A Philosophical Analysis of the American Scheme of Ford Motors

Today American cars have a reputation for poor reliability compared to foreign imported cars. This, however, was not always the case. Scoffs of superiority were made at the mention of foreign cars, that is until the late 1960s. Foreign cars began to take over the market place with their more affordable options. This sparked the necessity for such designs as the Ford Pinto model. A car made to compete with the competitive pricing of the foreign imports, however, this came at a cost to the reliability. Weighing no more than 2,000 lbs. and costing no more than $2,000, the Ford Pinto fit this niche. Affordable pricing, as it turns out, comes at a cost in quality.

The Pinto did not meet set safety guidelines by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). When crash tested at only 20 mph, every prototype of the Pinto resulted in a ruptured gas tank and dangerous leaks, the Pinto itself was no exception. These leaks caused explosions to occur on minor impacts even at low speeds. Ford was faced with a dilemma, delay production by a year to fix these issues, or continue forward with the existing dangerous design? Ford choose the latter and went Ford with production of the original design of the Pinto. This resulted in hundreds of crashes and subsequent explosions leading to the death of upwards of 180 people. Their rationale? Based mainly on a cost-benefit reasoning process. The cost of making the necessary safety adjustments was estimated to be $11 per vehicle (12.5 million).

Utilizing data produced by NHTSA, the cost of each person’s death (in regards to society) was estimated to be around $200,000. Crunching the numbers, this meant a total of $137.5 million was needed to be spent by Ford in order to save society $49.5 million. The aforementioned case was brought to court several times by those who were harmed by the vehicle and Ford’s gross negligence. Ford claims that fire related deaths tallied up only to 23 while others say the number is closer to 500. Ford engineers made a sworn testimony that 95% of the fatalities would have been avoided had Ford placed the fuel tank over the axle, as in previous model designs. Over 50 lawsuits were taken against Ford, ending with the jury finding Ford guilty in cases involving read-end collisions. While also finding them not guilty in other cases for criminal homicide, meaning Ford must have shown clear disregard of the harm from their actions that clearly deviated from safety standards.

This issue of expense to the motor company is an issue that persists moving forward. Are such actions based on monetary claims immoral? From the perspective of Kant and his Categorical Imperatives as well as Mill and his Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) will this question be answered. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives consist of three methodologies for determination of an action as moral or immoral. The first imperative states: act according to laws of universality, that is an action that applies across all time to all people and does not vary, similar to the golden rule. The second imperative states: act so that you treat humanity as an end and not simply a means, that is respect the originating source of lawfulness. Another way of putting this is to respect other people’s first imperative that they create for themselves.

The third and final imperative states: act so that all human beings are legislators of universal law, that is universal laws developed in the first imperative must not infringe those freedoms set forth by the second imperative. In summary, Kant’s moral philosophy can be described as deontological or duty based. Each person has certain duties that they are responsible for and must carry out. His Categorical Imperatives are the three most important and fundamental. Transforming these Categorical Imperatives into duties as they pertain to the we can develop an idea of how Kant would judge the situation in terms of morality. Kant’s first imperative requires that the Ford Motor company treat others as they would want to be treated. The Executives and Engineers themselves are responsible for creating a vehicle that they would feel safe and confident in driving.

Asking this of the company does not seem outlandish and is a duty any company owes their clientele when creating a product. However, they also have a duty to their stack holders to generate money from the company and therefore for the stack holders. These duties are conflicting here when only considering the first imperative. They have the desire to generate money as they would also expect any other company to have the intent of doing, but at the same time they must create a safe product for their customers as they would expect of other companies. In this scenario, Ford choose to pursue money over safety and with Kant’s first imperative and only the first imperative in consideration, it cannot be judge immoral within Kant’s eyes. How then can one of Kant’s key points in terms of his moral theory have a flagrant disregard for human life?

The answer is that all of Kant’s three imperatives must be satisfied insofar as something is morally right. Think of a Venn Diagram, each imperative is its own circle with overlaps occurring between them. Only in the portion where all three imperatives, or in this case circles, overlap can things be judged to be morally right. Moving onwards to Kant’s second imperative, not utilizing humanity as a means to an end, we can search to find greater overlap. However, we are rather unsuccessful in this pursuit. Ford clearly utilizes others as a means to accomplish their own agenda. Specifically, they disregard their duty to society concerning human safety and life as a means of accomplishing their duty to their stack holders of making money. Moreover, to say that no overlap between these duties exists is foolish when their foreign counterparts and competitors had done it prior and Ford too could have done it but choose to push forward with an accelerated time table of production. Continuing the search for overlap and looking towards Kant’s third imperative, respect for the universal laws developed by others and not infringing on them, some moral salvation can be found for Ford.

Ford did not directly infringe on the imperatives of others. They did not at any point force people to buy, operate, and crash their Pinto model. A counter argument can be made that they did indirectly infringe on the imperatives of others, nevertheless. Whereas, Ford did not force others to buy the Pinto, they allowed them to knowing fully the possible defects with the car. Ford’s actions of producing the Pinot and allowing people to buy with potential deathly injury occurring lets their duty to the stack holders interfere with Ford’s duty to their customers. With the guidelines and safety standards set out by the NHSTA, Ford has a duty to their customers to meet standards. The customer, with full trust and faith in Ford carrying out their duty to them, should be confident that these standards are met.

This negligence of duty on the part of Ford caused people’s lives to be lost and their duties to others to go unfulfilled. Kant would view Ford as acting immoral due to their lack of duty to their customers which resulted in those who died to not be able to complete their duties and deviation from his three imperatives. Next, begins the analysis of Ford’s actions through the eyes of John Stewart Mill and his Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP). The GHP is based on the premise that actions are right as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. This allows no action to have intrinsic value. Thus, such actions like murder cannot be intrinsically wrong. As this pertains to Ford and the Pinto, while the actions of Ford prompted happiness within the company and their stack holders, they did not promote happiness within their clientele. Moreover, their actions in themselves have no intrinsic wrongness to them but in comparison to the reverse of happiness their actions caused, they can be judged as wrong in the eyes of Mills. Ford’s actions took away happiness from a large multitude of people and cannot be justified.

Read more

Case Study – Ford Motor Company

Introduction was founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and eleven business associates. The company was responsible for the innovation of the moving assembly line where employees would remain in the same place while performing the same task on each automobile that move along the assembly line. Ford Motor Company has been a prominent car producer for over 100-years – an icon of U. S. manufacturing. However, the company has reached a pivotal impasse where timely planning has become crucial. Hence, to reestablish the brand and Henry Ford’s original vision to produce “cars that were affordable to the masses” (What Would You Do?

Ford Motor Company, n. d. p. 1). This case study will examine four options; the first option is whether to close down older plants in an effort to realign production and sales. The second option is to re-engineer the company to produce smaller cars eliminating or sharply reducing the SUV and truck lines. The third option is to take the unprecedented step of dramatically reducing North American presence and focus the company efforts on international markets where the company has been very successful. The fourth option is to sell the entire Premier Automotive Group (PAG).

To determine what the criterion for the Ford Motor Company four options are, Ford’s management team should collectively utilize the rational-decision making model that is define as “a systematic process in which managers define problems, evaluate alternatives, and choose optimal solutions that provide the maximum benefits to their organizations” (Williams, 2010, p. 85). In addition, management should utilize the SWOT (acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis, to identify their internal strengths and weaknesses and their external opportunities and threats.

Ford can use the SWOT analysis for assessing their strategic position in its internal and external environments. Rational decision-making and the SWOT analysis will allow Ford to obtain and ascertain key issues to determine what strategic plans to implement. The case outlines four strategic options Ford is pursuing to increase its profitability. Describe each of the four options. For each option list two criteria, you would use to evaluate the option.

