Week 1assignment ReportForm Essay Example for Free

Week 1assignment ReportForm Essay Footprint Results (Answers to the following 2 questions will be given upon completion of footprint) If everyone lived like you, how many planet Earth’s would we need? 4.2 To support your lifestyle, how many productive global acres area needed? 21.4 Ecological Footprint Breakdown (Values can be obtained by scrolling over pie chart generated at completion of footprint) Percent of emissions from Food 31% Percent of emissions from Shelter 9% Percent of emissions from Mobility 4% Percent of emissions from Goods 14% Percent of emissions from Services 31% TABLE B. Household Emissions Household Emissions Results (Answers can be found in bar graphs following completion of calculator) What are your current household emissions? 15,563 What are the U.S. average household emissions? 145,250 What was your reduced emissions? 5,709 Household Emissions Savings (Answers can be found above bar graphs If you took all actions you would reduce annual emissions by: 63% If you took all actions your potential dollar savings would be: $4.87 Your new total annual estimated CO2 emissions: 5,709 QUESTIONS 1. Based on your findings from the ecological footprint calculator, how many Earth’s would be needed to support the global population if everyone lived your same lifestyle? Additionally, describe the impacts on the Earth’s climate, biodiversity, and economic security if every individual in the world lived your same lifestyle and discuss why these impacts would occur. Answer = Earth’s climate, Biodiversity , Economic Security 2. Based on your findings from the ecological footprint calculator, what are the 3 everyday products and practices that contribute most to your environmental footprint? Answer = Food, service, and goods 3. Based on the information from the reduce emissions section of the household emissions calculator, name at least 2 actions that you can take to limit your carbon emissions? Include in your answer the exact dollar savings and the weight of carbon dioxide that could be saved (from the calculator results) for each of these two actions. Answer = Services and food. You can limit your percent of emission on service by cutting down the service you use and saving at least 50.00 a week and on food by buying cheaper product and eating less could save you at least $100. A month. 4. Does reducing the size of your ecological footprint necessarily mean reducing your quality of life? Why or why not? Are there ways of enhancing your quality of life while lowering your environmental impact? Answer = No it might even make quality of life better. Because you are reducing everyday living, like eating habits recycle more things which will make life better that in the pass. Yes References Any sources utilized in your question answers should be listed here. Bottcher, A., Rex, A. (2012). Environmental science student manual. Sheridan, CO: eScience Labs.

Starbucks External Environment

Starbucks External Environment This report is prepared for Starbucks Coffee Company Starbucks by a Specialist Marketing Consultant, to analyse the strategic position for Starbucks in the Specialty Coffee Industry. It provides a summary of all the major findings and, explores various strategic options and recommendations for Starbucks in order to increase and maintain its competitive advantage within the industry. Starbucks is a global leading brand, well known for its specialty coffee. The coffee house does not only sell high-quality coffees, but also Italian style beverages, cold beverages, complimentary food items, premium teas and coffee-related accessories. It has further retained its competitive advantage by selling packaged coffees and teas, ready-to-drink beverages, ice creams and many other products in other retail stores such as supermarkets through licensing relationships. Key Findings: Starbucks is facing various issues, some of which include; Maintaining the Starbucks Experience for customers and not being seen as just a money making machine Store Expansion Competition from fast-food chains and other specialty coffee retailers Generating more demand Lowering input costs Key Recommendations: Based on the strategic findings, the report outlined several recommended strategic options, the mains ones of which are: To improve the subliminal and express aura of Starbucks by supporting more good causes and paying its proper taxes. To increase revenue at lower costs, Starbucks must try and search for more licensing relationships and expose the brand further. Existing stores could attract more customers, particularly after the morning peak times by offering non-coffee beverage options or products for specific groups such as retired people. The recommended policies will help to enhance and strengthen Starbucks market share in the specialty coffee industry. Background Information on Starbucks Coffee Company (Starbucks) Starbucks was incorporated in the year 1971 by its founding directors Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl and Gordon Bowker. The Company was set up to operate as a roaster and retailer of whole bean and ground coffee, tea and spices together with coffee making equipment in Pike Place Market in Seattle, Washington (Starbucks 2013b). In the year 1987, the original owners sold the Starbucks chain to former employee Howard Schultz, who is now the current Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Starbucks. Schultz re-branded his already existin II Giornale Coffee outlets as Starbucks and quickly began to expand (Grant 2010) as he believed that: From the beginning, Starbucks set out to be a different kind of company. One that not only celebrated coffee and the rich tradition, but that also brought a feeling of connection (Starbucks 2013a). Starbucks has truly developed a unique brand experience, one which is the most respected and recognized around the world (Starbucks Annual Report 2012). Today, it is known to be one of the largest and best established American global coffeehouse chains (Grant 2010). It has grown to have over 20,800 stores in over 60 countries, with the United States having the highest number of stores, followed by Canada. The UK has approximately 806 stores. However, countries like India, the second most populous country in the world, has only circa 8 stores (Loxcel Starbucks 2013). Critical Evaluation of the Porter Five Forces Concept All organisations need to understand the dynamics of their industries and markets in order to compete effectively and intensively in the market place. An American management writer Michael Porter came up with a framework called Porters Five Forces (Porter 2008). The framework analysis the attractiveness of an organisation and or/industry structure, determines the main external competitive threats, and assesses the extent to which the five forces are relevant to the organisation and/or industry (Hollensen 2003;Purcell 2013). The five fundamental competitive forces include (1) Rivalry, (2) Buyer Power, (3) Threat of Entry, (4) Supplier Power and (5) Threat of Substitutes (Porter 2008) (Figure1 Porters Five Forces Framework). These five forces, as explained above, aid an organisation to understand two strengths; The current competitive situation and, The strength of a position it would like to move into (Purcell 2013). Michael Porter simplified the micro-economic theory into the above five major influences. Each of these influences take into account demand and supply, corresponding products as well as substitutes, the relationship between volume and production and the cost of production, and the structure of the market such as oligopoly, monopoly etc. (Grundy 2006;Porter 2008). Apart from that, the value of information abstracted from the Framework analysis, assists to fuel three aspects of corporate planning; Statistical Analysis The attractiveness and profitability of an organisation/industry can be determined by using Porters Five Force Analysis, hence supporting decision making on whether to enter/exit from an industry or market segment (Porter 2008). Furthermore, the framework considers and takes into account the impact of competitive forces on the organization (RAPIDBI 2012) itself versus impacts