decrease or increase in value today pertaining an act that will be committed in the future. Only time will tell how long consumers will have to wait for their phones as both companies are working relentlessly to produce more phones.

Do you believe that HTC and Samsung should have prepared better for this problem and stockpiled phones ahead of time to avoid this situation?

Which company do you feel will tackle this issue most effectively?

 

References:

Brown, Justin. “HTC One US Bottleneck Won’t Clear Until After Galaxy S4 Is In Stores?” SidhTech RSS. N.p., 20 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.sidhtech.com/news/htc-one-vs-samsung-galaxy-s4-us-release/1003194/>.

Davies, Chris. “HTC One Turnaround Tipped as Supply Bottleneck Loosens.” SlashGear. N.p., 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.slashgear.com/htc-one-turnaround-tipped-as-supply-bottleneck-loosens-15277830/>.

Epstein, Zach. “BGR.” Samsung Galaxy S4 Deemed a Winner: Shipments Seen Topping Early Estimates. N.p., 5 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://bgr.com/2013/04/05/samsung-galaxy-s4-sales-estimates-414846/>.

Harvey, Cynthia. “HTC Profits Drop 98%.” Datamation. N.p., 8 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.datamation.com/news/htc-profits-drop-98.html>.

Kovach, Steve. “Samsung Galaxy S4 Delayed On T-Mobile Until April 29.” Business Insider. N.p., 23 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-galaxy-s4-delayed-on-t-mobile-2013-4>.

Tofel, Kevin C. “HTC One Launch: Available at 2 Carriers; Web Orders for 1; Delays for Dev Edition — Tech News and Analysis.” GigaOM. N.p., 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://gigaom.com/2013/04/19/htc-one-launch-available-at-2-carriers-web-orders-for-1-delays-for-dev-edition/

Is the Oil-Tanking Industry Sustainable?

Posted on by spr1322cleahy

Due to the poor economy, the oil industry is having a rough time enduring transportation costs from country to country.  For decades, oil tankers have been the main source of transportation, carrying up to two million barrels of oil between the Middle East, Asia, and the United States. Unfortunately for the oil tanking business, operation costs over the past few years have been much more expensive than they have been in the past.  This increase in price makes the shipping of the popular and much demanded natural resource nearly impossible and not worth it.  Unlike what is usually the case, globalization in this situation for example is more costly to this particular industry than it would be to drill into our own soil.  The only problem is that we find a larger supply of oil in foreign countries than we do our own.

To get an idea of how much this is costing the oil firms, analysts look at the forecasts from previous years.  This collection of data has shown that the industry has lost more than $26 billion dollars in the past four years, and operation costs are higher than ever.  To operate one of these extremely large vessels, it costs anywhere from ten to twelve thousand dollars per day.  In 2007, operation costs peaked at $309,601 per day.  That is unbelievable! Because these carriers are only making roughly $7,000 a day, there is a huge deficit.  While such oil companies continue to lose so much money daily, they cannot possibly stay in business.  The supply chain is not working in favor of firms; therefore, sustainability of the business comes into question.  So what should these oil tanking firms do?  How can they cut costs?  Is it possible to adjust the supply chain or is it a lost cause?

I think that at such a loss like this, the amount of ships in operation should decrease drastically, causing less expenses to be paid.  That is the only way they can keep their heads above water, although they are already sinking in debt.  New York’s Overseas Shipholding Group filed for bankruptcy last year, and I am sure they will not be the last to do so.  I feel for these dying companies because many of them entered into contracts before the economic crisis occurred, and now they are stuck in a failing industry, losing more than they gained from the contracts to begin with.

Other possible options for consumers that effect the oil firms is innovation.  It is not uncommon to see on TV or read in the newspaper alternatives to oil resources.  At the Chicago Auto Show every year, concept cars are on display that use battery powered systems to replace oil.  These are more cost efficient and do not require the use of oil tankers.  What do you think will be the result of the oil industry failing?  How do you think consumers should react to this? How do you think the government should react to this?

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323741004578418652461117968.html

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=686&q=oil+tankers&oq=oil+tankers&gs_l=img.3..0l7j0i5l3.1094.2780.0.2865.11.9.0.2.2.0.99.568.9.9.0…0.0…1ac.1.9.img.jaBIJkaaITU#imgrc=UIoFamHBsuSHxM%3A%3B47hJKcJOVD494M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.shippingherald.com%252FPortals%252F0%252FVessels%252Foil-tanker.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.shippingherald.com%252FAdmin%252FArticleDetail%252FArticleDetailsTankers%252Ftabid%252F102%252FArticleID%252F8877%252FNordic-American-May-Double-Oil-Tanker-Fleet-as-Asia-Spurs-Demand.aspx%3B1190%3B1074

 

 

Taking the guesswork out of Supply Chain Management

Posted on by Glenn Joseph


Fuel consumption represents nearly 37% of average per-mile trucking costs.  In today’s time, with the advancement of technology, more and more companies are tapping in to technologies that allow for better risk management to improve efficiency and lower the risk of avoidable scenarios that were once considered “the cost of doing business.”  Many large companies such as Procter & Gamble and Whirpool have begun working with companies such as Breakthrough Fuel, which work with many shippers across the country to help provide strategy on fuel management.

Clients using Breakthrough Fuel’s model only pay actual fuel costs for particular routes on particular days, this allows for a savings on fuel consumption.  Breakthrough Fuel also has multiple locations from which a manufacturer can ship from which allows manufacturers to ship based on distance from their destination or the cheapest trucking costs.  To help aid in the transfer of shipments, there has been mass improvements to inventory tracking such as with the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology.

With the use of RFID technology and GPS, shippers can know exactly where a certain item is within a container.  This use of RFID chips helps alleviate errors in packaging and shipping such as when working with
parts for bigger items.  Think about a time where you will be able to place all of your groceries in a shopping cart at the supermarket and as you walk out, an RFID scanner will automatically scan all your groceries for you and display a price for each item without the hassle of you having to wait in line.  With the use of RFID technology I really believe that soon that is how our shopping will be.  What do you think are some other good uses for RFID technology?

Firms that ship in less-than-truckload (LTL) amounts need to make sure that they are shipping goods quickly in order to meet the high demand from their customers.  This idea of using LTL services provides shippers a way to send out shipments more quickly but at a higher price.  With the use of RFID technology, a shipper can carry multiple loads from different companies and be able to manage and control where each individual package gets delivered.  Say Walgreens and Dominick’s both need a certain brand of product, the manufacturer can use a logistics management company such as MIQ Logistics to make sure that their product gets to both Walgreens and Dominick’s stores in a certain location with the help of RFID chips to track and monitor the packages.  Certain transportation companies even provide their drivers with mobile devices to manage the inventory within their truck.  Shippers are working on delivering shipments damage free, within a reasonable amount of time, and with confidence that their shipment will arrive in the right location when needed.

What can you see as the advantages or drawbacks to using the LTL technology described above? Do you see any ways of improving this system?

 

 

Sources:

“Science Comes To Shipping.” Fortune Magazine 8 Apr. 2013: S1-S4. Print. (Also available here: http://www.timeincnewsgroupcustompub.com/sections/130408_Freight.pdf)

 

How Six Flags could learn from this class

Posted on by spr1322tgutheil

http://socal.catholic.org/images/local_ad/2010024016magic.jpg

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009 after years of being in devastating amounts of debt, poor management and multiple changes in who owned the company. This initiates the first issue as there is no way there can be a good way to manage a large company like this with so many changes in leadership. By the time the people that work for Six Flags got used to the new style of leadership, the ownership changed again therefore messing up the whole system again. A long-term plan should have been established with somebody that would be there the whole time this be through the different stages of ownership.

The company started doing a little bit better again in mid-2010, and today in 2013 analysts say that the company can have a good season ahead of it as it has new attractions that can improve the attendance and therefore the revenue. Through finally having good management again the company has improved season pass sales, less discounting and more financial income through parts of the business such as dining. What the earlier owners and managers should have realized is that forecasting plays a huge role in how their business is doing. They should have realized that discounting is good but definitely can not be the end all be all as it may attract people, but there has to be a line draw to make sure it is still profitable for the company and therefore the employees.

The fact that there are a lot of new rides and attractions posts a lot of opportunity in terms of that a lot more people will start showing up. One of the reasons that Six Flags Corporation had been struggling is that old customers were getting saturated with the rides and attractions that were available to them because they had been to the parks so often. With the new rides a lot of the long-time goers will start going again and the season ticket sales will go up again.

Management also mentioned that this will not be the old Six Flags ever again as it will establish a new business plan and “has willingness to rethink its business model and track record of success.” It seems as if this new set of management knows how to promise the company future success, but the question is if it will actually be able to successfully implement all of these new strategies to guarantee they won’t slide into losses again. The keys to success for a company like Six Flags are good forecasting for what needs to be done in order to get a lot of tickets sold, good management of the employees and facilities, along with making sure the rides and attractions provide variety and do not get boring.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-04-19/credit-suisse-initiates-coverage-of-six-flags

Strategic Alliances Between Video Game Developers and Media Firms

Posted on by spr1332bhalan

Strategic Alliances between Video Game Developers and Media Firms

By: Brett Halan

So basically the situation at hand is that media companies like Disney are starting to develop their own video games rather than export the development. The skill to develop and program games was once extremely rare and difficult to learn. Today it is being taught by more and more universities, and the skill is more widespread. Companies like Disney and PIXAR have a strategic alliance to create games like Toy Story and many others. They still do have an alliance, but Disney is experimenting by creating their own methods to creating games. Other media companies are following their lead as well.