Option number one recommends closing older plants to realign production and sales. Closing the older plants managers would have to evaluate how these closures will affect their internal environment, employees will lose their jobs; the company will be obligated to buy out each employee. In addition, the company has to evaluate their external challenges; how will the closure of these plants affect the community. The plants are currently producing more cars (supply) than the consumers are purchasing (demand).

Therefore, Ford Motor Company’s has to create and implement a tactical plan that denotes how the internal threat of buying out the employee’s will occur, hence buying out the employees will reduce Ford Motor Company’s operation expense and maximize their internal opportunity because there will be more resources (cash) to invest in other areas of the business. In addition, the company could sell their supply to employees at a discounted price and offer the consumers in the community this same discount at a point lower to achieve goodwill in the community, thus minimizing their external challenges.

Option number two is eliminating or sharply reducing the SUV and truck lines and concentrating on the production of smaller cars. The company managers should determine the strength of this option, the company would need to evaluate the following: can fuel economy be realized in these particular vehicle lines without significant cost being passed on to the consumer; will there be a continuing market for SUVs and how will reducing or eliminating truck lines affect overall sales.

Therefore, to evaluate these challenges I propose managers review their industry forces that address the question; how should Ford Motor Company compete in the SUV and truck line industry. According to Harvard professor Michal Porter (as cited in Williams, 2010), “five industry forces determine and industry’s overall attractiveness and potential for long-term profitability” (p. 107). The company can determine if this is a feasible market for the company to continue participating in by assessing their positioning strategies.

Option number three requires reducing Ford’s North American presence and focus the company’s efforts on international markets where the company has been very successful, particularly in Europe, South America, and China. Again, it is imperative that managers utilize the rational decision-making process to determine; what is the sustainability of the Ford brand in the international market, how will reducing or removing North American presence affect the overall brand, and which plants in North America should be closed for short periods to allow the demand to catch up with the supply.

In addition, Ford should implement an aggressive marketing strategy in Europe, South American and China to gain a sustainable competitive edge in a market that is receptive. Option number four is to sell the entire PAG. The PAG group is part of Fords portfolio strategy that did not align with Ford’s vision. Therefore, retrenchment strategy should be applied for this option, sell the entire line because it is not part of Ford’s original vision – “production of cars that were affordable to the masses” (What Would You Do, Ford Motor Company, n. . p. 1). According to the Boston Consulting Group, BGC matrix, “is a portfolio strategy that managers use to categorize their corporation’s business growth and relative market share, helping them decide how to invest corporate funds” (Williams, 2010, p. 103). The PAG group can be defined as a dog; a company that “have a small share of a slow-growth market” (Williams, 2010, p. 104). In addition, the hand-built PAG automobiles do not fit Ford’s innovation of the assembly line.

In light of the possibility that market conditions can and do change, discuss at least three examples of how the company should build-in flexibility to back-up it decision-making process. Ford Motor Company should implement flexible back-up plans and one plan or method is the option based planning that is the goal “to keep all options open and acquiring small investments in alternative plans” (Williams, 2010, p. 81).

Therefore, when one or several of the alternative plans flourish Ford would invest more in those plans, while reducing investments in other, for example, the North American plants. The second plan for the company to build in flexibility would be its slack resources that are people, money or production. Hence, the partial closing of the North American plant, slack resources would enable Ford to adjust, when demand increases there will be resources available to accommodate these changes.

In addition, for any plan to work well, management has to keep communication open with all members of the team to develop and encourage commitment. List at least three steps that make-up a workable plan and explain why each is important. To determine and execute strategies for the four options managers at For Ford Motor Company have to be aware of the essentials steps in preparing a workable plan. Therefore, step number one to prepare a workable plan is setting specific goals, using the S.

M. A. R. T. guidelines that are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely. This is important because it directs behavior and increase efforts when the plan stipulates specific goals. Step number two is developing commitment. Goal commitment “is the determination to achieve a goal” (Williams, 2010, p. 80). Therefore, both managers and employees should collectively set goals to encourage commitment; setting goals collectively encourages employees to intensify their efforts.

The third step is developing an effective action plan that list the specific steps, how the options will be carry out, which employees will perform each task, and what resources are going to be needed and how long it will take to accomplish the goal. The fourth step is tracking progress this will allow you to track your short-term (proximal) and long-term (distal) goals. In addition, the company managers should use a Gantt chart that will aid them in tracking this progress and keeping projects on task.

When you know where you are going, how you getting there, who is assisting and how long it will take allows you to be flexible when conditions change. Discuss the option or combination of options you selected as the best course of actions for Ford Motor Company and detail your reasons for selecting that option or combination of options. I recommend Ford Motor Company put into operation, option number three, to take the unprecedented step to dramatically reduce their North American presence and focus their efforts on international markets where they have been successful.

Ford Motor Company also should elect option number four, to sell the entire PAG group. To maximize Ford’s profits, it is clear that North American factories are not doing well and are the major sources of losses. Ford has lost a substantial amount of market share to its competitors. Ford does not want to produce more cars than they sell. Therefore, by reducing production in this market will provide them with slack resources to fund their European market. In addition, operation expense for their North American operations is expensive due to unionization.

The United Auto Workers (UAW) “represents most of the company’s production employees and the contract terms over the years have been designed to provide significant long-term support to those employees” (What Would You Do? Ford Motor Company, n. d. , p. 1), and these generous benefits are weighing down the company operations and liquidity; therefore, Ford Motor Company should pay out the severance package to these employees and this will free up those monies to reinvest in the markets that are doing well or to repair older plants.

In addition, due to the general environment changes – the economy, the company should negotiate new compensation packages with UAW to decrease their operational expenses. Additionally, Ford Motor Company should sell PAG because they are not in the luxury car business and refocus their attention to what they do best — producing cars that are affordable to masses. ? References Williams, C. (2010). Management. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Read more

Strategic Analysis Report for Ford Motor Company

According to Robbins and Coulter (2005), strategies may be formulated at three levels within any organization. These include: at the corporate level (where we have corporate level strategies), at the business level (where we have business level strategies) and at the functional level. At the business level, Porter (1998) has identified three types of strategies, deployed at the business level, which he enumerates as the generic strategies of differentiation, overall low cost leadership, and niche / focus.

A firm’s business level strategy may also be a combination of the overall low cost and differentiation strategies (where it is referred to as an integrated low cost / differentiation strategy), while its niche strategy may either be a focused low cost or focused differentiation strategy (Porter, 1998). The business level strategy of the may thus be discussed in the light of this context.

1. Firms competing using an overall low cost leadership strategy appeal to a wide customer base on the basis of their ability to offer lower prices. As such, such firms are characterized by high standards of internal efficiency that drive down the organization’s overall cost structure. Consequently, they end up having relative cost advantages when compared to their competitors, and are thus able to charge lower prices for the same product and therefore to attract more customers.

To maintain their competitive sustainable advantage, they engage in continuous efforts to lower costs, which they achieve through: cost minimization initiatives, maintenance of strict control over production and overhead costs, and continuous upgrading of their facilities to ensure that they are efficient beyond their competitors’ ability to imitate (Porter, 1998).

Unlike in the overall low cost leadership where value is created by means of the ability to offer lower relative prices, in the differentiation strategy value is created by means of the ability to offer products that are of higher relative quality, or which have innovative or unique features, superior customer service, and so on. In the niche strategy, the firms will target a small segment of the market which has specialized needs and which has been ignored by the mainstream.