on its competitors (Ketels 2006). Due to the availability of different resources and levels of competences, the competitors may have different reactions when there is a change in competitive forces, hence influencing the structure of the whole industry (Grundy 2006;Ketels 2006). Dynamical Analysis   A combination of both Porters Five Force Analysis and a PEST- Analysis (Political, Economical, Social, Technological), will disclose clues on how attractive the organisation/industry will be in the future (Porter 2008). This is because a change in Political, Economical, Socio-demographical and Technological aspects of organisations/industry can be influential on the five competitive forces and, hence will impact on the industry structure (Karagiannopoulos et al. 2005). Analysis of Options Improvement of an organisations own competitive position can be influenced by having some knowledge on both the degree of intensity and power of competitive forces (Recklies 2001). A new strategic direction can be derived from this such as new positioning in the market and differentiation for competitive products (Porter 2008). Accordingly, Porters Five Force Framework allows an organization to analyse the market structure and competitive situation in a more systematic and structured way (Recklies 2001). Once all relevant forces for that particular market are identified and analyzed, managers can find options that influence these forces, subject to the organizations interest (Grundy 2006;Ketels 2006;Recklies 2001). Recent research has shown that Porters Five Force Framework has got both strengths and weaknesses when used in todays dynamic environment, the main weakness highlighted has been the historic nature of its development (Grundy 2006). Cyclical growth in the 80s showed that the global economy had been fairly stable and predictable, compared to the current economy (Grundy 2006). Several limitations to the Porters Five Force Framework have been shown as; From the economic point of view, the framework is under the assumption that the market is perfect (Rivard et al. 2006). As a result, the framework will not be able to deliver meaningful insights on highly regulated industries (Grundy 2006)) . The applicability of the framework is more towards the analysis of simple market structures, rather than those which are in a much more complex industry (Grant 2010). As a result, the framework is limited to focusing on particular segments of such industries. This imposes an increased risk in omitting important elements (Grant 2010) . The framework assumption on having moderate static market structures makes it a non suitable framework for todays dynamic markets. Business models, entry barriers and relationships may change along the supply chain within a snapshot due to technological breakthroughs and dynamic market entrants (Karagiannopoulos et al. 2005). As a result, the framework could be a preferred model to be used at a later stage for analyzing new situations; however, it is limited to and perhaps not ideal to a certain extent to provide preventative actions (Rivard et al. 2006) . Porters Framework is based around the idea of competition, hence the name competitive forces. The assumption made by the framework is that a company will try to attain competitive advantage over the various players in the markets together with suppliers or customers (Aktouf et al. 2005). As a result of this, the framework only focuses on such aspect of strategy rather than taking into consideration the availability of strategic alliances, virtual enterprise- networks or others (Aktouf et al. 2005).    Overall, Porters Five Forces Framework has limitations because it does not take into consideration new business models and the dynamics of the market place (Recklies 2001). This report will now apply the Porters Five Force Framework to Starbucks Coffee Company (Starbucks) which is a large specialty coffee shop popular in most western countries such as the United States of America, United Kingdom and many others. Critical Analysis of Starbucks External Environment Within the rapidly changing global picture, companies and consumers are increasingly affected by global forces, represented as non-controllable. These forces are external environmental influences which must be monitored and responded to, on an ongoing basis by marketers, as they will lead to new opportunities and threats (Kotler 2007). An external environmental analysis, using the macro-economic PESTLE model was carried out for Starbucks and has been attached at Appendix 2 of this report. It can be seen from the analysis at Appendix 2 that there is currently a negative imbalance in Starbucks external influence matrix. This is because whilst the sociologic factors are favourable, whilst other factors such as Political, Economic and Legal show substantial threats. However, Starbucks has got some strengths that over-come some of these non-controllable influences from the external environment. It has built in flexibility to change, for example, agreeing to pay extra corporation tax in the UK, for the next two years (BBC News Business 2013), or relating to the closure of non-profit making stores, and lastly it has developed high powered management decision making process which ensures that is quick at exploiting opportunities (Patton 2012). Critical Analysis of Starbucks Business Environment Michael Porter (1985) posits that, in an attempt to find effective sources of competitive advantage, a thorough research should be conducted on the structure of the industry. In this case, an analysis of the speciality coffee industry can help to establish the strategic position Starbucks occupies and wishes to occupy. Porters Five Forces model is a useful tool in this regard. It shows how key elements have shaped the competition in the industry (Hill and Jones 2009). Buyer power In the specialty coffee industry today, consumers have wide access to different products at different prices with better quality services (Hunt et al. 2011). This practically means that individuals have the choice to easily switch from product to product, whichever is the preferred one. This is where Starbucks has an advantage; it decides on the prices of the drinks offered to its consumers, by taking into consideration the price-elasticity which is strongly influenced by loyalty to its brand and also current prices at rival stores (Grant 2010). Since Starbucks is known to be an up-market coffee shop with high quality, based on perception and offering vertically differentiated products it is very likely for it to be able to sell its products at high prices, hence leaving no room for price-negotiation with its customers (Grant 2010). Supplier power In 2008, Starbucks purchased its input goods from suppliers at a market price which was 23 per cent lower than it is now (Corporation, 2008) It also takes advantage of its size and benefits from economies of scale, however, this does not help Starbucks to increase its number of suppliers due to the circumstances within Starbucks own marketplace (Grant 2010). Prices are usually determined based on the demand and supply ratio, hence, with an increased level of competition (Kotler 2007), substitute suppliers are always available if Starbucks wishes to purchase at a different price point. Despite all the supplier conditions, Starbucks holds a better relationship status with its suppliers than most of its competitors (Starbucks, 2013). Threat of substitutes Product-for-product analysis together with an analysis of generic substitution is an important area to consider for Starbucks, since 14% of coffee drinkers have a favourable opinion for them (Rasmussen Reports 2011). The vast variety of the availability of different beverages such as soda, energy drinks, juices or water, in comparison to coffee, must be taken into consideration by Starbucks. However, this is not of a huge concern to Starbucks since it sells a large selection of these beverages within its stores, the biggest one being tea, a direct substitute to coffee. Starbucks has taken the initiative to sell this direct substitute product under its own Tazo ® Tea brand (Starbucks 2013). There is quite a concern when the threat of customers substituting away from