Facebook, Microsoft, Google, IBM, And Amazon Come Together To Understand AI

“Once the machine thinking method has started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers,” Alan Turing said in 1951 at a talk entitled “Intelligent Machinery: A heretical theory,” presented at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. “At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control.” Little did he know that this statement would haunt humans for years to come.

Every five to six years, artificial intelligence undergoes a revival. Given that this time is AI’s third or fourth coming, we wait to see if it surpasses where it lacks every time – acceptance.

The debate of machines taking over humans seems to be reaching no end. The discourse re-kindles every time again when renowned scientists like Stephen Hawking voice caution saying, “Computers are likely to overtake humans in intelligence at some point in the next 100 years. But we also the big boys of tech industry like Elon Musk and Sam Atman how beneficial this technology could be for the human species as a whole. All we need to do is understand it.

Am attempt towards this understanding is being taken by the giants in tech industry who are forming an alliance to advance public understanding of artificial intelligence technologies (AI) and formulate best practices on the challenges and opportunities within the field. Named the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to Benefit People and Society (Partnership on AI), the non-profit organization will be lead by Amazon, DeepMind/Google, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft.

AI technologies hold tremendous potential to improve many aspects of life, ranging from healthcare, education, and manufacturing to home automation and transportation. Having an understanding of the same, these big firms want to give AI a new approach which they would bring through rigorous research, the development of best practices, and an open and transparent dialogue.

The current members of the non-profit organisation include Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research group head Yann LeCun, Google’s DeepMind co-founder and head of applied AI Mustafa Suleyman, Google Research senior scientist Greg Corrado, Microsoft technical fellow Eric Horvitz, Amazon director of machine learning Ralf Herbrich, and IBM research scientist Francesca Rossi.

What will PAI do?

The objective of the Partnership on AI is to address opportunities and challenges with AI technologies to benefit people and society. Together, the organization’s members will conduct research, recommend best practices, and publish research under an open license in areas such as ethics, fairness, and inclusivity; transparency, privacy, and interoperability; collaboration between people and AI systems; and the trustworthiness, reliability, and robustness of the technology. It does not intend to lobby government or other policymaking bodies.

The organization’s founding members will each contribute financial and research resources to the partnership and will share leadership with independent third-parties, including academics, user group advocates, and industry domain experts. There will be equal representation of corporate and non-corporate members on the board of this new organization. The Partnership is in discussions with professional and scientific organizations, such as the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), as well as non-profit research groups including the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2), and anticipates announcements regarding additional participants in the near future.

Read more

Business parlance

In business parlance, management involves four distinct functions: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. These functions are directly affected by the level of technology and innovation within a company, which, in turn, shape how an organization chooses to deal with internal and external factors. This document utilizes Microsoft Corporation, the largest software development organization (Barton, Shenkir and Walker, 2002), as a case in point. Technology. Planning has been considered one of the most important concerns of business managers.

Technology affects this particular function of management through Microsoft having to take into consideration the current technology being espoused by rivals in the industry, in order so that the company may come up with their own versions and therefore keep their market share intact. Such management planning tools which technology plays an important part of are relational database software, spreadsheet software and executive databases (Alkhafaji, 2003); products which Microsoft themselves manufacture and use.

The organizing function is affected by technology through better business systems, in which Microsoft should incorporate within the confines of their organization in order to achieve systematization of business processes. With respect to technology and organizing, one cannot ask Microsoft for more. If they sell products that prove to be of use to businesses and individuals, then it follows that they have the necessary in-house technology that all their resources can afford. Some examples include project scheduling software, groupware and internet browsers.

Regarding the leading function which basically has to do with communicating with employees, technological creations such as electronic mail software, phone systems software and teleconferencing systems software enable for communication within Microsoft. Concerning the controlling function, software such as accounting systems software, metrics monitoring systems software, system activity monitoring software and CEO database and monitoring software allows for accountability within the Microsoft organization, all of which are products of technology.

Read more

Egalitarian Companies Are More Innovative

Discuss the pros and cons of the following statement: “Egalitarian companies are more innovative. ” An egalitarian company exists with equal human rights for all employees, regardless of social economic income, race, origin, gender, religious or political beliefs. Most people view egalitarian as fair as it creates a friendly working environment. an egalitarian work environment doesn’t depend on job descriptions and traditional management roles. This allows employees to function as a more inclusive work force. it promoted shared responsibilities among workers and promotes team work.

An egalitarian work environment doesn’t depend on job description and traditional management roles to define employees and structure workforce. This allows employees in a company to exist without hierarchies and function as more inclusive workforce. Employees may feel more appreciated and contribute ideas to the company’s growth and overall direction and operational strategies. Pros. In organizations, hierarchy is more than just a human predisposition, it’s a practical necessity. The purpose of an organization is to mobilize diverse talents and abilities in order to produce goods and services.