It will target this niche either through a differentiation or overall low cost leadership strategy (Porter, 1998). Of the four strategies outlined above, Ford’s business strategy (as summarized by its “One Ford – One Team • One Plan • One Goal” plan) can be described as an integrated low cost / differentiation strategy, where its appeal is based on both a low price, and product features (Ford Motor Co, 2008). This strategy is characterized by efforts geared towards both reducing costs and enhancing product features and innovation, as follows:

  • The introduction of safer, greener, and better quality products such as “a new line of midsized cars,” hybrid Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), and green cars. Specific examples of these include the Ford Escape, Ford Transit, Fusion and Milam (Ford Motor Company, 2008, p. 14). In a submission to the Congress, Ford states that its aim is to achieve “Product excellence through leadership in fuel economy, innovation, quality, safety, and leading edge “comfort and convenience” technology” (Ford Motor Company, 2008, p.14).
  • Cost reduction initiatives undertaken include: closure of some of its underperforming plants in a bid to save costs and lower its cost structure, laying off of more than 12,000 full time and 45,000 part time employees in the key North American region, and other cost reduction initiatives geared towards cutting down its operational costs by a massive $45 billion in just three years.

Considering that wages of auto workers are a significant burden for the US automobile industry, Ford has also taken steps to lower this cost component by negotiating with the United Auto Workers union that have resulted in lower but also flexible wages (Ford Motor Company, 2008).

2. How the company’s value-chain activities can be better linked to create value for the company. The value chain activities at Ford can be better linked in the following ways in order to create more value for Ford:

In line with shifting customer tastes that are gravitating more and more towards smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, Ford Motor Company should convert most of its truck assembly plants into plants for the production of small and medium sized cars. Ford should establish flexible body shops, which will enable it to respond fast to any changes in consumer preferences. For example, it should have plants that can manufacture the various blends of engine transmissions and families. It should close down some of its plants in order to align production more closely with demand, given increased competition and falling demand.

This will help it cut down on unnecessary costs. It should adopt lean manufacturing systems such as Toyota’s TPS system, where raw materials are only pulled into the production process as demand materializes. This will help it reduce the stock of inventories required (both in terms of raw materials and finished products) and help to reduce inventory carrying costs and obsolescence costs (Robins and Coulter, 2005). Additionally, the firm should rationalize its supply base by reducing its supplier base. This will enable it to develop closer, mutually beneficial and more intimate relationships with a few quality suppliers.

By spreading its supplies among only a few suppliers, it will also be in a position to enjoy scale economies. It should also downsize its dealer network especially for its key marquees (Mercury, Ford and Lincoln), being careful in the process to also maintain customer convenience. Given that it has very many dealers (about 4,400 in 2005, for just these three brands), downsizing of its dealer networks will enable it to cut down on its intermediation costs (Ford, 2008; Robbins and Coulter, 2005). It should outsource some of its non-core functions to dealers in places such as Asia who boast of superior products at relatively lower costs.

Given that production costs in North America are high due to factors such as a high wage rate and legacy costs, this will also help the firm to cut costs. For example, in so doing, Ford will be able to reduce its fulltime and part-time staff complement (Ford, 2008).

3. Competitor analysis and Porter’s Five Forces: According to Porter (1998), there are five competitive forces that every firm must contend with. These include: industry rivalry, the threat of new entrants, the threat of substitutes, the bargaining power of suppliers, and the bargaining power of buyers. As relates to Ford, these are described as below:

– Industry rivalry: while there are more than fifty players in the US automobile industry, the top five control more than 70% of the industry. These include: Toyota (with a 16. 73% market share), GM (19. 58%), Chrysler (15. 29%), Ford (8. 29%), and Honda (10. 86%) (Ward’s Auto, 2010). A high industry concentration points to a low intensity of industry rivalry. According to Ward’s Auto (2010), the rate of growth of the US auto industry has been dwindling thanks to factors such as intense competition, high costs driven by factors such as unsustainable legacy costs, high costs of fuel, and a slowdown in economic growth.

As a result, the total number of motor vehicle units sold has declined from 17,812 units in 2000 to just 10,601 by 2009. A low rate of growth of the market translates into fierce competition for the few customers available, thereby leading to a high intensity of rivalry. According to Lewenza (2009), the US automobile industry has some of the highest fixed cost structures in the world due to factors such as high wage rates and legacy costs.

High fixed costs imply that firms must produce at full capacity in order to enjoy scale economies, which leads to overcapacity and a fierce struggle to dispose the extra products. As a result, a high intensity of rivalry ensues. Overall therefore, the threat posed by industry rivalry can be described as moderate to high.

– Threat posed by new entrants: Traditionally, the automobile industry has been regarded as having high entry barriers, as a result of the massive capital and sophisticated technology required to venture into the industry.

As a result, the threat posed by new entrants has traditionally been considered low. However, Cooney and Yaccobbucci (2005) write that there are many players (for example from Asia) who have the financial muscle as well as technical expertise required and that together with the advent of flexible manufacturing techniques (which eliminate the barrier posed by scale economies), the threat posed by new entrants to the US automobile industry is high.

– Threat of substitutes: While a number of substitutes to the motor vehicle exist (examples of which include riding the bicycle, or walking on foot, or flying by plane), none of them can offer “the utility, convenience, independence, and value afforded by automobiles” (Bradley et al, 2005, p. 3). Consequently, the threat posed by substitutes is low.

– Bargaining power of suppliers: the largest segment of motor vehicle buyers comprises of individuals, who are many and fragmented, and no single individual makes up a significant portion of any of the firm’s purchases.

As a result, the buyer bargaining power can be described as low (Cooney and Yaccobbucci (2005).

– Bargaining power of suppliers: given that the suppliers of components and other parts to the motor vehicle industry are many, small and fragmented; as well as the fact that motor vehicle manufacturers like Ford possess a credible backward integration threat ( as illustrated when the firm took over a number of its own suppliers such as Vieston), the bargaining power of the suppliers can be described as low and their threat as weak.

4. Ford’s positioning, and expected competitor behavior: In summary, Ford faces: a weak threat posed by the bargaining power of suppliers, a weak threat posed by the bargaining power of buyers and a weak threat from substitutes; but a strong threat from new entrants (primarily from Asia) as well as a strong threat posed by a high intensity of industry rivalry. What Ford therefore needs is to come up with a strategy to counter the competition posed by existing as well as potential competitors.

It can do this by getting aggressively into the production of the smaller sized vehicles, which has been the strong point of its rivals from Asia such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan; in addition to maintaining the production of the large vehicles and trucks, where it has established unique capabilities. For the small car segment, it would pursue the overall low-cost leadership strategy, where it would offer: a mass market product with low levels of differentiation, at a relative lower cost. Read also about focused low cost strategy

In this regard, it will have to develop relative cost advantages through techniques such as outsourcing and other cost reduction initiatives as described earlier. Its cars would be thus positioned as greener, low cost alternatives, and more fuel-efficient. This action is likely to trigger a price war from its foreign rivals, but with a strong financial muscle, it can be able to outlast its rivals. For the large car segment, it should follow the differentiation strategy and offer more, innovative, and better features, which should help it command a price premium.

With superior innovative features, the threat of imitation by its rivals will be real, but Ford can maintain its sustainable competitive advantage in this regard by continuously upgrading its innovative capabilities.

5. The role which strategic leadership will play in helping Mulally and the organization meet its strategic objectives: Strategic leadership will play a big role in helping Alan Mullaly and his team to meet the objectives of the Ford Motor Company.

First and foremost, external environmental analysis techniques (such as PESTLE analysis) will help them identify the politico-legal, economic, technological, as well as socio-cultural factors which can present opportunities or pose threats to the organization. Internal analysis techniques such as SWOT analysis will enable Ford to identify the weaknesses which have the potential of bringing down the organization as well as the strengths which it can exploit to meet its objectives.