Starbucks and going for direct competitors such as Cafà © Nero and Costa Coffee (for example in the UK) is considered. These direct competitors are hard to differentiate because they also truly pride themselves on customer services and on the quality of their speciality drinks. Large food chain competitors such as McDonalds are usually known as having a negative undertone of being cheap, often compromising on the quality of coffee. This has no effect on Starbucks targeted customer base (Grant 2010). Threat of entry The barriers to entry in the specialty coffee market, such as the one Starbucks operates in have increased. This has reduced the potential threat of new entrants (Patton 2012). The capital requirement for small coffee shops in this industry is relatively small as the shops require a small amount of floor space and not a high amount of technology is used, which is normally the biggest start-up cost. As a result the potential for more of these small coffee shops to enter the industry is still present (Articlesbase 2011). Industry Rivalry McDonalds and other fast food chains are key competitors which are diversifying their beverage menu. The direct competitors like Costa Coffee and Cafà © Nero compete on a much more of a parallel with Starbucks compared to the fast food chains, as they attract the same consumer base and offer similar products as in the way Starbucks does. Starbucks differentiates itself from other coffeehouses as it reaps higher margins from its specialty drinks. This is because it takes advantage of economies of scale and has a different cost structure in contrast with other competitors in the market. They pay less for the products bought in bulk, such as dairy goods, syrups, paper goods etc (Starbucks 10K 2010). Strategic Recommendation Whether Starbucks coffee has the actual quality to attract customers or whether there is just a perception of it being better than that of competitors has been the subject of much discussion on public media through many recent surveys and reviews. Irrespective of that, some possible strategies to be considered by Starbucks in order to maintain its market position are as follows: Strategy to renew the Starbucks brand name. To maintain a strong brand name, Starbucks will have to assure people that their coffee is better than all other beverages, be it McDonalds coffee or Costa Coffee; by introducing a more aggressive advertising campaign in order to educate and acquaint customers about the uniqueness that Starbucks quality offers as well as by diversifying advertising channels using internet, visual media etc instead of depending on employee-customer liaison (Starbucks, 2013) Product Differentiation Product differentiation is very vital in order to develop new flavour, blends and also roast fusions (Ross Gaddis, 2013) Starbucks should continue its coffee development program efforts through extensive research. This should continue to be done by providing free samples, at first, leading to launching the new product into all stores depending on what response it gets from the samples distributed (Porter, 2008) Due to the recession, consumers try to cut their spending and are less likely to buy a cup of coffee for  £2.50, and therefore, differentiation can be a useful tool to overcome economic downturns (Moon, 2010) Starbucks can promote new cost efficient products by selling them at lower prices, hence not affecting its luxury-premium status in the market. This strategy can help Starbucks retain its customers as well as intensify their brand name. Privilege Card and Rewards Program Starbucks Card program for consumers to reload credit online has been implemented in order to not only provide customers with rewards on online registering but also benefiting them with complementary beverages after a certain number of purchases, free refills as well as free syrup options (Starbucks, 2013). However, other competitors also have similar strategies for consumers and this leads Starbucks to offer distinct rewards in order to deliver incentives for coffee consumers as compared to its rivals. For instance, Starbucks could cooperate with airline companies and various large retail businesses so as to combine their rewards program with Starbucks (Hill Jones, 2010) Focus on the coffee Starbucks should also consider cost reduction as well as potential growth strategies especially at the time of economic downturn. For example, Starbucks has begun to invest in new businesses other than coffee, such as films, music and books (Starbucks, 2013) This has led Starbucks to incurring higher costs and lower profit margins but this can be prevented by focusing on different marketing techniques to reach a wider audience. In these recessionary times, involving itself in fewer businesses can help Starbucks cut down costs and more resources can be utilised to improve their core product, which is coffee (Moon, 2010) Efficient Store Expansion Decision The launch of more stores has had to be reduced or halted completely in order for Starbucks to survive at the time recession in the United States. In the year 2007, Starbucks opened about 1700 stores; today it has around 15000 stores and still aims to build the number of stores up to 40000 in the foreseeable future (Corporation, 2008) Taking into account its overall financial performance as well as the downfall in the economy, it is best if Starbucks focuses on renewing its brand and customer base rather than opening stores at present (Omer, 2008). The Starbucks Feel People enter a Starbucks store not just for a cup of coffee but also for the relaxed environment and the opportunity to de-stress for a while. The initiative to write customers names on their cups adds to this club atmosphere. This Starbucks feel needs to be further developed and sold to the customers. SECTION 6 References Aktouf, O., Chenoufi, M., Holford, W.D. 2005. The False Expectations of Michael Porters Strategic Management Framework. Problems Perspectives in Management (4) 181 available from: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/19299836/false-expectations-michael-porters-strategic-management-framework Articlesbase 2011. The Initial Capital Investment in Starting a Coffee Shop Business. Articlesbase available from: http://www.articlesbase.com/entrepreneurship-articles/the-initial-capital-investment-in-starting-a-coffee-shop-business-5185126.html Accessed 18 April 2013. Business, N., 2011. www.bbc.co.uk. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20573208 [Accessed March 2013]. BBC News Business 2013. Starbucks rejects tax row threat after Cameron Speech. BBC News Business available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21219823 Accessed 12 April 2013. Corporation, S., 2008. www.nytimes.com. [Online] Available at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/starbucks_corporation/index.html [Accessed 2013]. Grant, R.M. 2010. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Text Only John Wiley Sons. Grundy, T. 2006. Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porters five forces model. Strategic Change, 15, (5) 213-229 available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.764 Hill, C. Jones, G., 2010. Strategic Management Theory. USA: South-Western Cencage Learning. Hill, C. Jones, G.R. 2009. Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach : Theory South-Western/Cengage Learning. Hollensen, S. 2003. Marketing management: a relationship approach Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Hunt, K.A., Durango, C.O., Fate, J. 2011. Cultural and Social Influences on the Perception of Beauty: A Case Analysis of the Cosmetics Industry. Journal of Business Case Karagiannopoulos, G.D., Georgopoulos, N., Nikolopoulos, K. 2005. Fathoming Porters five forces model in the internet era. info, 7, (6) 66-76 available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636690510628328 Ketels, C.H.M. 2006. Michael Porter Competitiveness FrameworkRecent Learnings and New Research Priorities. Journal of Industry, Competition Trade, 6, (2) 115-136 available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trueAuthType=athens,cookie,ip,urldb=bthAN=22555133site=ehost-live Kotler, P. 2007. Framework For Marketing Management, 3/E Pearson Education. Moon, H.