General Motors (?GM? or ?the company?) has a rich history longer than a century starting with its corporate organization in 1908. Following its organization, GM acquired its first brand, Old Motor Works, which was followed in 1909 by the purchase of Cadillac for $5.5 million. Two years later, GM organized both General Motors Truck to handle sales of GM?s Rapid and Reliance products and General Motors Export Company to handle export sales out of the US. In 1918, GM purchased Chevrolet Motors. In 1926, GM entered Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Egypt, Uruguay and Argentina through the General Motors Export Company. General Motors Truck became the modern GMC in 1943 when GM acquired the assets of Yellow Truck & Coach. In 1945, GM finally established all of its historical core brands (Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac) when the Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac Assembly Division, which would be renamed the General Motors Assembly Division in 1965, was formed.
Edwin Van Dusen, Brian Fox and David Welch (MBAs 2004) prepared this document under the supervision on Professor Sonia Marciano. Copyright © 2003 by the Kellogg School of Management. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without the permission of the Kellogg School of Management.
This paper was conducted as a Discussion Board Post assigned by Professor J. Reinke of: Liberty University, Graduate School of Business, Lynchburg, Virginia 24515.
I think Medical-Surgical User team need to recommend to Dunlop the three product recommendation and in these three recommendations the first two recommendations are simple to extend the 3M product lines. But in the fourth recommendation as product development team stuck on upstream containment of infection and suppose to include upstream containment in business strategy and even if 3M Medical division enter in this infection field and applied successfully then it has become a major achievement. On the other hand if the business strategies not succeed then it shows the process of planning is unfortunate and risky for financial prospective and spend lot of time on research and
© Copyright 2009 by Cambridge Business Publishers, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form for any purpose without the written permission of the publisher.
The Case Study is provided by the Harvard Business School and is considered necessary reading prior to the understanding the responses contained herein. This paper is
Magna International Inc. (Magna) is a manufacturer of automobile parts since its inception in 1957 (At the time was called Multimatic Investments Limited). Founded by Frank Stronach, Magna has since become Canada’s largest automobile parts manufacturer. Magna is the primary supplier of automobile parts to many car manufacturers, including General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford Motor Company.
General Motors was the world’s largest automaker and since 1931, the world’s sales leader. In 2000, it had a net income of $4.4 billion on revenues of $184.6 billion. North America represented the majority of sales to end customers but international operations were also growing and international sales had reached 18% of overall sales.
The Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Corporation (3M) was founded in 1902. It reported sales revenues of $16.7 billion during the year 2000. These revenues came from 3M's six business divisions: industrial; transportation, graphics, and safety; healthcare; consumer and office; electro and communications; and specialty materials. All business divisions were profitable in 2000. The same year, the company made more than 60,000 products and about $5.6 billion sales came from products that had been introduced during the prior four years and
This document is authorized for use only by Albertina Dias at ISG Business School until September 2013. Copying
Among the 1,300 U.S. orthopedic OEMs, Zelting, Di Preto, and Stemper Corporation were the leaders in joint reconstruction, with a combined market share of 64%; Syphone and Stemper Corporation were the leading OEMs in trauma fixation, with a combined market share of 57%. The selection of motors for use as components in medical devices such as orthopedic products was an involved process, usually requiring electrical engineers at the OEM to consult with application engineers from the motor manufacturer in order to get a customized design specified to their parameters, including physical-size constraints. Given the complex nature of designing and building small-but-sophisticated orthopedic power tools, these “value-add” customer service features were just as important in the OEM decision-making process as the technical features of a motor. The most critical OEM purchasing criteria included the following: Thermal (heat) resistance. A common cause of motor failure was when the expected load (the turning torque) exceeded the motor’s rating, causing the motor to heat up quickly and break down. Usually it was desirable to select a motor that would not reach its maximum operating temperature (measured in degrees Celsius) in the specific orthopedic