...Ford vs Dell Executive Summary FORDs current method of controlling all aspects of the manufacturing is outdated and is limiting the corporation’s annual results. In order to stay competitive and become efficient again, FORD needs to re-evaluate their current supply chain and implement key portions of DELLs vertically integrated supply chain model. A proper implementation will increase information flow between suppliers, departments and dealers resulting in a reduction of redundant inventory and focus towards just in time inventory. All of these factors will further drive up the already US industry leading profit margin per vehicle. In order to accomplish these goals FORD needs to refocus the Purchasing department’s responsibilities, consolidate and develop suppliers that deliver finished high level components and increase the information flow across all points of the supply chain. These steps will help to introduce a more pull-based system. Contents Issue identification 1 Environmental and root cause analysis 2 Alternatives/Options 3 Recommendations 4 Implementation 5 Monitor & Control 6 Issue identification • Current order to delivery (OTD) is more than 60 days. • Management of large supplier network. • Utilization of IT is lacking. • Purchasing isn’t integrated into Product development. • Independent dealership network has resulted in FORDs loss of control over customer service experiences. This network also...
Words: 410 - Pages: 2
...truck market consisted of approximately 4 million units sold out of 14 million total vehicle sales in the United States. By 1999, the percentage of the total market had increased and total sales were higher. SUVs/light truck sales were 8.2 million of 16.4 million units sold.21 47.6 percent of Ford Motor Company's sales are of SUVs, primarily its Ford Explorer and larger Expedition, but also of its even larger Excursion. These vehicles took the place of the truck-like Bronco and smaller Bronco II. The largest players in the SUV market (with the number of units sold in 2000) are as follows: 22 [pic] In 1997, most auto manufacturers expanded their SUV offerings and entered the luxury SUV market. These SUVs, with prices around $50,000, featured in-vehicle televisions and VCRs, leather interiors, and all the amenities of luxury cars. The new market entrants are listed below: [pic] By 2000, the U.S. segment of the luxury SUV market was 80.5 percent.23 At that time, SUV purchases constituted one of every five auto sales in the United States and were the highest-margin products in all the automakers' lineups .24 Profits per SUV averaged $ 10,000 per unit. Profits on the Ford Excursion were at the top of the field at $18,000 per unit. At that time, SUVs comprised 20 percent of all of Ford's vehicle sales and accounted for the majority of Ford's profits.25 By the summer of 2001, there were some indications of a slowdown in the SUV market. Many attributed the decrease...
Words: 4359 - Pages: 18
...Fordism and Taylorism are responsible for the early success and recent decline of the U.S. motor vehicle industry Ronald Jean Degan International School of Management Paris 2011 Working paper nº 81/2011 globADVANTAGE Center of Research in International Business & Strategy INDEA - Campus 5 Rua das Olhalvas Instituto Politécnico de Leiria 2414 - 016 Leiria PORTUGAL Tel. (+351) 244 845 051 Fax. (+351) 244 845 059 E-mail: globadvantage@ipleiria.pt Webpage: www.globadvantage.ipleiria.pt WORKING PAPER Nº 81/2011 Setembro 2011 Com o apoio 2 Fordism and Taylorism are responsible for the early success and recent decline of the U.S. motor vehicle industry Ronald Jean Degen Ph.D. Candidate at the International School of Management Paris Vice Chairman of Masisa Chile Address: E-mail: rjdegen@gmail.com Phone: +55 21 8068 9000 Av. Pasteur 333 Botafogo/Urca Lancha Ovelha Negra Iate Clube do Rio de Janeiro 22290-240 Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil 3 Fordism and Taylorism are responsible for the early success and recent decline of the U.S. motor vehicle industry Abstract This paper identifies the ways in which the ideas of Fordism and Taylorism have been responsible for the success of the U.S. motor vehicle companies until 1955, and for their subsequent decline. On three occasions, the motor vehicle industry has changed the fundamental ideas on the process of manufacturing, and, perhaps more significantly, on how humans work together to create value. Under Fordism...
Words: 8511 - Pages: 35
...Management Istanbul, Turkey, July 3 – 6, 2012 Car Recalls: A Problem Unique to Toyota or For All Car Makers? Kamrul Ahsan School of Management and Information Systems, Faculty of Business and Law Victoria University Australia Abstract Often automobile recalls are drawing media and public attention. Influenced by Toyota’s recent automobile recalls 2009-2010 this research conducts an empirical study on historical car recalls. The research uses secondary data from recall websites maintained by public and private organizations. For different car model year and manufacturer the study looks at frequency of recalls, recorded customer complaints, and yearly sales data. Analysis shows recalls are a common event with the majority of recalls initiated by only a few car makers. Though car makers use many eye catching and popular quality and customer care slogans and programs, many popular car makers still face valid customer complaints and consequently face many unwanted recalls. This study identifies that most recalls occur during the first five years of the car model year. This preliminary study of automobile recalls can be further extended at a later stage to identify key causes of recall. Keywords Product recalls, Reverse logistics, car recalls, product returns, closed loop supply chain 1. Introduction Though manufacturers use state-of-the-art operations philosophies, tools and techniques, it is difficult to make the perfect product and products often need to be recalled. Recalls...
Words: 6841 - Pages: 28
...Ford vs Chevrolet Ford and Chevrolet (Chevy) are in the automotive industry and have been in completion for many years start back in 1908, both companies started in the state of Michigan and have been battling it out for profits, market share and hometown bragging rights. Ford was founded in the suburb of Dearborn, Michigan and Chevy was founded in Flint, Michigan. Ford and Chevy both are good-producing sectors, they both manufacture automobiles that are similar but different. They each have a mission statement, Ford’s mission statement “One Team, One Plan, One Goal.” Ford’s mission statement is defined to each part of the statement, One Team meaning people working together as a lean, global enterprise. One Plan meaning aggressively restructure to operate profitably at the current demand and changing model mix, developing new products our customers want and value, finance our plan and improve our balance sheet, and work together as one team. One Goal meaning an exciting viable Ford delivering profitable growth for all. Chevy’s mission statement is an unofficial statement “We win when the customer says we win.” Chevy has an unofficial mission statement but uses more of Five Principles to guide its business, Safety and Quality First, create long-life customers, innovate, deliver long-term investment value and make a positive difference. Both Ford and Chevy are oligopoly competition, being that both companies supplies a large portion of the automotive industry. Being in...
Words: 1311 - Pages: 6
...Summary This report provides an evaluation of strategic and financial evolution of General Motors Company (GM) in the last ten years. Events like the global economic recession lead to a deep restructuring of the firm, filling for bankruptcy and a government bailout. The report provides an analysis of GM’s business model, products, the markets it is competing in, the global automotive and manufacturing industry and it also assess its attractiveness for incumbents and new entrants is also With a brief history of GM we evaluate its reaction to the global recession. We compare their business model before, during and after the recession, comprising the strategic and financial implications of their restructuring plan. We provide results from this restructuring, including improvements in GM’s financial ratios like ROA (from 0.05 in 2010 to 0.07 in 2011) and ROE (from 0.23 in 2010 to 0.25 in 2011). While the recession significantly affected GM, it also affected the rest of the automobile industry, including their American competitor Ford Motors. We compare the main differences between these two important companies and analyze the way they reacted to the recession. We also observe the approach that Ford has taken to recovery, in terms of governance, recession reactions and financial branches. The report ends with a conclusion summarizing the key differences between General Motors and Ford Motors, and how these differences influenced their financial performance. We can conclude that the way...
Words: 11121 - Pages: 45
...SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES 2003-01-2307 A Comparative Study of the Production Applications of Hybrid Electric Powertrains Harry L. Husted Delphi Corporation Reprinted From: Hybrid Vehicle and Energy Storage Technologies (SP-1789) Future Transportation Technology Conference Costa Mesa, California June 23-25, 2003 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. For permission and licensing requests contact: SAE Permissions 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA Email: permissions@sae.org Fax: 724-772-4891 Tel: 724-772-4028 For multiple print copies contact: SAE Customer Service Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Fax: 724-776-1615 Email: CustomerService@sae.org ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright © 2003 SAE International Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the manuscript...
Words: 7015 - Pages: 29
...The changes at Ford initiated by CEO Mulally, a former aerospace guy, have meant the difference between death for the automaker and merely being sick Almost 30 months after Alan R. Mulally left Boeing (BA) to become chief executive of Ford Motor (F), it's still easy to peg him as an industry outsider. Talking to Wall Street analysts in November, Mulally described the debut of the tiny, fuel-sipping Ford Ka at the "Paris Air Show" when he meant the "Paris Motor Show." Earlier this year, Mulally showed how he'd tried to stop appending an airplane doodle to his signature, but struggled to ink a car instead. "Rats. I still haven't got the car down," he said, in the "aw shucks" Kansas delivery that has become as familiar in Detroit as his off-the-rack blazers and shirts. Outsider CEOs have a decidedly varied track record. Some bring in their own people and impose a jarring management philosophy on a corporate culture, as Robert Nardelli did at Home Depot with such mixed results that the board pushed him out. Some are unsuited to running an unfamiliar business. Former S.C. Johnson CEO William Perez's 13-month stint at Nike (NKE) comes to mind. Others tread more softly and succeed, like Eric Schmidt, the former Novell (NOVL) guy who runs Google (GOOG). Mulally arguably falls into the latter category. Since arriving he has left most of the team he inherited in place and quieted talk that an aerospace guy couldn't run an automaker. Of course, Ford remains a very sick company. It lost...
Words: 3111 - Pages: 13
...Toyota in North America Donald L. Woolridge, Sr. Indiana Wesleyan University February 20, 2013 Course ADM537A Toyota in North America This paper will provide an overview and history of Toyota in general and the company’s operations in North America and its product lines specifically; share comments on the company’s organizational structure and senior management leadership style; discuss its nearest competitors – Ford, GM and Chrysler, known as the Detroit 3; share the weighted average cost of capital; provide insight in the company’s rationale/methodology for evaluating capital budgeting opportunities in North America; review the economic forecast for the industry; show the characteristics of common stock and bonds, share key financial ratios for three years, comparing to industry and nearest competitors; and in conclusion share a strong, fact-based summary of why or why not a person should make an investment in the common stock of Toyota. Historical Overview Toyota is a family-owned and operated company with very humble beginnings. Sakichi Toyoda, his son, Kiichiro Toyoda and Taiichi Ohno all played an important role in not only laying the foundation for what would become the automotive giant Toyota, but also in the development of the system that has revolutionized lean manufacturing; the Toyota Production System (TPS) (ToyotaGeorgetown.com, 2006-2013). Sakichi Toyoda invented the automated loom which ensured quality of product by stopping when threads...
Words: 4416 - Pages: 18
...Management of Strategic Alliances: Performance Evaluation Where to Link in the Value Chain? • Alliance combining same value-chain activities are to gain efficiencies, merge talents, or share risks • In operations alliances firms combine manufacturing activities to reach economies of scale • Operations/marketing alliances provide access to markets Identification of the links in VC forms the basis for performance of the SA Negotiation & Performance • The formal agreement is not as important as the ability of managers to get along • Negotiation issues • equity contributions • management structure • “prenuptial” agreements Selected Questions for a StrategicAlliance Agreement Design & Performance • Depends on the type of alliance chosen • Informal CAs often have no formal design issues • Formal CAs may require separate organization unit housed in one company • JV—Parent companies set up separate legal entity Decision-making Control • Two areas need to be considered: • Operational decisions (focus on day to day running) • Strategic decisions (focus on long term survival) • Majority ownership does not necessarily control • In JVs, strategic decision making takes place at the level of JV’s board of directors or top management. Management Structures • Dominant parent: controls or dominates strategic and operating decision making • Often has majority ownership • Treats the JV as wholly owned subsidiary • Shared management: both parent companies contribute approximately...
Words: 1160 - Pages: 5
...Headquarters, 1400 Stephenson Highway, Troy, Michigan 48083 Mark Paich Decisio, 320 West Cheyenne Road, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 vince.barabba@gm.com • chet.huber@onstar.com • fred.cooke@onstar.com • nick.pudar@gm.com • jim.smith@onstar.com • m.paich@att.net We developed a multimethod modeling approach to evaluate strategic alternatives for GM’s OnStar communications system. We used dynamic modeling to address some decisions GM faced in 1997, such as the company’s choice between incremental and aggressive marketing strategies for OnStar. We used an integrated simulation model for analyzing the new telematics industry, consisting of six sectors: customer acquisition, customer choice, alliances, customer service, financial dynamics, and dealer behavior. The modeling effort had important financial, organizational, and societal results. The OnStar business now has two million subscribers, an 80 percent market share of the emerging telematics market, and has been valued at between $4 and $10 billion. The OnStar project set the stage for a broader GM initiative in service businesses that ultimately could yield billions in incremental earnings. Most important, OnStar has saved many lives that otherwise would have been lost in vehicle accidents. (Industries: communications. Transportation: automotive.) G...
Words: 6641 - Pages: 27
...Cost Leadership? 10 Porter Identifies High Market Share with Cost Leadership Strategy 10 Differentiation--Not Cost Leadership Alone--Behind GM’s and Whirlpool’s Success 11 “Low-Cost” or “Low-Price” Strategy? 12 Thompson and Strickland’s Low-cost Provider Strategy 14 Internal Orientation of Cost Leadership Strategy 14 DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGY 15 Superiority of Differentiation over Cost Leadership Strategy 16 Porter: Differentiation and High Market Share Incompatible 17 Differentiation Compatible with High Market Share--and Low Cost 18 Even higher quality may lead to lower cost 18 High Market Share Contributes to Long-term Competitive Advantage 20 Market Share Leadership Enhances Differentiation 20 “PURE” COST LEADERSHIP STRATEGY VS. COST LEADERSHIP AS A RESULT OF DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGY 20 Porter: “Pure” Cost Leadership Strategy Incompatible with Differentiation Strategy 21 The Importance of Organizational...
Words: 10083 - Pages: 41
...The Sustainability Business Case for General Motors April 22, 2014 Master’s Project for the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment Team Rose Buss Heather Croteau Steven Davidson Carole Kerrey Janet Van De Winkle Faculty Advisor Professor Thomas Gladwin Abstract The purpose of this report is to evaluate and articulate the business case for sustainability for General Motors Company (GM). After assessing the company’s exposure to risk and opportunities, the team recommends that GM should implement an internal price on carbon and a sustainable supply chain strategy. These recommendations will provide GM with tangible and substantial financial benefit in addition to improved risk mitigation and brand value. Additionally, the team found that these recommendations are viable within GM’s corporate structure and can generate systemic benefits throughout the company. Thank you to our client, David Tulauskas, and our advisor, Professor Thomas Gladwin. Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 Client GM Corporate Overview 7 Sustainability & General Motors Sustinability & the Auto Industry Green Ranking Systems 14 Competitor Trends 17 About the Project Proposal & Opportunities Scoping 26 22 Contents 11 Research GM Interviews 28 Conferences 31 Corporate Trends & Innovations Regulations & Legislative Activity Recommendations Recommendation Development Carbon Monetization 39 Sustainable Supply Chain Strategy 32 35 36 42 Supporting Statements Support...
Words: 38081 - Pages: 153
...Business New York University Cases in Financial Management B40.2345 Tony Marciano amarcian@stern.nyu.edu KMC 9-87 First Class Assignment For the first class meeting, I will expect you to prepare the INTEL case in your course packet. You should use the detailed questions given in the course packet to organize your thoughts and analysis about the case. Our class discussion will cover the issues raised by the questions, i.e.: (i) What capital structure makes sense? (ii) What would be the best way to disburse cash? (iii) Describe the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative considered by management? In addition to reading and analyzing the Intel case, you should come to class with a one to two page memorandum that summarizes your analysis. You may team up with one or two classmates and hand in one memorandum for the group. (I.e., I will accept a memorandum with up to, but not more than, three names on it.) Stern School of Business New York University Cases in Corporate Finance Marciano Tony Course Syllabus TENTATIVE I. Course Materials A. Packet I (Required): 1. Syllabus 2. Assignments 3. Cases 4. Readings B. Text (Very Highly Recommended but probably have it already): Brealey Myers Allen, Principles of Corporate Finance, McGraw Hill. (BM) You may already have this text. C. There will be some miscellaneous handouts during the course. AND THERE ARE FILES ON BLACKBOARD WHICH CONTAIN SPREADSHEETS FOR THE CASES WE WILL ANALYZE IN THE COURSE...
Words: 4432 - Pages: 18
...Cost Leadership? 10 Porter Identifies High Market Share with Cost Leadership Strategy 10 Differentiation--Not Cost Leadership Alone--Behind GM’s and Whirlpool’s Success 11 “Low-Cost” or “Low-Price” Strategy? 12 Thompson and Strickland’s Low-cost Provider Strategy 14 Internal Orientation of Cost Leadership Strategy 14 DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGY 15 Superiority of Differentiation over Cost Leadership Strategy 16 Porter: Differentiation and High Market Share Incompatible 17 Differentiation Compatible with High Market Share--and Low Cost 18 Even higher quality may lead to lower cost 18 High Market Share Contributes to Long-term Competitive Advantage 20 Market Share Leadership Enhances Differentiation 20 “PURE” COST LEADERSHIP STRATEGY VS. COST LEADERSHIP AS A RESULT OF DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGY 20 Porter: “Pure” Cost Leadership Strategy Incompatible with Differentiation Strategy 21 The Importance of Organizational Culture...
Words: 10109 - Pages: 41