By matching the organization’s strengths and weaknesses to the opportunities and threats, Ford will be able to come up with strategies that help it to match its capabilities to its macro environment and to succeed in meeting its objectives. Strategic analysis tools such as the Ansoff Matrix and the BCG matrix will help Ford come up with the best strategies given its macro environment, competitive environment, and weaknesses and strengths.

Read more

Ford Pinto Case

Running head: – Was Ford to Blame in the Pinto Case? Taking a Side Mayo Smith, George Deese, Josh Eubank, Mignon Waller, Michelle Stower and Jaime Arnold University of Phoenix Take a Side Bad business decisions can be seen throughout history; however none has stirred such controversy as the error made by Ford Motor Credit concerning the 1971 Ford Pinto. Despite many safety concerns Ford CEO, Lee Iacocca and Ford executives began the production and distribution of the 1971 Ford Pinto.

During routine safety tests of production models, it was discovered that every Ford Pinto tested and sustained a ruptured fuel tank during a slow to moderate speed rear end collision. The resulting fireball could cause severe burn injuries and even death to its occupants. Ford engineers designed a solution. By installing a baffle between the gas tank and the rear bumper, the threat of it possibly rupturing was nearly obsolete. These modifications would only have cost $11 per vehicle to complete.

After conducting a cost/benefit analysis, Ford estimated that the cost of lawsuits and the amount Ford would have had to pay (estimated at more than $50 million), far exceeded the amount saved ($20. 9 million), by not installing the baffle (De George, R. , 2006). How can a major corporation put a price on human life? Had I been involved in the dilemma concerning the Ford Pinto, I would have somehow convinced Lee Iacocca and the executives at Ford to install the baffle. I would have gone to the press and the U. S. overnment with my concerns over the safety of this vehicle. Iacocca wanted a car that would cost under $2000. Instead of raising the price of the Pinto, the profit margin for Ford could have been decreased. The stakeholders certainly would have agreed considering the safety concerns. It was only going to cost $11 per car which would have been a total of $20. 9 million; a small price to pay considering how many Pintos sold between 1971 and 1978. Installing the baffle would have thrown off the production date, but the defect would no longer be a problem.

The defect should have been corrected after the first year of production, however, since it was not the entire dilemma was a terrible business decision (De George, R. , 2006). Corporations more so than individuals, have a moral obligation to keep the public safe from harm. When it comes to making and selling a product, in the case of human safety, money should not be an underline factor in doing what is considered morally the right thing to do. Ford acted unethically when they introduced an unsafe vehicle that eventually caused serious injuries.

The Ford Corporation crossed the line when knowingly decided not to make the necessary repairs in the Pinto which would ultimately save lives. Corporations have an ethical obligation to assume responsibility and admit their wrong doing. Did Ford have an internal office where an employee could go and report such wrong doing without suffering retaliatory actions? Whistle blowing was something new in both the corporate and public worlds. How many people knew what was wrong with the Ford Pinto and refuse or were afraid to come forward with their concerns?

The obligation not to harm any person primary falls on the responsibility of those who manage the corporation. If other people know about this, they could have had a hand in stopping this. However, other members of the corporation are not morally responsible for the actions of the corporation such as assembly workers, engineers, or office workers. According to University of Phoenix (2009), “whistle blowing is reporting improper activities to an appropriate person. ”

If consumers and owners of the Ford Pinto known in advance that the Pinto would explode in low impact crashes and that death was a high factor, the sales would have probably been lower to none which in turn would have been even costly to the Ford Corporation. CEO Lee Laccoca should have thought about the long-term effects of taking consumer trust for granted and avoided the negative repercussions of the Pinto if a recall was issued and handle properly. Ford could have avoided the negative publicity. Meeting obligations is very important in a social environment.

Ford was operating on how internal social capital was more important than external capital. Most likely before the Pinto fires Ford had a good reputation as being one of the safest automobile in the car industry. Greed was the motivation behind Ford’s immoral ethical business decisions which resulted in the lost of many human lives. The competition of small cars was emerging and American consumers were very interested in this market. Ford decided to act quickly before they would begin to lose market their share in the marketplace.

Ford’s decision had nothing to do with the concerns of the consumers but with the money it was making and their status in society. In 1971, the year the Ford Pinto was released to the public, the organization knew about the potential safety issues the car faced when a rear-end collision occurred. According to DeGeorge (2005), Ford prepared a cost-benefit analysis to determine if it would be cheaper to fix the problem, an exploding gas tank, or wait to pay out possible lawsuits that could occur after the accidents happened. Ford ultimately decided it was better financially to produce a car that was dangerous to the owner.

It appears another current automotive company may have followed some of the same practices as Ford did in the 1970s. It was recently made public that there was a safety problem in some of the models Toyota produces. The problem with the Toyota’s cars is a gas pedal that causes sudden acceleration. Although it is still unclear when Toyota discovered the problem with the gas pedal sticking, and how they determined what the next steps would be, Toyota did appear to know about the problem and did not initially do anything to resolve it.

In an article written by Rooney (2010) “Toyota has been criticized for not responding quickly enough to customer complaints about sudden acceleration, which have been blamed for several accidents resulting in injuries or death” (Toyota Recall: What took so long? paragraph 10). It does not matter what decade, or year, this type of scenario happens, organizations have a moral responsibility to inform the customer about any potential danger he or she faces when purchasing a car from the respective company, especially when the flaw is potentially fatal.

In both cases, should have made it public as soon as they knew about the problem. If these organizations would have made the safety issues known immediately to the consumers, the consumers would have been able to make a well informed decision about the car they were thinking about purchasing; they may have even decided to purchase a different car that was safer. Rational thinkers will not put their lives, or the life of their families, in danger. As a country, America has a government that has implemented consumer safety laws in an attempt to protect the consumers from these types of situations.

Reference Tech Republic (2010). Interactive Inc. ‘Steer clear of these 10 illegal job interview questions’ Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://www. techrepublic. com Linda Klebe Trevino, Katherine A. Nelson (2007). Axia College, Decide What’s Right: A Prescriptive Approach. Retrieved on March 20, 2010 https://ecampus. phoenix. edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader. aspx De George, R. (2006). Whistle Blowing. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from https://ecampus. phoenix. edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader. aspx.

Read more

Emergence of Mncs the Rise of Fordism

Name: Ginu Abraham Registration Number: H00124734 Course: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS Coursework type: ESSAY Course Tutor: Dr. UmmeSalma HOW CAN THE EMERGENCE OF MNCs BE BEST EXPLAINED? Multi-National Corporations are corporations which have their head office in one country which is called the host country or the home country from where it manages their operations all over the world. Normally any corporation or group which derives the quarter of their income from their operations outside the host country is considered a multinational corporation.

There are mainly four categories of Multi-National Corporations (1) a multinational, decentralized corporation with strong home country presence, (2) a global, centralized corporation that acquires cost advantages through centralized production wherever cheaper resources are available (3) an international company that builds on the parent corporation’s technology or R;amp;D (4) a transitional enterprise that combines the previous three approaches . As according to the UN data about 35000 companies have direct investment in foreign countries, and the largest 100 of them control about 40 percent of world trade. Anon. , 2012) The birth of MNC’s started from the early days of transitional trade started by Mesopotamian, Phoenician and Greek merchants. As the result of fall of Roman Empire the trade among various nations became difficult. The feudalism in Middle East and Europe resulted in wars among feudal lords and church prohibited the trade with the Muslim nations. After years the trade was established by traders of Italy who are considered as the predecessors of present day Multi-National Corporations.