-C., 2010. Porters Generic Strategies. In: Global Business Strategy. Singapore: World Scientific Publisher Limited, pp. 10-20. Omer, 2008. Porters Generic Model. Porters Model of Generic Competetive Strategies, 43(3), pp. 55-64. Patton, L. 2012. Starbucks Falls After Cutting Forecast Below Estimate. Bloomberg Businessweek available from: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-26/starbucks-falls-after-cutting-fourth-quarter-profit-forec Accessed 15 April 2013. Porter, M., 2008. Competitive Strategy. 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M.E. 2008. THE FIVE COMPETITIVE FORCES THAT SHAPE STRATEGY. Harvard Business Review, 86, (1) 78-93 available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trueAuthType=athens,cookie,ip,urldb=bthAN=28000138site=ehost-live Accessed 25 March 2013. Purcell, S. 2013. The Strategic Planning Process Part 1. Student Accountant Technical available from: http://www.accaglobal.com/en/student/qualification-resources/acca-qualification/acca-exams/p3-exams/exams-p33.html Accessed 31 March 2013. RAPIDBI 2012. Porters Five Forces for competitor anaysis and advantage. Porters Five Forces Competitor Analysis available from: http://rapidbi.com/porterfiveforces/ Accessed 24 April 2013. Rasmussen Reports 2011. Coffee Drinkers Buy Starbucks More But Like Dunkin Better. Rasmussen Reports available from: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/february_2011/coffee_drinkers_buy_starbucks_more_but_like_dunkin_better Accessed 16 April 2013. Recklies, D. 2001. A Critique of the Critique of Porter. Porters Five Forces available from: http://www.themanager.org/Models/P5F_2.htm Accessed 21 April 2013. Rivard, S., Raymond, L., Verreault, D. 2006. Resource-based view and competitive strategy: an integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15, (1) 29-50 available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.06.003 Ross, R. Gaddis, D., 2013. Product Differentiation. Strategic Management Journal , 34(5), pp. 509-532. Starbucks, 2013. www.starbucks.co.uk. [Online] Available at: http://starbucks.co.uk/ [Accessed April 2013]. Starbucks 2013. Starbucks Tea. Starbucks Corporation available from: http://www.starbucksstore.co.uk/tea/tea,en_GB,sc.html?cm_mmc=Google+UK-_-Brand-+Starbucks+Tea+(UK+Lang)+(Exact)-_-Starbucks+General-_-Starbucks+Generalgclid=CPbS6vPW17YCFXIPtAodmVgAgQ Accessed 18 April 2013. Starbucks 10K 2010. Starbucks Annual Report. Starbucks Corporation available from: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/829224/000119312510266333/d10k.htm Accessed 19 April 2013. The Boston Globe 2008. Starbucks testing sales of 8-oz. cup of coffee for $1. The Boston Globe available from: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/01/24/starbucks_testing_sales_of_8_oz_cup_of_coffee_for_1/ Accessed 18 April 2013. The New York Times 2008. Starbucks Plans Return to Its Roots. The New York Times available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/20sbux.html?scp=3sq=starbucksst=nyt_r=0 Accessed 19 April 2013.

Wildlife of India: An Introduction

Wildlife of India: An Introduction India is a very rich country in terms of bio- diversity. Almost all big mighty creatures roam its jungles. The sight and sounds of a majestic elephant, a peacock ¿Ã‚ ½s dance, the roar of a tiger are unparalleled experiences in themselves.The country offers immense opportunities for wildlife tourism. The immense heritage of wildlife in India comprises of more than 70 national parks and about 440 wildlife sanctuaries including the bird sanctuaries.India has always been a fete for wildlife enthusiasts from around the world with its fascinating myriad of flora and fauna that has remained both unique and mysterious for nature lovers. A paradise for the nature lovers, these forest areas are also crucial for the conservation of the endangered species like the Snow Leopard, Asiatic Lion, Asiatic Elephant, the bengal tiger and One-horned Rhinoceros. Spread across the length and breadth of India, these reserves and forest areas, right from the Ranthambore National Park in Rajasthan to the Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary in Bihar, from the foothills of Himalayas, the Jim Corbett National Park to six national parks in Andaman; the Indian Wildlife circuit is an Incredible treat, unmatched by any other experience.The Indian subcontinent is rich in both floral and fauna species. According to estimates, India has about 18% of the plant and 8% of the total animal species found in the world, which makes the country a paradise for wildlife enthusiasts and nature gazers. India harbours eighty percent of the entire population of the one horned rhinoceros in the world. The parks like Bandhavgarh N.P, Kanha NP support a sizeable population of the mighty tigers. The Kaziranga Game Sanctuary is an ideal habitat for the rhino and a popular destination with the naturalists and environmentalists as well as the wildlife travellers.The Corbett National Park one of the most popular National Parks in the northern region for the wildlife enthusiast as well as the holiday makers These National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are promoters of wildlife tourism in India.A wildlife escapade in India is not complete until one decides to spend a few days amongst the wilderness.Wildlife resorts located in different national parks and wildlife sanctuaries lets you experience just that. Imagine living in a tree house, eighty feet above the ground or an antique wildlife resort where your dinner partner may be a wild beast feasting on its prey. Wake up to the twittering of b irds or the roar of a lion, definitely a spine chilling experience. Interestingly India is immensely rich in avian life the sub-continent witnessed huge migration of birds in the winters.Bharatpur birds paradise Nalsarover in Rajasthan, Sultanpur in Haryana close to Delhi, famous parks like Corbett, Manas, Kaziranga are a treat to the bird lovers. Come, feel, explore this wildlife lovers paradise. Feel free for any kind of information on these national parks.

Edvard Munch :: essays research papers fc

Robertson 1 It is a cold and damp day as I head to the news station. The wind outside has gusto and with each passing step I keep thinking to myself that any second I could scream because the wind is so fierce. The rain is pouring down and my umbrella seems to be malfunctioning due to a lack of strength in my wrist to hold it up. I am late, and afraid of what the boss will say. Today is a day that everyone in the studio has been talking about, today is the day that I meet the Norwegian artist we know as Edvard Munch. I step inside the building and am approached by my boss refusing to know, "Why did you insist to be late today, out of all days, do you know how many art critiques are watching?" I feel ashamed, but it is only a second before my moral is lifted and I am met by a man of great size. A man that is most known for his work on "The Scream" and here standing before me is Edvard Much. I approach Mr. Munch and shake his hand, it is a bit clammy and very cold and hard. I guess it will take technology longer than we think to get this reincarnation thing down right. He smiles, although I am not so sure that I wanted him to, I have never seen someone whose teeth were as awfully stained as his, but then again, death will do that to you. Kelly: Hello sir, I am glad to meet you, so glad that you could grace us with you presence. Please have a seat, they will be doing a countdown any minute before we go on, your not nervous are you? Edvard: Grace? Your scientists were the ones that thought it would appease society to see someone reincarnated, I was having a joyous time up in Heaven with all the oils, and the canvases, and the lights and darks. Nervous, not at all. I don't get nervous anymore, not ever since the time that I put out my first piece of artwork. Robertson 2 Camera man: And three, two, one. Alright, your on. Kelly: Good morning art critiques all across America. I am Kelly Robertson doing a special report today with Edvard Munch. Yes, that is right, we are the first to try reincarnation for the first time at the station and successfully manage to succeed.

