Assignment: Week 18

How can using the Change Kaleidoscope and Force- Field analysis help an organization to deliver its intended strategy?

Change kaleidoscope developed by Hope Hailey and Balogun is more of a model than a method that is primarily used as a mechanism for dealing with planned changes in organizations. Kaleidoscope helps to recognize the complexity of change and its sensitivity towards the change.

There are eight contextual features that either enable or restrain changes, which are as follows:

Time: Includes the time factor in decision making process, whether the changes are urgent or not?

Scope: The range of areas affected by the decision.

Preservation: Key ingredients required to be protected or maintained during the changing process.

Diversity: The attitudes, norms and values of the stakeholders towards the new change are monitored.

Capability: The managerial and personal ability of the organization to implement change.

Capacity: The capability of the organization to invest people, time and cash in the proposed change plan.

Readiness for change: The employees’ attitude towards the change.  How much are they willing to adapt against change.

Power: What is the source of power within the organization to implement change?

Force Field Analysis: It is a technique used for decision making process which helps the organization to identify all the aspects that are for or against changes and helps to convey the reasons behind change. The force Field Analysis helps the organization to decide on whether to go with the change and to further strengthening the forces aiding changes and weakening those against changes.

References:

Kaplan Financial Knowledge Bank. Managing Strategic Change [Online] Available at : http://kfknowledgebank.kaplan.co.uk/KFKB/Wiki%20Pages/Managing%20strategic%20change.aspx, [Accessed on 26^th Nov, 2013]

ProWork Project [Online] Available at: http://www.proworkproject.com/prowork/change-kaleidoscope.html[Accessed on 26th November 2013]

Assignment: Week 17

1.Can you think of an organisation that has implemented a ‘high risk strategy’ that has resulted in success (why was it high risk at the time and why was it a success – was it good luck or good judgement)?

According to me, Vodafone is one of the companies who have implemented high risk strategy to gain success in its field.

Vodafone Group plc is the second largest mobile telecommunication company primarily established in Britain with London as its headquarters.  It operates its networks in more than 30 countries with partnership networks of additional 40 countries.

Vodafone has the target of becoming one of the world’s top five brands. To attain this target, it has been expanding its global presence through dual branding exercise with 30 other companies around the world.

Vodafone’s strategy is to grow through geographic expansion, acquisition of new customers, maintenance of existing customers and increasing its services through innovative technologies.

The strategy of Vodafone was “high risk strategy” as it included rapid expansion, investment on new geographical regions where estimated outcomes weren’t certain.

This strategy of Vodafone succeeded as it has been the market leader in UK since 1986 and currently the second largest mobile telecommunication company in the world. (businesscasestudies.co.uk,2013)

2. Now, do the same for an organisation who embarked on a high-risk strategy that resulted in some sort of failure (why was it high risk and why did it fail – bad luck or poor judgment?)

According to me, Nokia’s “High risk strategy” has backfired to itself causing the whole company to fail.

Nokia Corporation is a multinational communication and information technology corporation having its headquarters in Espoo, Finland. It provides telecommunication network equipment and services, internet services, including applications, music, media, messaging and map services.

Nokia has been operating its sales in more than 150 countries worldwide generating annual revenues of around 30 billion pounds. In terms of unit sales, Nokia was the world’s second largest mobile phone maker after Samsung.

In February 2011, Nokia made a strategic decision of replacing Symbian system with Microsoft’s Windows Phone operating systems, in motives of gaining their shares in the smart phones market. This decision didn’t went well with the company as delay in the launch of the new products caused further loss in its already down sliding mobile sales. Eventually, Nokia who held the position of the world’s largest smart phone manufactures at the beginning of 2011 ended up to be the tenth largest at the end of 2012.

 References:

Online available at : http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/vodafone/the-advantages-of-sponsorship/vodafones-corporate-strategy.html#axzz2nArO0PVX [Accessed on 25^th Nov, 2013]

Assignment: Week 16

1. In your own words and using referenced quotes describe the difference between organic growth, merger & acquisition and strategic alliance.