In the mid of seventeenth and eighteenth century Multinational corporations in the form of trading companies started. The East India Company, the French Levant Company, the Hudson Bay Company, was the main multinational companies established in those days. Standard Oil, British Petroleum, International Nickel and Ana Conda Copper were the main MNCs investing mainly in petroleum and mining industries in the early twentieth century. The MNCs went through three main phases in their growth process. The first phase came to an end almost at the beginning of the 1st World War.

The European Companies such as Imperial Tobacco, Dunlop, Siemens, Philips, etc. captured the field. Due to the recessionary situation prevailing world over during the post-war period amidst of 1930-1950 the growth of Multinational corporations came to a halt. During the first phase, decades of 1950s and 1960s witnessed the emergence of American MNCs such as IBM, General Motors, and Ford Motors. The 1970’s witnessed the third phase of MNC’s. The new age belonged to the German, Europeans and Japanese MNCs.

The recent years witnessed the emergence of MNCS from developing countries such as Indonesia, India etc. (Nirav, 2012) Let us consider the case of Ford Motor Corporation over the years. The life cycle of this company will help us better understand the emergence of the MNCs Ford Motors is an American automotive corporation found by Henry Ford and a number of associates, who were C. H Bennett, Alexander Malcomson, James Couzens, John W. Anderson, John F. Dodge, Charles J. Woodall, Horace H. Rackham, Horace E. Dodge, Vernon C.

Fry, John S. Gray and Albert Strelow started on June 1903. The company have produced automotive parts and heavy vehicles in the past. The Ford Motor company today produces luxury and commercial cars. (Anon. , www. britannica. com) Ford introduced various methods which were later called as Fordism. These were the methods like assembly lines and management of high scale industrial work-force and methods for higher level of production of cars. Henry Ford was one most common symbol of transformation of agricultural to industrial mass production, mass consumption economy.

Ford was the creative or most resourceful force which resulted in the growth to superiority of the automobile industry to the world’s prime manufacturing activity. The foremost of the transformations it made was from the craft production to the mass production which helped in the creation of markets as it is mainly based on the economies of scale and scope which resulted in the rise to giant organizations which were built upon minute divisions of labour and functional specialisation. These were the main factors which resulted in the creation of a wider market.

The company grew on the concept that to manufacture it by mass and to standardize a product in end would mean to price it so low so that even the lay man would afford to buy it. Ford manufactured almost everything he required for his cars right from the basic raw materials. Ford mastered the mass production techniques to achieve significant economies by taking the task of doing everything by him. Ford was cautious about finance, accounting and giving super vision short and straight for the efficient coordination of the free flow of the raw materials and the components through the production procedure.

These were the two reasons why Ford vertically integrated the corporation. Though for the complete vertical integration it needed a huge amount work force including middle managers and specialists which were to be employed and assigned according to the hierarchical scheme. Thus in the end it all helped in the vertical integration of the corporation. By 1950s, the increase in mass production made them the largest single group within every developed country. (Thompson, n. d. The following chain of events will help to shed some light on the three stages of evolution of the company to an MNC. These stages will be further explained following the key moments in history. Ford Motor Corporation sold their first car which was assembled in their Mack Avenue plant in Detroit. The first car that they sold was a two cylinder model A on July 23rd. The Model T was made available to the public in 1908 and in which model production continued until 1927. Ford Motor Corporation of Canada incorporated near Winsor in Ontario.

In the same year Ford Motor corporation starts the production at the Piquette Avenue Plant in Detroit In 1910 The Manufacturing operations of Ford Motor Corporation was transferred to Highland Park, Michigan Plant. The corporation established their first overseas plant in Trafford Park, Manchester, England in 1911. The experiments with the assembly line began at the Highland Park Plant. The early trials with the transmissions and magnetos were followed by the advancement of chassis assembly line by the mid of the 1913 and by the end of the 1915 the one millionth car was produced by the Ford Motor Corporation.

Two years later first Ford truck was introduced which was supported by the Model T engine and in the same year the production of Fordson tractor begins which until Feb 1928 was produced only in North America. It was in the beginning of the 1922 the Ford Motor company purchased Lincoln Motor Company for 8 million dollars and Edsel Ford the son of Henry Ford was named as the president of the Lincoln. After five years from the purchase of Lincoln Motor Company, it ceases the model T production which was being sold to the public since 1908. Ford starts with production of the Model A in the same year which continues till 1932.

By the beginning of 1941 ford started producing the Mercury, the first jeep and first V8 en-block engine-equipped car built. All these car productions came to a halt by the beginning of World War II in 1942 and the production of Ford passenger cars was only resumed by July 3rd 1945. Later in 1956 Ford Motor company transforms into a publicly-held company with the common stock sale in the public and was listed on NYSE in the beginning of 1956. By the same year the Ford Motor company subsidiary on Aeronutronics systems, established which specialized in defence weapons and aerospace technology.

As the Ford Motor corporation went on progressing with their production and sales reaching higher demands it finally achieves exceeded earnings than those of the General Motors for the First time in 1986/1987. The same year it earns record profits of 4. 63 billion but later on in 1991 Ford Motor Company’s largest loss in a year was recorded as 2. 3 billion. As the result the Ford Motor company creates a Quality Care system to meet the needs the Ford dealerships and Ford owners. The same year Ford and Volkswagen Embark on a joint venture in “Auto Europa”, which is an organisation which produce multipurpose vehicles in Portugal.

Later next year Ford’s F series truck known as the best-selling truck for the tenth consecutive years in United States. Ford also succeeds in producing the first car which has environment friendly air-conditioning system. By the same year, Ford acquires 50% of the Mazda Motor Manufacturing and renames it as Auto Alliance International. In the year 1993, Ford is claims five of the eight top selling vehicles in the United States. The same year the first formal Ford Dealerships were placed inside the mainland China and the Ford China operations later secured the manufacturing and assembly.

In 1994 the first ford assembly began in India and acquires the world’s largest car rental company named Hertz. Finally in 1995 the Ford 2000 is initiated which was said to combine the power, resources ultimately to be a world company with the intimacy and agility of a small one. (Anon. , 2010) Later through years till to date the Ford Motor Corporation concentrated firmly on increasing the consumer base by marketing and developing new products and to achieve their globalization goals.

Ford also tried to put more effort on the research and development to increase their consumer base by commercialising cars powered with natural gas. The company advanced by developing and introducing new features like side impact airbags to their products. The growth and development of the corporation reached even up to the teaming up with the NASA to develop features for their cars which no other corporations in automobile industry have ever provided.

Over the years though the ford corporation have already started selling their products, after the 90s it came to a broader perspective of growth by extending their fields to various other sections by teaming up with NASA, Oracle Corporation and even a YMCA Childcare, which portrays the in deep goals to become more than a popular automobile manufacturing corporation. At this juncture I would like to shed some light on three stage of evolution that the Ford Corporation had to get through to become a MNC.

There are generally three stages of evolution for a corporation to become a Multinational Corporation; they are the Export stage, Foreign Production Stage and finally the Multinational stage. (BRIMS, n. d. ) The Fords motor Corporation which after its incorporation in 1903 made their first model commercialised for the public after a few years from incorporation. At this first stage of Export, it is the point of time were the Ford Motor Corporation had to completely rely on the export agents for exporting the cars outside their home country as they had no other option to increase their export sales.

They built plants in Detroit and Michigan to increase the production to satisfy the demand for the cars. The company focuses mainly on achieving higher number of export sales and introduces methods like assembly line to reduce cost and to save time which ultimately increases the production. In the second stage of foreign production, the Ford motor corporation’s export sales reach the limits of the sales to the foreign countries in means of export sales.