Peace in Islam :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Frederick Denny, the keynote speaker of the night spoke on Islam and its moral responsibility and how Muslims need to educate. He was a very intelligent man and great speaker, but he was too philosophical for the students in the audience. I was one of those misfortunate souls who could not understand where he was going. He hit on many key points that connected the current problems of Islam and ideas of liberation theology.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  He stressed that Islam is and always will be a monotheistic, ethical religion. I agree with this statement and with the education of the youth and the world, others will see that Islam is not evil or that much different from Christianity in faith. In his randomness he also hit on the ideas of sin. In Islam Ma’arvt and Mounkar are the Islamic terms for what Christians call sinless and sinful acts or the expectable and not expectable behaviors. From these aspects of faith one can seek justice and morality through God, the one who wills and acts justly.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Spiritual morality and justice are filtered from God and should not be questioned. We should take what he gives us and use it responsibly. Doing what is right and just in the eyes of the lord will draw one closer to the almighty. Closeness to the Creator is the ultimate of all Muslims and with understanding and education all will see that this is the goal of all the Abraham faiths. All 3 believe that happiness comes from love for him. He asks only that we should â€Å"spend of our substances out of love for him alone.† Meaning moral duty enacted out of duty for him, â€Å"for god’s sake first.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Doing all things through the lord first and then showing and educating the people, the world and Muslims alike in the ways of the lord can reach peace in Denny’s opinion. There are struggles with-in Islam itself with the more radical liberation theology. They take their faith to the extreme and segregate their own. Find peace from with-in, find peace amongst your brothers, and then find peace amongst your neighbors in order to accomplish Takwa (avoidance of unethical). There will be a great deal of suffering. Denny does not Denny does not deny that. He says along with many Muslims that suffering with the principle of faith. Arming oneself with the glory of God will maintain your spirits and ultimately lead you to peace.

Best Buy Co., Inc. Customer-Centricity Essay

The consumer electronics giant, Best Buy, was first established in 1966 with a single location and a staff of three in St. Paul, Minnesota, selling audio equipment targeted at 18-25 year old males. Initially Sound of Music/Best Buy grew through acquisition, expanding to nine locations in the Twin Cities area by 1978. The name, Best Buy, and expanded product line, ranging from audio and video equipment to large appliances, were a result of a â€Å"best buy† sale of damaged inventory at bargain prices in 1981. In the mid-1980s, Best Buy launched superstores similar to those of their main competitor, Circuit City and expanded by 15 stores between 1985-86. In 1989, Best Buy launched itself as a self-service, value-store staffed with a salaried sales force to provide a no-pressure shopping experience. This approach resulted in Best Buy becoming the second largest electronics retailer. By 1995, Best Buy was opening an average of 35 new stores annually and in 2000, the retailer respo nded to the market by launching BestBuy.com. Best Buy attributes some of their success to their SOP, standard operating platform, which is a 200 page â€Å"how to† manual for nearly every feasible store situation ranging from product sales and service to inventory management. The purpose of the SOP was to train the sales force and promote uniformity across the organization. In addition to the SOP, Best Buy’s skillful merchandising and marketing, along with their sales force (â€Å"Blue Shirts†) are credited with the success of the retailer. Blue Shirts received extensive training and enjoyed a unique and rewarding corporate culture, with part-time associates making $8.00 per hour and full-time employees earning $20.00. Sales associates often received public recognition for strong performance in addition to immediate rewards such as restaurant vouchers. Supervisors were also incentivized based on annual department and store performance. Starting store managers in mid-size stores were compensated with salaries between $50,000 and $150,000. The success resulting from these practices did not go unnoticed by competitors such as Wal-Mart and Dell, who imitated many of Best Buy’s strategies and stole well trained Blue Shirts. Best Buy continued their growth by opening new stores and through the acquisition of various competitors through the U.S. and reaching into Canada, with the acquisition of Future Shop Ltd. in 2002. By November 1995, Best Buy operated 796 Best Buy stores plus 20 Magnolia Audio Video stores in the U.S. and 162 Best Buy owned stores in Canada (978 stores, not including Geek Squad outlets). In contrast, Circuit City operated over 600 stores in the U.S. and Canada around the same time, however, Best Buy managed to double the sales per square foot of their main competitor. With nearly 1600 stores between the two main players in the electronics market, the market is nearing saturation and growth will have to be achieved by a means other than new store openings. Best Buy’s pre-centricity model was easy for competitors to imitate and encroach on Best Buy’s market share. Best buy borrowed the superstore concept from Circuit City and Circuit City mirrored Best Buy’s staffing model and merchandising decisions. Low prices and a wide selection are hardly inimitable characteristics. While wide selection and expansive product offerings at discount prices (due to volume purchases) may be difficult for new entrants to copy, it is a minor/temporary barrier to entry with the introduction of the internet. Best Buy’s CEO, Brad Anderson, joined the company in 1973 when he joined the staff of three at the then single, Sound of Music, location. A music buff addicted to sales, with his long tenure with company and in the industry seems like the logical choice to lead the company to even greater success as CEO. Prior to becoming CEO in 2002, Anderson had spent 11 years as President and COO of Best Buy. Like most industries, it seems electronics consumers were prone to change as products evolved, so did the end-users and their buying habits. Best Buy had a history of being able to adapt to the changing markets and their ability to do so contributed to their success (i.e. the vastly expanded product line, evolution to superstores, expansion, acquisition, converting from commission to salaried sales force.). The perception that customers were focusing less on the technical aspect of products and redirecting their attention to service and support, led to Anderson’s custom-centricity initiative. This transition and the rollout of 144 new â€Å"centricity† Best Buy stores was being blamed for the company missing third quarter earnings in 2005, resulting in a 12% decline in stock value and a loss of nearly $2B in market capitalization. Did Anderson perform the proper strategic market planning analysis before selecting and implementing the centricity initiative? Assess the need for a change in Best Buy’s strategy when Brand Anderson became CEO. If the centricity concept is being blamed for not meeting earnings and the decline in Best Buy’s stock price and market capitalization, the question becomes was there a need for this change to the company’s strategy, was the strategy poorly implemented, was there a delayed market response to the change, or was the launch an overly aggressive action of a newly appointed CEO? The Best Buy leadership team first needed to evaluate whether there truly was a need for a (drastic) change and if so, was centricity the appropriate response to the market. The electronics industry and retail in general is cyclical and while Best Buy needs to be proactive and receptive to market changes, it is not uncommon for the industry to experience temporary contractions that would not require (costly and risky) restructuring of the company’s value proposition. Granted, Best Buy’s one style fits all approach may have been too broad and unrealistic for the long-term. Ignoring the signs that the market was changing or a delayed reaction to those changes could be more costly or even fatal than centricity and the alleged result on earnings and stock price. There are several approaches for Best Buy to evaluate this situation, the most desirable of which might be the Structure-Conduct-Performance-Paradigm. I