                                           

Organic Growth:

 Organic growth is the rate at which the company can accomplish its goals and targets by increasing its outputs and enhancing sales. Gains or profit acquired from mergers, acquisitions and takeovers are not included in Organic growth. The gains should be acquired from within the competencies the company itself (investopedia.com, 2013).

Merger and Acquisition:

Merger is the process of combining two companies in order to form a new one where as acquisition is done when one company is bought by another company and no new company is formed (investopedia.com, 2013).

Strategic Alliance:

Strategic alliance is said to be done when two companies come together to share resources in order to carry out a specific, mutually beneficial project. Strategic alliance requires less involvement from the two parties and is generally less permanent than a joint venture. Here, each company maintains its autonomy while gaining a new opportunity. Companies carry out strategic alliance in order to gain advantage over their competitors, expand into new market etc (investopedia.com, 2013).

2. Give an example of a company that has grown through a) organic growth, b) merger or acquisition and c) strategic alliance 

Organic Growth:

The growth of BSkyB in the UK is a classic example of how to build a business using internal (or organic) growth methods rather than relying on acquisitions. It makes for excellent research-based evidence for students who need to provide examiners with relevant examples of growth strategy.

Several years ago, the firm set itself what, at the time, seemed to be quite an ambitious corporate objective.  The target was to achieve 10 million household subscribers in the UK.  BSkyB achieved that objective earlier than expected, and that is one key reason why they have been able to enjoy consistent growth in revenues and profits, despite the recent economic downturn.

However, the organic growth story at BSkyB is about more than simply adding many new subscribers.  The business has been able to increase the average amount spent by each subscribing household on its services.  Pay-Tv subscribers have been persuaded to buy their Internet broadband from BSkyB; customers have upgraded to access HD and 3D; customer loyalty has been improved resulting in a lower percentage of subscribers leaving each year (known as “customer churn”).

In terms of the Ansoff matrix,  BSkyB’s strategy has been firmly focused on two of the four boxes; market penetration (increasing its share of subscription television) and product development (innovation leading to the highly successful Sky HD services).

The result of this organic growth strategy seems to be a business that has maintained impressive momentum despite a difficult external environment (e.g. pressure on household spending & advertising) (tutor2u.net, 2013).

Merger and Acquisition:

The merger between “Disney and Pixar” is one of the most successful mergers. ‘Wall-E’, ‘UP’ and ‘Bolt’ are some of the animated movies created through this merger.

Strategic Alliance:

Microsoft and Nokia is one of the most successful strategic alliance done on February 11, 2011.

3. Briefly discuss the merger between Britvic and AG Barr. What advice would you give to the new Board?

Both Britvic and AG Barr are soft drink manufacturing companies based on Scotland and Britain respectively. The merger of these two companies hopes to maximize their current sales and profit margin. Barr Britvic Soft Drinks, the new name of the merged company hope to take their products to the new markets and compete with their rival Coke.

Through this merger, AG Barr hopes to develop relationship with Pepsi (For which Britvic is a bottler) and Britvic hopes to improve their annual turnover.

The merger could lead these two companies to better portfolio management, cost reduction on management and production, better decision making, market growth and expansion, but can also have down side effects as disputes between the new management, stakeholder’s dissatisfaction, etc are also possible.

Over all, the merger of these two companies has greatly helped each other to complement one another and to create one of the biggest soft drink manufactures in Europe.

Advices I would like to give to the new board are as follows:

·         Start new campaign and advertisement on the newly formed company.

·         Develop a new management system to avoide clashes between the two old structures.

·         Research and development of new products through their combined knowledge.

·         Cost effective steps should be done.

c    References:

Online available at :http://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/business/blog/best-and-worst-corporate-mergers [Accessed on 11^th Nov, 2013]

Online available at : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12427680 [Accessed on 11^th Nov, 2013]