Now the Corporation had the option of either to start a plant in a foreign country or to license corporation’s technology to a new company in a foreign country is a risky choice as it may result in transfer of trade secrets regarding the technology to a new firm thereby paving way for the rise of a rival. In spite of these facts the Ford Motor Corporation established their foremost overseas manufacturing plant in Trafford Park, Manchester. Thus the productivity of the Ford Motor Corporation increases and in 1915 it produces he one millionth ford car and over the decades the Ford Motor Corporation increases their productivity by building more efficient and advanced plants throughout the home country and in foreign countries as well, which means it has already entered the final stage of being a multinational company. In this final stage, Ford Motor Corporation focuses on research and development, financing, and recruiting and co-ordinating production. By viewing the world market into a broader and growth intended view which results in the standardisation of products and the services paving way for the emergence of MNCs.

From this it is easy for us to understand the different phases involved in an organisation’s transformation into an MNC. This also helps us to understand the changing market trends and consumer behavioural characteristics thus helping us understand the concept of business as a whole.

REFERENCE Anon. , 2010. www. thehenryford. org. [Online] Available at: http://www. thehenryford. org/exhibits/fmc/chrono. asp [Accessed 19 09 2012]. Anon. , 2012. www. businessdictionary. com. [Online] Available at: http://www. businessdictionary. com/definition/multinational-corporation-MNC. html Anon. , www. britannica. com. www. britannica. com. Online] Available at: http://www. britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/213265/Ford-Motor-Company [Accessed 19 09 2012]. BRIMS, D. V. , n. d. A Brief on MNCs inside pages, s. l. : s. n. BRIMS, D. V. , n. d. A Brief on MNCs inside pages, s. l. : s. n. Nirav, S. , 2012. www. preservearticles. com. [Online] Available at: http://www. preservearticles. com/2012020122380/emergence-of-mncs-in-a-historical-perspective. html [Accessed 20 09 2012]. Thompson, G. F. , n. d. Fordism, Post-Fordism and the Flexible System of Production, Virginia: s. n. Thompson, G. F. , n. d. Fordism, Post-Fordism and the Flexible Sytem of Production , Virginia: s. n.

Read more

Business Analysis of the Ford Motor Company

Since sound business decisions rely on timely access to the right information. Ford Financial Europe has a large data and needed a scheme that could help it create, design and manage critical information regarding the sale of automotive finance contracts to support planned decisions. As a result, the company decided to put into practice Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Analysis Services beside Business Objects Web Intelligence business intelligence tool. This mixture enables the company to give an account on critical management data drawn from varied geographical locations effectively and quickly. Introduction

This is a report that is going to look at the Company of Ford Motor. It will look into details of industrial and company background through analysis of the automobile industry, and the corporate values of the company. It is going to look at the company’s mission statement through evaluation and giving possible recommendation of corporation mission statement. Its corporate philosophy is going to be discussed including the analysis of the internal environment which includes employees, directors and cultural diversity. It is also going to look at the organizational goals including SWOT analysis and the organizations goals and objectives.

Mission statement This is a written statement that incorporates an institutions philosophy, responsibility and scope. For GM, its mission is to identify forward looking statement that defines the current judgment about future events and these are ability of GM to realize production efficiencies, to achieve reductions in costs a result of the turnaround restrictions, to implement capital expenditure and to reduce health care cost Company History This company was started on June 16, 1903 by Henry Ford. He was the pioneer who started what is now one of the world’s largest business corporations.

Ford Company is one of the oldest automobile manufacturers and thus they have to create and develop many new views and ideas in order to adopt in the changing word. It was the first company that introduced the fastest moving assembly line in the year 1913 this is the Model T which significantly reduced assembly time contributing to the fact that the company was producing 50% of all cars at the end of 1913 in U. S. The assembly line produced was put to use during the World War 2 and was put on the bomber planes which produced one bomber every hour contributing to giving the allies an advantage (Sorensen, 1978).

Ford in 1922 purchased the Lincoln Motor Company so as to appeal to the luxury market. They later on formed Mercury in the year 1939 for producing middle class cars but in 1945 it was combined with Lincoln. Corporate Philosophy The company’s corporate philosophy is put to build not just better products, but better communities it is also to serve society with superior quality that are best today and still will be better tomorrow. This company also offers a wealth of variety to the automotive consumer.

It was also developed in workshops that were specially organized for the purpose when the joint venture was set up (Simon ; Schuster, 1953). Drawing on this philosophy vision and values have been set up that will define their corporate identity, guide, their actions and pointing a way to the future. This philosophy will look at the company’s success that they believe is based on the people’s attractive working environment, willingness to change and balance of freedom and responsibility to create the basis to allow individuals to reach their full potential in work and private life (Donald, 2003).

The innovative product side will help in advancing manufacturing technologies and assuming that they are the leading provider for power train systems and services. The philosophy stresses on values in everything so as to create an entrepreneurial and socially responsible company culture basing its skills on being fair, having the will to take any responsibility, being respectful, honest, consistent, passion and trustworthy (Simon ; Schuster, 1953). They take pride in the products, their services and processes that will continually improve standards of quality and excellence.

Fair and reliable relations with business partners is another that will lead to mutual success and sustainable growth and lastly they believe that the company’s success is the energy that drives to achieve an excellent image, profitability to the supplier and employer of choice. Analysis of internal environment The paper starts by looking at the firms activities which is divided into a series of value creating steps which includes both individual activities as well as the interrelationships among activities within the firm, customers and alliance partners.

The environment consist of inbound logistics which is associated with receiving, storing and distributing of its input products which includes material handling, inventory control, warehousing, return to suppliers and vehicle scheduling. This will be reached at if the employees are given important training on their field or outside their field this will lead to the employees working closely with customers. The activities here are divided into tangible resources which include established manufacturing facilities globally, highly trained managers and R;D facilities.

The intangible one is a well known brand name associated with Industrial Revolution and American Dream. Its capability is to manufacture sufficient number of cars to meet demands globally and being capable of providing innovative products with Safety and Convenience features. Ford Core Competencies like Strong Engineering Capabilities and a competitive Advantage of strong brand portfolio of strategic alliances formed with auto manufacturers in different countries and a large network of dealers and suppliers globally.

The company’s value chain should consist of Inbound Logistics like Receiving, warehousing and input control of materials or parts; Operations like transforms inputs of raw material and parts to finished automobile and lastly the outbound Logistics which holds activities involved in delivering the automobile to customers and order fulfillment. Board of directors William Ford Jr is the Executive Chairman, Chief Operating Officer, Chairman of Finance Committee, Chairman of Operating Committee, Member of Environmental ; Public Policy Committee and Member of Long-Term Incentive Compensation Award Committee.

His compensation data is not available since he is the major shareholder. Alan Mulally is the Chief Executive Officer, President, Executive Director, Member of Long-Term Incentive Compensation Award Committee and Member of Finance Committee. He has an annual compensation of $6,006,154 with a restricted stock award of $3,178,581 and a total number of stock options of $5,680,672 (FMC, 2007). Lewis Booth is the Chairman of Ford of Europe, Executive Vice President of Ford – Europe Operations, Member of Operating Committee, Non-Executive Chairman of Volvo Cars Division, Executive Vice President of Volvo and Director of Land Volvo Brand.

He has a total annual compensation of $1,395,056 and a total number of stock options of $1,304,865. Michael Bannister is the Executive Vice President, Executive Chairman of Ford Motor Credit Co and Chief Executive Officer of Ford Motor Credit Company. He has an annual compensation of $1,147,931 and a total number of stock options of $2,858,700 (FMC, 2007). Mei-Wei Cheng is the Group Vice President and Executive Chairman of Ford Motor China.