will provide somewhat of a Resource Based View (listing a few marketing resources) and mention some of their Dynamic Capabilities, as provided in the case. Best Buy should fist consider their resources and the strengths that have made them successful in the past. While the past is not always indicative of the future, a historical perspective will provide some insight as to not only what has worked in the past, but how the company was able to implement various strategies to learn from their successes and failures. Historically, Best Buy has utilized their knowledge resources well. Their rapid growth and success would imply a strong customer and competitor knowledge. Overall, the Best Buy reputation, as the place to get brand name electronics at discount prices with just the right amount of customer service, has proven to be a positive reputational resource. Blue Shirts are a (human) resource that should not be overlooked; retention is crucial, as training is costly. Blue Shirts are a valuable (informational) resource to gain insight into what customers â€Å"really want,† as sales associates have the most direct customer interaction. Extracting this information from sales associates is a cost effective approach to assess the market before implementing major changes, such as centricity. Best Buy’s unique culture and structure are organizational resources that distinguish the company from the competition and support (non-managerial) employee retention. While supplier relationships are clearly a solid relational resource, customer relationships are somewhat of a gray area for Best Buy, as many customers are not loyal and often buy through various channels. Best Buy has responded to trend by launching their Reward Zone program to incentivize return customers and as a source to gain customer knowledge. An obvious physical resource of Best Buy is its number of stores, which results in volume purchases, allowing the company to sell brand name merchandise to customers at discount prices. In contrast, an operation of this size with nearly 1000 stores and 120,000 employees incurs significant overhead costs (a potential weakness and often the first resources to be cut in an effort to reduce expenses). Many of the aforementioned resources are imitable in some way or another. For example, employees can be trained or Blue Shirts poached or the competition could open more stores and purchase more inventory, strengthening their relationships with suppliers and pass along the resulting volume discounts to customers. A resource based view would indicate that while these are valuable resources to Best Buy, they (along with many of the company’s resources and capabilities) are substitutable (i.e. suppliers can be interchanged) and imitable by the competition. In response, Best Buy strives to not only offer the customer similar products and attributes as the competition, but to find a way to do so that provides a sustainable advantage. What makes Best Buy superior to its rivals? This requires a constant assessment of Best Buy’s marketing capabilities and this need to differentiate might explain Anderson’s drastic centricity approach. Pricing management is a complicated marketing capability at Best Buy with new technology products being constantly introduced, while others are becoming obsolete. It seems Best Buy excels in the selling and channel management marketing capabilities, with their ability to attract and retain knowledgeable sales associates and to maintain ongoing relationships with key suppliers. The likely and often misused approach would be for the organization to perform a current SWOT analysis to consider their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. I have already listed a few of Best Buy’s strengths (size, supplier relationships, Blue Shirts). Additionally, Best Buy has a history of evolving in response to the changing market and applying various innovative concepts in response. The ability to foresee or quickly assess and respond to market change seems to be a strength of the retailer. While extensive product offerings are a strength of Best Buy, having a significant inventory of products that rapidly become outdated is a necessary weakness of being an electronics retailer; finding a way to manage this would be a significant opportunity. Accordingly, keeping up with rapidly changing products and customer interests are a threat of Best Buy any technology retailer. Anderson is exploring the opportunities component of the analysis when he and his team identified and pursued the following initiatives: â€Å"customer centricity, efficient enterprise, win with service, and win in entertainment,† ultimately selecting on customer centricity. A few obvious threats to be considered are competitors such as Wal-Mart, Circuit City, and Amazon, as well as the ever changing electronics market. Not keeping up with the latest trend, product, or channel could be fatal and explains why Anderson and his team concluded the need to focus on customer centricity, which he felt was a proactive response to the shopping experience that customers were seeking going forward. What does the Customer-Centricity strategy imply and how is it different from a strategy of simply providing great service? The Customer-Centricity strategy implies that Best Buy knows their customers well and that only a few sub-segments are profitable enough to merit an increased level of service and attention. This increased focus on these target segments or fewer/more profitable clients and the assumption that catering to these customers will result in solution purchases is the foundation of Anderson’s initiative. The concept seems to do very little to increase sales to the groups outside of the target segment(s) and seemingly does not consider the untapped potential of these customers. This approach is in contrast to the concept of trying to be â€Å"everything to everyone† or â€Å"one style fits all.† Centricity was an effort to meet customer individual needs while still maintaining the chain’s broad focus. The idea of centricity was based on research that had found many of Best Buy’s customers were leaving dissatisfied and that roughly 20% of customer visits were unprofitable. It was an effort to revamp the store’s value proposition, which was a deviation from their previous winning formula and questionably a step a in a different direction from a core competency. Instead of the â€Å"one style fits all† approach which admittedly would leave some customers dissatisfied, while attempting to cater to the masses, Best Buy’s approach to centricity involved focusing on only one or two distinct customer segments at each store, which also required a new set of segment leaders. This approach was also a focus on Best Buy’s most profitable segments in an effort to deter their unprofitable shoppers. Best Buy could have expanded their customer service efforts, while still maintaining the â€Å"one style fits all† concept through a far less radical change than centricity required. This would seem to be the logical choice and would have relied more on the strengths that made Best Buy great. With the market nearing saturation due to the number of stores, the focus became to sell more to existing customers (versus adding stores to acquire new ones) based on a better understanding of customers’ requirements and â€Å"lavishing them with attention, service, and know how.† This would have been attainable by tweaking Best Buy’s current strategy. Both approaches would involve collecting and analyzing customer data and creating an appropriate action plan based on the findings. One aspect of the change was to â€Å"encourage employees to think and behave as owners and engage with customers to meet their unique needs.† This is one way to provide great service and obtainable outside of the centricity strategy. The objectives of building loyalty with profitable segments and leveraging the company’s existing assets, is not unique to centricity and could have been achieved by providing great customer service to all customers, while focusing on those that are more profitable. Both options involve customer research and additional training of sales associates; it would seem not implementing centricity, which required revamping the store format, new processes, and risked isolating some segments would be the more cost effective method to address the expected shift in the market. Best Buy assumed that their customers were comprised of 5 major segments, who combined accounted for 50%-90% of total revenue. These 5 segments were identified by shoppers’ demographics, behaviors, and attitudes, then assigned a name (Barry, Buzz, Jill, Ray, or BB4B (small businesses with less than 20 employees)) and assigned a segment leader focused on deeply understanding their segment’s shopping behavior and attitude. The case states â€Å"the idea behind customer-centricity was to become the customer’s â€Å"smart friend† and provide a â€Å"complete solution.† While being a trusted advisor to customers and working to sell bundles of products is a logical response to the changing customer orientation, this could have been achieved by less drastic means than those used to implement Anderson’s centricity. This concept seems to center around Best Buy’s market orientation, specifically the increasing customer benefits component, as Be st Buy already cannot take much action to further decrease the buyer’s costs. The introduction of Reward Zone was a step in the right direction for the centricity initiative. The benefits of the reward program were multifaceted; providing additional customer data as well as incentivizing current customers to be repeat customers and to make additional purchases. This is one means by which to help Best Buy achieve a SCA, however, many competitors offered similar programs. It is unclear whether Best Buy directed much, if any attention on their competitor orientation. In addition to gathering and analyzing customer data, it is advisable for the company to consider the strengths, weaknesses, strategies, and capabilities of their competitors. Anderson’s centricity plan does not appear to consider competitor orientation and focuses solely on a few select target segments. Keeping with the market orientation research, Best Buy already uses low costs as a source of competitive advantage and they are hoping that centricity will be a source of differentiation, however, competitor orientation is critical to the success of such an initiative. Customer-Centricity has many similarities to simply providing an increased level of customer service. The most significant difference is the focus on the chain’s most profitable segments, specific to each store and complicated testing and implementation process that was chosen for the launch. Both concepts could be used to move toward solution selling and the â€Å"smart friend† concept. Centricity and improved customer service could involve empowering managers and encouraging employees to think and behave as owners. Centricity was a drastic way to improve customer service, which resulted in some pilot stores reporting double the performance gains of other U.S. locations. There were many benefits that resulted from Anderson’s strategy such as reward zone and Geek Squad, which complimented the goal of providing a solution by adding a service component that Best Buy did not previously provide. Geek Squad was also a means by which to suggest a solution sale as well as it placed the retailer in the customer’s home or business, further strengthening the relationship with customer and providing the opportunity for addition recommendations and referrals when the â€Å"Geek† was onsite. The scientific approach that was used in the implementation of centricity was unique to the strategy, but in many ways could have been applied to multiple approaches to improve the customer experience. Centricity was ultimately a differentiation strategy used in hopes of being difficult for competitors to imitate. When Anderson launched centricity, he clearly realized that long term survival is more important than short-term profits. If nothing else the st rategy is rare and difficult to imitate. How was the new Customer-Centricity strategy implemented? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy’s implementation as described in the case? The Customer-Centricity strategy was first introduced in 12 laboratory stores, then 32 pilot stores (most of which were in California), then introduced to 110 addition stores after some pilot stores reported performance gains double some comparable U.S. stores. Deviating from the clearly defined SOP, associates were now trained to approach problems using a scientific method involving the creating of a hypothesis regarding the customer, testing it, and analyzing the results. If the hypothesis was substantiated, it could be tested in other stores, and ultimately become a general recommendation throughout the organization. This was concept of centricity that empowered associates and increased innovation from within, which is a strength of the new strategy. In contrast, the SOP was created to promote uniformity across the organization; this scientific component of centricity is a deviation from the uniform concept(s) that had been attributed to the company’s success. The resulting confusion in practices and procedures, while they may ultimately lead to a positive outcome and greater innovation, could be viewed as a weakness of the strategy (at least during the transition period). The additional responsibilities placed on managers and staff, were a struggle and weakness. Employees who had previously been given guidelines for most any issue were now being given the freedom to develop and test their own responses, however, they were held accountable for the resulting outcomes. It was now up to the store manager to execute the value proposition. GMs were expected to lead by example, in light of the increased responsibility. The new processes were stated to take â€Å"five times more time† and while the resulting innovation is good, the extra effort required resulting in a turnover rate of two-thirds among GMs and an expectation among associates to be compensated for their extra effort. However the ability for associates to tailor responses to individual customer situations, should ultimately improve customer satisfaction and loyalty, leading to increased profits. The entire focus of centricity is to increase customer satisfaction and improve retention, as acquisition is becoming increasingly difficult. This realization and reaction is itself if a response to the changing market, which is a strength of the organization. The empowerment of employees will result in exceeding customer’s initial expectations, as they are not accustomed to individualized solutions. This is another strength of centricity and how it was implemented. I question why the majority of the initial 32 pilot stores were in California and why only top performing stores were selected for centricity conversion. It would seem focusing on a single geographic region would generate findings based on an isolated group of similar customers. Marketing studies suggest that in order to increase confidence, research must be replicated in diverse environments over time. This does not appear to be the approach with the testing of centricity at Best Buy and could be viewed as a weakness. I further question the decision to launch the concept in only top performing stores. It makes sense to test the strategy in some top performing stores to see if their performance improves further; it does not make sense to risk a large number of top performing locations with an unproven theory that could negatively impact their performance. It seems logical to use the profits from top performing sites to offset some of the potential losses that are typical with the ramp up period of any significant launch or change. If a store is a top performer, I would first analyze what contributing factors make those stores top performers, be it location, management, or customer interactions, etc. to see if these points of differentiation could be applied to other locations to improve the performance of lesser stores, before revamping how the most successful locations achieve their success. There are many strengths and weakness of centricity and how Best Buy chose to implement it, the reality is that it is a long-term approach, which typically result in short term struggles and reduced profits. How would you resolve the tension between the three parts of the organization (merchandizing, stores, and segments)? Is the notion of a three-legged stool viable? Can Best Buy sustain its competitiveness with P&L responsibilities residing with three different organizations? The new strategy forced collaboration among groups that had not previously collaborated. It increased responsibility and accountability, while taking away control from groups that were accustomed to being in power. Shifting focus from a wide segment to a particular customer’s needs was a new concept requiring different resources. Segment organizations were now held accountable to deliver incremental growth. As a result of all these changes, the various parts of the organization felt â€Å"completely handcuffed.