Essay Philips vs Matsushita Case Analysis

The director of Clinic Services, Debby Hewitt, has been in her current position for over 10 years. With the environmental and financial changes that have taken place over these 10 years, she has been, and still is, in a constant race of keeping up with the needs of the clinics. Debby Hewitt’s current responsibilities and practices are overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Clinic Services Department, assisting in the identification and implementation of quality improvement programs, and overseeing and ensuring compliance with accreditation bodies such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO).

The term 'suppliers' comprises all sources for inputs that are needed in order to provide goods or services. If there is a market with much choice supplier choice, bargaining power will be less.

The performance of each company is different from time to time based on their two different international strategies. Philips, for instance, showed poor struggles between national organizations and product divisions since there was no centralized decision –making terminal. In the end, the national organizations held the power because they were in control of the assets. Being in control of assets, the national organizations had more influence on the management team. Also the lack of clarity between the two’s responsibilities did not allow Philips to function effectively as a whole. They did have one thing going for them though. Philips was able adapt to changing markets based on their localization strategy. They

By end of 90’s the company was dominant in many of the categories it competed in. The challenge was found in whether it can continue its dominance in it’s new, expanding product ranges and could maintain its dominance and synergy in its all categories on low and high price offering in hardware, home furnishings, office and house ware, while maintaining its management and corporate structures.

The bargaining power of buyers stands in a direct relationship with the bargaining power of suppliers. If the bargaining power of buyers is substantial it increases the opportunity cost of suppliers. The greater the buyers concentration the greater their bargaining power. This bargaining power is also increased in markets where the suppliers’ concentration is high. The bargaining power is also increased when the cost of switching from one supplier to another is low. In instances where backward vertical integration is possible i.e. buyers setting up their own chains of suppliers the bargaining power of the buyer increases in that their prices may become more competitive. In a market where the buyers are more concerned over quality than price their bargaining power decreases as they are less inclined to shop

As we all known, Sony and Matsushita are two of the largest consumer electronic makers in Japan or even in the world. And in this reading, it points out the different strategies Sony and Matsushita use when they were facing the fierce competition in China ----- Matushita was accelerating its pace on stretching the supply chain in China while Sony unexpectedly decided to shift some of its manufacturing business in China back to Japan. In this article, I will discuss the reasons that lead them to make different decision as well as analysize the advantages and the disadvantages of their decision.

For example, Boeing and Airbus supply most commercial aircraft. The concentration within the suppliers segment of the industry makes it very difficult for competitors to exercise leverage over another supplier and obtain lower prices. The power of the supplier is one key in prohibiting the ability of competitors to earn higher profits.

Porter’s Five Forces model is used to evaluate the degree of rivalry between competitors in a given industry through assessing the four forces that lead to this outcome. These forces are the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of suppliers, the bargaining power of buyers, and the threat of substitute products.

Assume that one of Philip’s clients is a married man, aged 36 with two young children, who wishes to reallocate a significant portion of his retirement funds that are currently invested in certificates of deposit. Philip recommends a growth investment, and he identifies the three representative possibilities shown in Table A.

Philips has thrived on its technological prowess, which is a result of their strong focus on research and development. Specifically, Philips maintains a product-focused strategy and their highly decentralized National Organizations allow them to adapt to different market conditions globally. Human capital has historically been a key resource for the company, as they focused on caring for their workers and coordinating business efforts in a cross-functional environment (i.e. technical and marketing managers working on projects together), but frequent leadership turnover and seemingly endless turnaround efforts have weakened this valuable capability. It is arguable, however, that the cross-functional culture is still active at Philips and most of the top management team has completed foreign tours of duty.

Competitors might face increasing costs when firms deliberately increase the price of supplies or when competitors are forced to bid for remaining inputs. However, this does not mean it will increase competitor’s cost if supplies are available from alternative suppliers.

Various important approaches like engineering driven approaches and selection of supplier processes lead to the number of suppliers at premium prices. It reduces cost of

The Competition: Suppliers need to be able to keep costs down, in order to keep

Bargaining power of suppliers is low due to large number of suppliers of raw materials, low switching cost and availability of attractive substitutes. (Jim Wilkinson, 2013) Therefore, we could control the price of raw materials because we can easily switch to different suppliers with lower price and higher quality, increasing our profit consequently.

Samsung is one of the world’s premium electronics manufactures. The estimated value of Samsung brand had risen from US$6.37 billion in 2001 to US$10.85 billion in 2003. A major factor behind this impressive growth had been Samsung’s effort to redefine itself as a vendor of cutting-edge, “gee-whiz” consumer technology. Samsung believed that repositioning the brand is a vital to the company’s future success.