Robert Graziano is the Head of Quality, Head of Research ; Development, Head of Sales ; Marketing, Vice President, Chief Executive Officer of Southern Africa Operations, Chief Executive of Ford Motor China, President of Southern Africa Operations, President of Ford Motor China, Executive Vice President of Mazda Motor Corporation, Group Managing Director of Southern Africa and Director of Mazda Motor Corporation (FMC, 2007). Edsel Ford II is the Consultant, Director, Member of Environmental ; Public Policy Committee and Member of Finance Committee.

Has a total calculated compensation of $619,668 John Bond is the Consultant, Director and Member of Finance Committee (Langworth, 1987). Other members include: Homer Neal of Ford Motor Company who earns a total compensation of $131,866, Ellen Marram of KBL Healthcare Acquisition Corporation, Richard Manoogian of Masco Corp whose salary is $1,500,000 and has a stock option of $6,312,228, Stephen Butler of Cooper Industries Ltd whose total annual compensation is $280,856, Jorma Ollila M. Sc. (Eng. ), M. Sc. (Pol. Sci. ), M. Sc. (Econ. ), Ph of Sustainable Performance Group AG. John Thornton of Laura Ashley Holdings plc.

Irvine Hockaday Jr of Sprint Nextel Corp. Kimberly Casiano of Casiano Communications, Inc. Gerald Shaheen of U. S. Chamber of Commerce and William Ford Jr. of Ford Motor Company of New Zealand Limited whose financial details are omitted (FMC, 2007). Corporate culture The management has been in the works for two years and Ford Motors’ Business Leadership Initiative program is still in process, from the top down under each level of Ford’s 55,000 managers, have been put to train those with level below them, in business matters and how to have them put into 100day action items or projects with expected outcomes.

The program point is to make a large company more receptive to customers and in turn make a difference to the bottom line (Donald, 2003). The Motors Company is determined to upgrade or close facilities in order to be more profitable. It is working diligently with the UAW in these efforts. Part of the plan is to get sub-assemblies from suppliers for the ford motors to assemble less of each vehicle, thus minimizing the need for as many machines or people. The company’s hope is to make more income on new full-size pickups and SUVs but predictions have to ride out reality (Simon ; Schuster, 1953).

The Ford Company is believed to be considering finding other suppliers for its vehicle parts that are normally supplied by two striking Flint, Michigan plants. Experts and parts suppliers consider Ford to have major problems in an attempt to restart operations at its Flint vehicle plants. Rumors had existed that the car maker was in preparation to reopen up to 10 vehicle-assembly plants (Langworth, 1987). SWOT analysis SWOT Analysis of a Company Profile is an essential source for top-level company data and information.

The report tries to look into the company’s key business arrangement and operations, history and products, and provides summary analysis of its key revenue lines and strategy. This is a tool of strategic and marketing analysis which was invented years ago. These are facts that can be used to gauge the degree of “fit” between the organisation’s strategies and its environment, and to suggest ways in which the organisation can profit from strengths and opportunities and shield itself against weaknesses and threats (Adams, 2005). Strengths

It is used to determine an organisation’s strong points which should be from both internal and external customers. As strength it is a resource advantage relative to competitors and the needs of the markets a firm serves or expectations to serve. It has a characteristic competence when it provides to the firm a comparative advantage in the marketplace. Strengths come up from the possessions and competencies available to the firm (Simon ; Schuster, 1953). Weaknesses It is used to determine an organisation’s weaknesses, not only from the company’s point of view, but also more importantly, from customers.

Although it may be difficult for an organisation to accept its weaknesses, it is best to handle the bitter reality without procrastination since a weakness is a limitation or deficiency in one or more resources or competencies relative to competitors that impedes a firm’s effective performance (Donald, 2003). Opportunities The other major factor is to look into how organisations can proceed to grow within the marketplace. After all, opportunities are everywhere to include all the changes in technology, government policy and social patterns. An opportunity is a major fact in a firm’s environment.

Key trends are some of the opportunities in identification of a previously overlooked market segment, changes in competitive or regulatory circumstances, technological changes, and improved buyer or supplier relationships which could help represent opportunities from the firm. Threats No company would like to think about threats, but they still have to face them, despite the fact that they are external factors that are out of our control, for example, the recent economic threat in U. S, is very important to be equipped and face threats even during unstable times.

A threat is the main unfavourable state in a firm’s environment and also they are key impediments to the firm’s current or desired position. The entrance of new competitors, increased bargaining power of key buyers or suppliers, slow market growth, new or revised regulations could represent threats to a firm’s success and technological changes (Donald, 2003). Since opportunities and threats normally arise from the environment and therefore SWOT analysis needs to take into account the results of a full environmental analysis.

It is however impossible to gauge what an organisation’s real strengths are until you have assessed its strategic resources that is since strategic resources and strength are the same thing. There is a tendency for companies to put down anything vaguely favourable that they can think of about a company as strength. This temptation needs to be resisted because strength is not strength unless it makes a genuine difference to an organisation’s competitiveness. The same is true of weaknesses.

The help of SWOT is comparing and matching of specific internal and external issues, which develops a strategic matrix and which makes sense. It is necessary to know that the inside factors are within the control of organisation, such as marketing, operations, finance, and other areas. On the other hand, the external factors are out of the organisation’s control, such as political and economic factors, technology, competition, and other areas (FMC ; GMC,2002). Organizational goals and objectives

It is said that the bigger you become, the more difficult the task of managing all the pieces of a global operation becomes and since Ford Motor Company is the second-largest company in the United States it’s a race where every business decision and every dollar count. The objective is to trim down, by one-half, the duration it takes us to develop or enhance their software applications and to reduce their costs by 30 percent. It needs to be more nimble and responsive to the needs of a business environment where the pace is constantly increasing so as to step up the speed of delivering IT capabilities to the company (FMC & GMC,2002).

To create the organizational structure is also important in making make sure it has qualified professionals to do the work without putting undue strain on its own internal staff resources. Ford turned to an approach called managed sourcing to mean partnering with specialized IT vendors to provide the professional services required to manage the company’s massive technology systems. These vendors practice straight with Ford employees, who define the business necessities of the systems and manage the process to make sure that the desired results are achieved.

The other is planning for the future which the AMCs represent a new approach to applications support at Ford. in place of being given only one application, the staff of IT professionals is part of a pool that will be assigned on an as-needed basis to support all Ford applications (FMC, 2007). The staff will actively manage the request portfolio by prioritizing requests for application changes in line with business goals. They also will look for ways to improve reply times and advocate the retirement or substitution of applications on a worldwide basis that may not be meeting current needs.

Ford expectation is to implement the AMCs by the end of the year 2000 and has established ambitious goals and specific targets for completion. Accomplishing events will be measured in several ways, including the function points. Function points will quantify the functionality which system provides to the user, based primarily on the logical design of the system rather than the technology with which the system was built. Ford plans to put into use function points and to assess the success of its new IT strategy across all of its business objectives, ranging from speed of delivery to continuous improvement.

They put their strategies through IT application that will deliver the hoped-for results, largely because of a successful pilot program that began in November 1997 and has been folded into the AMC structure. The pilot gives insights into the types of efficiencies that could be gained by applying a managed sourcing approach on a larger scale across the company, which was helpful in establishing goals for the AMCs. Financial Information Ford had their third consecutive year of profitability in the fourth quarter of 2005. They recorded a full year net income of $2 billion or $1. 04 per share.