† As the previous sections indicate, higher gross profit margins could not compensate for the conversion costs of the changes being implemented. While the goal may have been to â€Å"have everybody feel like they’re part of the same story,† making three parts of the organization responsible for their individualize P&L only added to the tension. I do not dispute that the organizations should monitory P&L and be held accountable, but when the success of the organization is the common goal, they should be working together to improve the overall P&L of the organization. This approach made it unclear which part owned customer insight and who should report to whom and how they should work together. Clarifying these gray areas of ownership and responsibility are the first step in resolving the tension among the groups. The current practices promote confusion and tension. A uniformed approach would be optimal. In a retail organization, such as Best Buy, merchandizing, stores, and segments, are all critical to success. In varying situations, one â€Å"leg of the stool† may receive greater attention or responsibility, but that is typically for the advancement of the organization as a whole or to offset some of the focus of another part of the organization. All three legs are necessary for Best Buy to properly deliver their value proposition and all three are necessary to help management implement the marketing strategy. Merchandizing, stores, and segments are all part of Best Buy’s marketing mix. Merchandising and segments contribute to stores, but all are intertwined. The individualized P&L structure and scorecard assessment add to the tension and switch the weight placed on each leg, but without a leg or if one leg gets too weak (not enough focus), the stool (entire organization) could collapse. As new products are suggested and tested, this changes the (buying and selling) processes, causing merchandising to be more reactionary than they were accustomed to being in the past, shifting the weight from one leg to another, but not reducing the importance of that organization. The absence of any one particular group or attribute could be detrimental to the organization as a whole. While each piece is interdependent and critical to the whole and policies should be designed accordingly. The realization that each piece contains and shapes the other will result in policies that help to reduce the tension between varying parts of the organization. While Best Buy is focusing on the customer and tailoring products and services to meet their needs a reflection on internal practices and satisfaction would be helpful and achieving those goals and should be considered, tested, and adjusted as well. It will difficult for Best Buy to sustain its competitiveness with P&L responsibilities residing with three different organizations. As mentioned in the prior to sections, this practices ad tension to the organization, which is not good toward long-term success, and causes undue competition among the various organizations. Merchandizing is encouraged to improve their P&L, this may come at the price of a negative impact on the store’s P&L. This is the result of collaboration and reduces the competitive advantage of the overall organization. Centricity involves significant and complex changes, which both help and hinder the marketing strategy implementation. The success of the change will require the cooperation of all groups within the organization, especially merchandizing, stores, and segments. Having policies and practices in place that discourage cooperation within the organization by holding complimentary groups accountable for separate measurements does not help Best Buy (or any organization) create synergies leading to a sustainable competitive advantage. The degree of alignment in itself is an implementation driver and contrasting accountability measures do not lead to alignment of goals. Best Buy experiences enough competitive rivalry in the marketplace without encouraging it internally among organizations. Best Buy is clearly a marketing organization and contributing factors of success are: â€Å"all the components of marketing organization fit together †¦ in a way that simultaneously fits with the requirements of the firm’s strategy †¦ while also matching the needs of the marketplace.† Centricity is Anderson’s strategy to match the needs of the marketplace; the changing strategy requires some changes in various aspects of the company (including merchandizing, stores, and segments), however, it is still a requirement that they fit together, like the legs of a stool. I question if the continuation of separate P&Ls are the optimal way to maintain the fit and cooperation that is necessary for the success of a marketing organization. This seems contradictory to fit and is obviously a source of tension. How long before this becomes apparent and reveals itself to the marketplace; what effect with this have on stock price and market capitalization? In order for centricity to be successful, Best Buy must alter their resource deployments to conform to their strategy changes to achieve the intended goal(s) vs. creating practices that foster tension without any long-term benefit. Granted, it is a tradeoff to fit the strategy to the structure or the structure to the strategy, which is complicated by the complexity of the organization. It is a requirement that they match their resources to their capabilities to their strategy and to market conditions. I hope that I have provided a few suggestions on how they could go about achieving this goal. While I have questioned many aspects of centricity and its implementation, it was obviously a success as unlike Circuit City; Best Buy still exists today (although they continue to struggle due to short product life cycle and the ever changing technology market).

Strategic Planning and Google

Google is able to achieve the perfect combination of Business, Organizational and IS strategies. Its business strategy focuses on delivering superior technology solutions coupled with a work environment that encourages innovation. Google’s IS strategy involves building state of the art applications, networks and security architecture that facilitate the flow of information throughout the organization. Google is able to balance all three aspects of the IS triangle and as a result has dominated the online search and advertising market. 1.How is Google’s mission statement related to its business strategy? Google’s primary goal is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful (mission statement). Its Business Strategy is to create applications that provide value to wide variety to consumers. By creating these applications, Google is able to provide on-demand access to huge volumes of information to consumers. 2. How does Goo gle’s information systems strategy support its business strategy? As part of its IS strategy Google has built an IT infrastructure that allows data sharing across the organization.Google also favors the use of open source software and internally developed tools to drive innovation and collaboration. Google also allows employees to choose applications according to their preferences and business needs. Google also implements network level security that allows users to maintain freedom of communication. 3. How does Google’s organizational strategy support its business strategy? Google has created a modern organization structure that encourages creative thinking instead of rigid corporate structures.Employees are encouraged to take a day from a week to explore their ideas. Google also tends to implement projects with definite goals and deadlines to ensure accountability and performance. Its work culture encourages risk taking and timely decision making. Google’s org anizational strategy tends to concentrate on practical applications of its products instead of the traditional corporate focus on controlling costs. 4. Which of Porter’s three generic strategies does Google appear to be using based on this case? Provide a rationale for your response.In my opinion, among Porters three generic Strategies, Focus is more relevant to Google. Online advertising has remained as the prime target for Google’s products. With its Android mobile products Google has applied the concepts of Differentiation focus to set itself apart from its competitors. Google has steadily maintained its status as a powerhouse by focusing on mobile and online search and advertising. 5. Using D’Aveni’s Hypercompetitive Framework, analyze Google’s strategy and the type of market disruption it has created.Google was quick to realize that its leadership in online search engine market would come under intense fire from its competitors. Google has mov ed rapidly to develop and acquire emerging technology to constantly fill its pipeline with more exciting products. Google has become the largest mobile operating system vendor and has partnered with a large number of device makers to launch cutting-edge products. Google has focused on pushing the envelope on cloud based computing and in one of the leading vendors of cloud based applications and services.