These companies originally make a film that is later turned into a video game. Toy Story is an example of this process. The problem is that as of lately the video games that are extracted from original movies are not successful whatsoever. Disney and the others had to ask themselves why?  They concluded that the quality of the games is terrible. The video game developing companies spend much of their effort working on original pieces of work like Halo or Call of Duty that attract the largest consumer base. They spend little time on these movies turned video games because they are historically weak sellers. The quote “quality is subjective, and perception is reality” pertains directly to this situation. The only real person who can claim that one game has more quality over the other are the end consumers. The media companies and the developing firms are essentially making the same mistake over and over again, and they need to accept change.

To fix the lack of quality going into the games there are a few alternatives. The most popular is that the media firms are buying smaller video game development companies. They are expanding in a way to give them a higher amount of control over the end product. As we saw in class during the ball passing game, when you have control over the process and design the end result is improved. Another alternative could include simply end making video games based off movies.     

Overall, the consumers of the big box office movies seem to really enjoy the movies, so why are the video games not popular? Media firms blame the video game developers for not putting maximum effort into the games. There are a few questions we should consider. The first is how do the media firms go forward with improving the transcendent definition of quality of these games? The second question is how are the video game developers going to stay in business with their strategically aligned partners?

Even though the information for this post is from 2008 the information is still relevant for today. I imagine we will see less and less video games based off of movies in the meantime. Further down the road I imagine some movies will have a more advanced feature where you can control the action similar to a video game. Today they have alternative endings to movies, but I think that is just the beginning of interaction with the audience.    

Sources from:

M. Marr and N Wingfield (2008). “Big Media companies want back in the game.” The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2008.

C. Salter (2002). “Playing to Win.” Fast Company. December. Pg. 80.

C. Edward (2008). “Morphing Video Games into Movies.” BloombergBusinessWeek. March 19, 2008. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-03-19/morphing-video-games-into-movies

 

Apple – Samsung = What Kind of Quality?

Posted on by f1223nlopez

After hearing this news about a month ago, I decided to post it and get others responses to it.

It seems although they are in a bitter legal battle with each company suing each other, Apple is still doing business with the Korean company Samsung, but for how long? The relationship started because the companies that previously provided the displays for the iPads, weren’t meeting with quality standards and were dropped. These companies included LG and Sharp Inc. Now it seems that because the legal battles that are happening, Samsung will also be dropped. It seems that the new company to step in and win over Apple’s iPad Mini, is Innolux. Innolux already provides Apple with the displays for the big iPad, and iPod Touch, so the change should be easy.

For those of us who have iPhone, we all noticed how the maps changed when Apple and Google parted ways. A lot of us found out that we were driving or walking into the middle of an ocean when we would look for destinations, or the maps wouldn’t fully load correctly, of course now its fixed after a couple of updates. So will another debacle like this happen when they part ways with Samsung? As consumers, we hate it when the quality of a good product continues to decline and there are a lot of Apple consumers who are very happy with the components that Samsung provides to these devices. Not only are they providing the display panels, but they also manufacture the chips for the Apple devices.

The major question that will be looming is will the quality of Apple products start to decline? It’s been said that Apple is dropping Samsung because of the costs that are now being demanded, so will looking for lower costs, lower the quality? I find it natural that Apple would want to drop Samsung because of their legal battles. Why would they want to help and contribute to their competitors? Samsung is stepping up in the technology industry and is becoming a big competitor to Apple and it’s in their best interest to part ways before the blueprints to their best selling devices are found out.

As news of “The Next Big Thing,” the Samsung Galaxy S4 has come out, will it make a splash big enough to make some new converts? I’ve heard some of the new features on the phone and I find them a little bit weird. The biggest one is the ability to wave your hand to switch screens. Just picture yourself waving your hand at your phone and think about how you will look. I’m not knocking it all, I just find it funny. Each phone is targeting different customers, but are always pinned each other for top spot.

Let me know what you guys think about the new move and if it will or will not effect the quality of Apple products. Feel free to chime in on the new S4 as well.

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156712/apple-said-to-drop-samsung-turn-to-innolux-for-ipad-mini-displays

http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-may-abandon-samsung-for-retina-ipad-mini-displays

 

 

Why Microsoft isn’t so hot to enter the Smart Phone market

Posted on by spr1332tlawrence

 

Article Breakdown

Stated in the article, “Rather than creating a premium device to rival Apple and Samsung in the developed world, Microsoft plans to rely on partners to mine emerging markets with budget smartphones.” Microsoft’s CEO stated that the company as a whole wants to stray away from being strictly a software company to a entity that will focus on devices and services more this the mind set of it yielding more market share. Alternatively, it seems Microsoft is afraid to enter an extremely profitable and competitive market. This market is the smartphone market. Numerous companies have tried to take a piece of this plentiful pie but failed miserably. Microsoft will only take this risk  if it’s partners jump off the cliff first. “Microsoft recognizes that the cost of creating a premium handset to compete at the high-end of the smartphone market against Apple’s iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S3 is an enormously expensive and risky proposition.” Moreover, the company feels that investing in a market like this isn’t the best use of the company’s resources so instead Microsoft looks to gain this lost ground in, equally as risky, emerging markets. In markets like these they will be focuses on partners like Nokia to establish this.

Some make think that Microsoft surface may have stumbled but the company intends to build devices when its numerous partners aren’t trying to produce gadgets that resonate with the consumers. Markets like that smartphone market in the U.S are extremely developed markets. Some may think this is a perfect chance for Microsoft to take a dive in but the task of displacing Apple and Google with a Microsoft-made product is near impossible. The game with competing with Google and Apple is one Microsoft just doesn’t want to play.

My Opinion

I thought Microsoft’s plan was an extremely thought out and strategic one. Microsoft will be under the radar in the technology game for just a little bit but then will capitalize on the right technology or gadget at the right time. Competing with companies like Google or Apple is near impossible in an already established market. The only way to win this innovation battle is let them win this “fight” and focus on the “war” or the next mind blowing thing. With Microsoft taking all the focus off this market they can truly succeed in a new market and get there before Google and Apple. At the end of the day, it started with Microsoft. Lastly, I feel the quality of Microsoft’s products are on the line if the company attempts to come out with a smart phone because customers are extremely picky about products like these

Questions to consider

1. Is Microsoft making the right choice by taking a safe route and losing market share?

2. How much market share could Microsoft actually capture come Apple and Google?

3. Are there any emerging markets that Microsoft has missed or do you know of any they could capitalize on in the future?

4. How is Microsoft managing its quality?

February 2013 Smart Phone Market Share

Google’s Android: 51.7%

Apple’s iOS: 38.9%

Windows: 3.2%

 

Sources

news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57579980-75/why-microsoft-wont-make-an-iphone-rival/

 

 

 

Blackberry is losing out to iPhones

Posted on by spr1331eanyadiegwu

Research in Motion (RIM) is the company that makes Blackberry phones.  Blackberry mobile phones are going downhill.  The phones that sell the most are iPhones and Androids.  These are dominating the world market.  This is the future of the world market as well.  So people are going for these phones and they don’t like Blackberries as much.

 

RIM is losing jobs and revenue as well.  There have been 5,000 layoffs for this company because the company is losing money.  Their net sales went down by 42% a year ago to $2.8 billion.  The CEO Heins chose to cut costs and downsize but this is not enough for the company.  It must find innovative ways to sell their products in the global market.  The CEO is not doing the best job as well.  He needs to find creative ways to sell the product to gain more of a market share in the phone market.

 

The Blackberry was first a business phone.  Many business people, lawyers, consultants and other people who are in organizations had Blackberrys. This wasn’t enough for the RIM so they had to expand to the regular consumer.  They made it more user friendly so the average person could use it, not just corporate people. They gave the phone a music player which most people do not know about.

 

They should have set up an office inSilicon Valleybecause this would have given them an opportunity to see what other companies are doing. It would have made them compete more with these companies.

 

In 2010 they set a plan to make a touch-screen rival to iPhone. They came up with the Blackberry Torch which did not do too well. RIM needs to learn to discontinue products and make new ones.  Many tech companies have bad products but they are discontinued and the company learns from their mistake. Companies such as Microsoft had Zune and Apple hadNewton.  Both of these companies did not do well but they reset and brought out better products.  RIM did not make a new innovative product.  Their product called playbook did not do too well and they lost a lot of money on unsold playbooks.

 

There is still hope for RIM to succeed though.  They have over $2 billion is cash on hand.  The bottom side is that the cash can go away due to costs.  Also many of the people who left blackberry for iPhone are not coming back anytime soon. So they have to find innovative ways to get people to subscribe to Blackberry.

 

He should invest in developing countries as well because there would be a market for the phones.  The price is what is most important to know.  There is an elite in the developing world that will buy the phone because they need it.  The problem will be setting up the infrastructure in the developing world to make it be efficient.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/07/how-the-blackberry-died.html

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/06/rim-dying-because-it-got-future-phones-completely-wrong/54031/