The company has recorded net losses of $1. 2 billion or 64 cents per share, $123 million or 7 cents per share, and $5. 8 billion or $3. 08 per share respectively (FMC, 2007). The previous 3 years were much brighter for Ford. From 2003 to 2005 Ford actually recorded numbers in the black for earnings before interest and tax. They made $9,060,000,000 in 2003, $11,924,000,000 in 2004 and $963, 9,000,000 in 2005. Ford recorded profits of $921,000,000, $3,634,000,000 and $2,228,000,000 with earnings per share of $0. 27, $1. 91 and $1. 08 respectively from 2003 through to 2005 (McClellan ; Dom, 2006).

In comparison with the major import companies, there is a sharp contrast. Honda, Nissan, and Toyota all posted profits in the most recent quarter, while stealing market share from the North American automakers (FMC, 2007). The management report The board of directors bears the responsibility for the integrity of the official financial statement. The management committee uses facts collected by the independent audit firm. They will collect all financial information from all the sub firms of Ford Company and access the reality of the information presented before taking it to the board of directors (Jardim, 2006).

References

Donald, W. (2003). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History. Yale: Yale University Press. Ford Motor Company (FMC). (2007).

Service Manual By Technical Support Operations. Detroit: Ford Motor Company Technical Publications. Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation (FMC ;GMC). (2002).

Motor Information Systems Auto Repair Manual: DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Detrit: Motor Information Systems. Jardim, A. (2006).

The First Henry Ford: A Study in Personality and Business Leadership. Michigan: MIT Press. Langworth, R. (1987). Complete History of Ford Motor Company. Detroit: Random House Value Pub. McClellan, J ; Dom, H. (2006).

Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Upper Sandle River: JHU Press. Simon and Schuster. (1953).

Ford at Fifty: 1903-1953. N. Y. : McGraw. Sorensen, L. (1978). The Ford Road: 75th Anniversary, Ford Motor Company, 1903-1978. New York: Silverado Pub. Co

Read more

Honda Civic vs. Ford Focus

Ever thought about buying a new, gas saving, family car? If somebody needs some great information about two types of cars, which are the 2010 Honda Civic Hybrid and the 2010 Ford Focus Sedan, then here it is. The quality of the car needs to be comfortable when riding in it. Also, the car needs to get good gas mileage, have a decent price, and have an exceptional warranty. The main thing is to make sure the car has excellent performance specifications and is safe. In these next paragraphs a person should be able to make a decision about which car will suit your families needs best.

Most people want to be comfortable when riding in a car. Comfort in a vehicle can save somebody from getting a sore bottom or anything like that. The Ford Focus and the Honda Civic both have a five-seating capacity. The front has two seats and the back has three seats. The Ford Focus has a little more cargo space than the Honda Civic. The Honda Civic has a little more head and leg room in the front seat of the car, whereas the Ford Focus has more head and leg room in the backseat for your passengers. (2010 Honda Civic) There is an article that was used for my information says that the Ford Focus has uncomfortable rear seating. 2010 Ford Focus) In another article it says that the front seats are comfortable, but it is a matter of personal opinion. (2010 Ford Focus: Overview) The Ford Focus has a compass, external temp, trip computer, stability and traction control, and Bluetooth that the Honda Civic does not have. The Honda Civic just has what is in both cars. There is air conditioning, power windows, tilt steering, cruise control, AM/FM radio, CD player and an alarm in both of the cars. (2010 Honda Civic) While looking up articles, there were not any that said the Honda Civic had uncomfortable seating.

However, any article that says the seats are uncomfortable could be wrong. It does not matter how the seats feel to anybody else, it is how the seats feel to each individual that matters. Gas prices are outrageous; so why not get a gas saving car? Living in a hilly/mountain area the gas mileage of a car will not be as good as what it could be. The gas mileage of a car will be better in an area that has a lot of flat land where a person has to drive a little ways to get where they are going. Gas mileage is that way with any vehicle, but when driving around and topping and starting every five minutes, it will use more gas than just driving around for about thirty minutes. The Honda Civic’s gas mileage for the city and highway is approximately twenty-five and thirty-six, while the Ford Focus’s city and highway gas mileage is approximately twenty-four and thirty-five. (2010 Honda Civic) There is barely any difference in the two cars gas mileage, so which ever car a person picks they will get good gas mileage. Most everybody likes a deal when buying anything. Well when buying a car everybody wants to try to find the best deal possible.

Whether it is a family car or a one person car, it needs to suits your needs. In choosing a car, evaluating the price of the cars is probably a smart thing to do. Look to make sure the cars that are being looked at stay within your budget and make sure the car has a good warranty for the value of your money. The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the Honda Civic is $15,455 – $25,340. The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the Ford Focus is $16,290 – $18,780. (2010 Honda Civic vs) The Honda Civic does cost more than the Ford Focus, but they are about the same price even though the Ford Focus is a little cheaper.

The warranty of the new car is very important. Everybody should make sure that they have a good warranty so if anything messes up on your new car; it can be fixed for cheaper than what it would be without warranty. The Honda Civic and the Ford Focus warranties are for three years or 36,000 miles. Both have a power train warranty of five years or 60,000 miles. Also, both cars have a rust-through warranty of five years or unlimited miles and they both have a roadside aid warranty of three years or 36,000 miles. Remember all the warranties say the year or mile, but mean whichever one comes first. Compare Cars) Some cars do not come with very good warranty, but the car needs to come with as much warranty as necessary to suit your needs. If it does not, then that car is simply not the right car to buy. When buying a car, make sure to evaluate the performance specifications that are on the car. How the car performs is important to just about everybody because nobody wants their new car to mess up on them right after they buy it. The Ford Focus is almost the same size as the Honda Civic, but the Ford Focus is just a bit larger than the Honda Civic. 2010 Honda Civic vs) The Honda Civic and the Ford Focus both are front wheel drive and four wheel drive power brakes. The Honda Civic has electric rack and pinion steering, whereas the Ford Focus has power rack and pinion steering. (2010 Ford Focus-4dr) The Honda Civic’s engine is 110 at 6,000 RPM and the Ford Focus’s engine is 140 at 6,000 RPM. The spare tires for both cars are compact. Also, the front and rear wheels on the both cars are made of aluminum. The Honda Civic has fifteen inch tires on the front and rear tires (2010 Honda Civic Hybrid – 4dr), while the Ford Focus has tires that are seventeen inches on the front and rear tires. 2010 Ford Focus-4dr) Here, the only reason that the Ford Focus is better than the Honda Civic is because of the power rack and electric rack. My family has never owned a car that has not had power rack and pinion steering, so that is why we would prefer the Ford Focus over the Honda Civic. Safety in a vehicle means a person’s life. Before buying a car, check out the safety features that vehicle has on it. The safety features in a vehicle is very important to everybody. So here is a little bit about these two cars safety.

The Honda Civic and the Ford Focus both have front side airbags, curtain side airbags, antilock brake system, and antiskid system. The Honda Civic has traction control that the Ford Focus does not have. (2010 Ford Focus: Overview) The Ford Focus has dual front airbags and tire-pressure monitor that the Honda Civic does not have. (2010 Honda Civic: Overview) A tire-pressure monitor does help from having a blow out and the dual front airbags would probably make the passenger feel safer. Comparing, what the Honda Civic has over the Ford Focus makes the Ford Focus better.

Buying a new car can be very overwhelming. Researching a few kinds of cars helps to narrow it down to the two cars you are leaning more towards purchasing and can make it a lot easier. The Ford Focus Sedan is better because of all the points made in this paper. Although the Honda Civic Hybrid is a good car too, the Ford Focus Sedan is what is needed to suit my family’s needs. This paper hopefully helped somebody make a decision on buying one of these types of cars or helped somebody out on what to look for when buying a new vehicle.

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp