177
e
Web Source
http://www.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?&scid=1787&docid=73736
http://www.prdomain.com/companies/i/ibm/newreleases/200208aug/pr_ibm_nr_20020808.htm
http://1000ventures.com/business_guide/strategic_alliances_main.html
TRANSITION
After students have shared their perspective you can transition into the chapter by
discussing some of the facts from the Opening Case.
-By March 2003 MTV had 30 channels reaching 413 million households in 166
countries.
-In 1987 when MTV first began broadcasting largely American content to Europe they
discovered that outside a handful of American superstars, the European audiences
interests were surprisingly local
-By 1995 MTV broke Europe into a number of regional feeds. Today there are eight
distinct European feeds designed to cater to the local interests in different parts of
Europe.
-Today, although 60 percent of MTVs programming originates in the United States there
is an increasing amount of local content. The Indian MTV channel produces 21
homegrown shows.
-The localization push has reaped great benefits for MTV. In India alone ratings have
improved 700% since MTV began to increase local content.
ANSWER 1: Different countries are usually endowed with different factor conditions.
The theory of comparative advantage suggests that different activities should take place
in the countries that can perform them most efficiently. If there are also no barriers or
costs to trade, then it is likely that a lot of industries will be based out of the countries that
provide the best set of factor endowments.
If a firm is in a sub-optimal location, it will either have to expand internationally in order
to locate its value adding in optimal conditions or switch to a different industry where the
factor endowments are in its favor. For firms already located in the countries with the
most favorable factor endowments for their industry, however, there may not be a need to
expand internationally. Firstly, the firm may be content to simply focus on the domestic
market. But if the firm does want to expand internationally, it may be able to do so via
licensing or exporting, and need not necessarily undertake FDI. Thus both theory and
practice suggest that many firms are able to survive quite well without having to expand
internationally.
QUESTION 2: Plot the position of the following firms on Figure 12.5: Procter &
Gamble, IBM, Nokia, Coca Cola, Dow Chemicals, US Steel, and McDonalds. In each
case justify your answer.
ANSWER 2: Note: If assigning this as a discussion question, the instructor may prefer to
use examples of local companies that the students are likely to have some more detailed
knowledge about.
Based simply on the information in the book, it is difficult to say for sure where all these
companies fit. Here is an armchair answer, which a person more knowledgeable about
each company may choose to refute. Another way to position this is to say, Based on
the information in the text, my best attempt to classify these companies is as follows. I
am open to discussing your positioning which may be different.
- Proctor & Gamble: They reasonably fit into the international category; although it is
clear that they are becoming more transnational (see Bartlett and Ghoshal).
- IBM: Originally a classic International, but perhaps now moving more to a global
strategy.
- Coca-Cola: With R&D and the general market approach all coming from headquarters,
but with subsidiaries having some discretion over the advertising message, this is
probably an international.
- Dow Chemical: Given it is in a classic commodity industry, most likely a global firm
- US Steel: Given the cost pressures and commodity nature of this business, a global
strategy is most likely.
- McDonalds: Given the international consistency of the product and the delivery, the
slight adaptations to local tastes and requirements, and the lack of strong cost pressures,
McDonalds would appear to be following an international strategy.
QUESTION 3: Are the following global industries or multi domestic industries: bulk
chemicals, pharmaceuticals, branded food products, moviemaking, television
manufacture, personal computers, and airline travel?
ANSWER 3:
It is difficult, and perhaps arbitrary, to label industries as strictly one or the other. For
example, there are huge economies of scale in development and manufacturing of
pharmaceuticals, yet governmental regulations make it necessary to do a number of
things different in various countries. Overall, however it can be said that the following
are global: bulk chemicals, televisions, personal computers, pharmaceuticals, and airline
travel (although in all instances some localization is required - the keyboard and software
for computers, the power supplies for TVs, or the labeling and regulatory paperwork for
bulk chemicals and pharmaceuticals). Branded food products and movie making are still
predominantly multi domestic, although some foods have worldwide name recognition
(Coke, Pepsi, Nestle), and movies are often dubbed or subtitled for international
audiences as well as developed with the interests of global customers taken into
consideration.
QUESTION 4: What do you see as the main organizational problems that are likely to be
associated with implementation of a transnational strategy?
ANSWER 4:
Simultaneously trying to achieve cost efficiencies, global learning, and local
responsiveness places difficult and contradictory demands on an organization. Managing
these conflicting demands requires the setting of control and motivational policies for
people and organizations that force balancing of these demands at multiple levels within
firms. The organizational challenges involve managing these inherent conflicts to
resolutions that serve the best interests of the firm overall.
The closing case describes global strategy at General Motors. GM has always had to
manage a trade-off between a centrally driven global strategy and a strategy that would
allow each plant or national organization to design and build cars specifically tailored for
its market. The best approach lies somewhere between pure centralization and pure
decentralization, but finding the right mix is a challenge for GM and many other firms.
The following questions can be helpful in directing the discussion.
QUESTION 1: How would you characterize the strategy pursued by GM in the (a)
developing world and (b) Europe prior to 1997?
ANSWER 1: Traditionally the developing world could only afford inexpensive cars, and
demand was not particularly large given income levels. The most efficient way to
provide cars for these markets was to use existing designs for extended periods of time,
as it was not economically feasible to make model changes. So, the developing world was
a dumping ground for obsolete models and technology. In Europe, GM dealt with most of
its operations on an arms-length basis, prior to 1997. A profusion of brands appeared
merited, and GM allowed most operations to operate autonomously, developing their own
manufacturing strategies and marketing plans. Many of these operations were historically
independent companies, so when acquiring interests in these firms, GM decided that they
could retain their autonomy. Another aspect is that the needs of the markets differed.
This decentralization is partly because of the desired product attributes differed (Germans
emphasize performance, Swedes safety). Competition in the markets differed since most
Western European countries had their own domestic auto firms. Thus a much more
locally responsive strategy was essential.
QUESTION 2: What do you think were likely competitive effects of the pre-1997
strategy?
ANSWER 2: The likely effects were that GM would be able to capture a large share of
the European market, where it appealed to local preferences. The competition would
likely look to other areas of the world for possible expansion, and could be expected to
make considerable inroads in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia.
QUESTION 3: How would you characterize the strategy that GM has been pursuing
since 1997? How should this strategy affect GMs ability to create value in the global
automobile market?
ANSWER 3: Since 1997, GMs strategy has been to switch from a mindset that believed
Detroit was the center of automobile world, and the heart of all changes and innovations.
Realizing that other areas of the world may give birth to marketable automotive
innovations, GM has built four identical plants to capitalize on the efficiencies that are
provided by a common global platform. Proponents of the increasing globalization can
argue that cost pressures and the need to bring state of the art products to developing
markets make the current strategy appear appropriate. Opponents can argue that the
world still has very different consumers with different needs (American buys seem to
have an insatiable desire for cup holders that are deemed unnecessary clutter in
Germany), and that while a global consumer may exist for jeans and Coke, this is not true
with autos.
Chapter 12 Exercise 2
The country specific information can be found in the Country Insights section of
globalEDGE. Both summary and detailed information regarding each country can be
accessed by using the drop-down menu on the right, or by clicking the Europe link.
For illustration purposes, we will choose Bulgaria. The synopsis information indicates
that the language of the country (Bulgarian) and the voltage used (110/220V) will be two
of the critical variables that have to be considered in the adaptation of the product. More
detailed analysis by following the external links, such as the Country Commercial Guide,
will surely highlight additional aspects.
Bartlett, Christopher and Sumantra Ghoshal 1989. Managing across borders. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Davidson, William H. and Jose de la Torre 1989. Managing the global corporation: Case
studies in strategy and management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hamel, Gary and C.K. Prahalad 1994. Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Harvard Business Review 1994. Global strategies: Insights from the worlds leading
thinkers. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. This book contains
reprints of a number of previous HBR articles on global strategies.
Hood, Neil and Jan-Erik Vahlne 1988. Strategies in global competition. London:
Croom-Helm.
Porter, Michael E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press
Prahalad, C.K. and Yves L. Doz 1987. The multinational mission. New York: Free Press.
Prahalad, C.K. and Venkat Ramaswamy 2004. The Future of Competition. Harvard
Business School Press.