In the modern world, we have technology to multiply this output. We need to divide up tasks, match them with the right people (since not all people have equal skills), and then integrate them for customers. Somebody has to provide the direction to make this happen effectively at every stage and level. This is where the role of the supervisor, manager, team leader, or executive comes in. Without this guidance and decision function, we would have disorganization. There are many, companies that have long shown success through their structure. In certain market environments there need strict adherence to standards, requirements, policies, etc. ierarchies can help ensure top quality is always present. ie health facilities. Additionally, utilizing specialists or experts inside an organization or network, is natural. Not everyone can do everything. Boundaries can be more permeable so that people can share information, resources, and ideas to make the whole enterprise more successful. Making this happen is never easy, but it can’t be done at all without leaders who have the authority to break the ties between groups and individuals who have different visions of what should be done. There is no better way to do this than through traditional hierarchy.

Along with that, it may not be cost, time or quality abiding to let everyone roam free without direction. The right blend and balance for any one particular organization will depend on the pace of change in the industry, the capabilities of the employees, and the resources available to take action. The need for leadership will always exist. There will always be a need for visionaries, people who can influence others, and people who can execute. Cons. While hierarchies were the favored form of organizing in the past, they should not be the key design in business.

Hierarchies, characterized by tight controls, centralized decision-making, and clear-cut job descriptions, often alienate employees and promote an individualistic work mentality. Traditional management systems are increasingly a vanishing breed, no longer valuable or relevant in today’s increasingly human-capital-centric workplace. The lack of job descriptions, flatter organizations, and flexible approach would likely fit better for organizational environments that are new, immature, or very rapidly evolving. With a lightning fast pace of change, constraining job descriptions may hold individuals back from taking action.

Leadership is vital in driving forward principles that can be acted upon. With visionary approaches that allow for empowered action, many great things can be achieved. Identify three organizations that you perceive as being innovative. Organization innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideas in an organization. The three organizations that I perceive as being innovative are; Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. All three companies have managed to be creative and sustain a competitive advantage. They have also maintained quality and form of their service and product overtime.

Identify the innovation and its impact upon each organization. Facebook innovation has attracted billions of members to their site. They have a continuing innovation of interactive face book communication that has created patterns of innovation overtime. Facebook has created a market competitive advantage. Facebook has used distinctive competitiveness to sustain its innovation and avoid duplication by competitors. Face book have maintained an incremental change by having their members sign in for free and also by improving the Facebook performance as a dominant website.

Facebook is a social networking service and website. As of January 2012, Facebook had more than 800 million active users. Users must register before using the site, after which they may create a personal profile, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. Additionally, users may join common-interest user groups, organized by workplace, school or college, or other characteristics, and categorize their friends into lists such as “People from Work” or “Close Friends”.

Face book innovation as attracted 7 billion user’s worldwide. It has also launched a Spanish version. Apple, one of the greatest innovators continue to launch new technology i. e. IPhones, iPods. Etc. over time Apple continues to create newer sustainable technology. Apple Inc. together with subsidiaries offers designs, manufactures, and markets mobile communication and media devices, personal computers, and portable digital music players; and sells related software, services, peripherals, networking solutions, and third-party digital content worldwide.

Its products and services include iPhone, iPad, Mac, iPod, Apple TV, the iOS and Mac OS X operating systems, iCloud, and various accessory and support offerings, as well as a range of consumer and professional software applications. As of September 24, 2011, the company had 357 retail stores, including 245 stores in the United States and 112 stores internationally. Apple Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Cupertino, California. Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports a range of software products and services for various computing devices worldwide.

The company’s Windows & Windows Live Division segment offers PC operating system that primarily includes Windows 7 and Windows Vista operating systems; Windows live suite of applications and Web services; and Microsoft PC hardware products. Its Microsoft’s Server and Tools segment provides Windows Server operating systems, Windows Azure, Microsoft SQL Server, SQL Azure, Windows Intune, Windows Embedded, Visual Studio, Silverlight, system center products, Microsoft consulting services, and product support services.

This segment also offers enterprise consulting services; and training and certification to developers and information technology professionals, as well as builds standalone and software development lifecycle tools for software architects, developers, testers, and project managers. The company provides online information and content through Bing, MSN portals, and adCenter, as well as Atlas online tools for advertisers. Its Microsoft Business Division segment offers Microsoft office; Microsoft Exchange; Microsoft SharePoint; Microsoft Lync; Microsoft Dynamics ERP and CRM; and Microsoft Office Web Apps, as well as office 365, n online service, offering Microsoft Office, Exchange, SharePoint, and Lync. The company’s has created great inovative Entertainment and Devices Division segment provides Xbox 360 entertainment platform, which includes the Xbox 360 gaming and entertainment console, Kinect for Xbox 360, Xbox 360 video games, Xbox LIVE, and Xbox 360 accessories; Mediaroom, an Internet protocol television software; and Windows Phone that provide Microsoft Office and Xbox LIVE functionality.

It markets and distributes its products and services through original equipment manufacturers, distributors, and resellers, as well as through online. Microsoft was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. (www. mocrosoft. com) William Chuck,(management) 2010 Custom Edition.

Read more

Can These Scooters Cut Down Commutes and Air Pollution?

Horace Luke hopes the electric Smartscooters from his Taipei-based company, Gogoro, will help snuff out some of Taiwan’s air pollution, as well as provide a fun and efficient ride for consumers. The industrial country has high levels of PM2.5 (particulate matter at 2.5 micrometers), pollution caused by decades of heavy manufacturing and unfettered vehicle exhaust—particularly from motorbikes.

Gogoro, founded in 2011 by CEO Luke and CTO Matt Taylor, rolled out its scooters in July. The gorgeously designed, fully customizable bikes go from zero to 30 mph in about four seconds and top out at 60 mph, all without a single belch of emissions. Powered by an electric drivetrain and a pair of swappable lithium-ion batteries, the scooter connects to the driver’s smartphone and the cloud so that its performance can be continually analyzed and improved. And when the batteries wear down—as they’re likely to do every 60 miles or so—the driver can simply pull over to a roadside charging kiosk (a “GoStation”) to grab fresh power cells and drop off used ones for recharging. All this at a $4,100 price tag (plus a battery lease agreement) that leaves the competition in the dust.

Smart mode analyzes riding patterns to optimize power and save energy.

“We want to create excitement around consumer products that are going to hit the heart of a 20- or 25-year-old as they’re getting out of college and making decisions about transportation,” Luke says. “Instead of buying a vehicle that would be burning gas for 10 years, they could go and use something that is electric.”

While this may sound like a pipe dream, the idea became a reality thanks to $50 million in venture backing—in particular, the $40 million invested by Taiwanese entrepreneur and billionaire Samuel Yin in a Series A round in 2011, which trimmed years off production and helped the company quickly ramp up to more than 450 employees.

Gogoro’s founders met while working at Microsoft; Luke was the original creative director at Xbox, and Taylor was developing mobile devices. They next worked together at HTC, racing to put smartphones into the hands of the masses. And while the iPhone ultimately beat their effort to market, the pair helped turn the once-unknown Asian computer company into a tech-industry giant. For his efforts, Luke was tapped to be the next CEO at HTC, but he declined in order to start Gogoro.

According to Taylor, Gogoro’s potential for success rides on the global energy economy. Gas prices are rising at a rate of 1 to 2 percent per year, plus inflation; meanwhile, the cost of electricity generation is going down. And companies like Tesla have helped drive down the per-kilowatt-hour cost of batteries.

After establishing itself in Taipei, Gogoro has its sights set on expanding to another megacity.

“We think that there’s a solid opportunity for providing insane, cutting-edge electric vehicle technology throughout Southeast Asia, at a price point that can be afforded through the region and be a synonymous replacement for what they’re driving today,” Taylor says.

Luke and Taylor’s hope is that young, design-conscious city drivers will choose Gogoro’s Smartscooters over dirty, soot-belching clunkers, which can emit more than five times the hydrocarbons of a car.

“Consumers are what’s going to change the world, not necessarily industries or governments,” Luke says. “They’re voting with their own money, their own habits—that is what’s going to change how people use energy in the world.”

Battery Hacks

Gogoro is banking on GoStation to power its long-term plan

Every city Gogoro enters will need a network of battery-swapping GoStations to support it. “The GoStation is one of the things that we really focused on,” says Matt Taylor, CTO. “How could we build this machine to be much more cost-effective than [past] battery-swap efforts?”

He likens the stations to soda machines; Gogoro will place them at various locations and service them regularly. “It’s what we think we need to get rid of the range anxiety that people have had with electrics to date,” he explains.

The batteries in the Smartscooter start to degrade after about five years, just like the lithium-ion cell that powers your smartphone. So to keep its scooters running as long as advertised, Gogoro plans to pull power cells from circulation once the battery reaches 80 percent of capacity and replace it with a fresh, new unit. The old batteries won’t be thrown away; Gogoro plans to repurpose them in an alternate energy market that the company is just now beginning to develop.

This might seem like an afterthought, but in fact, it’s a forward-thinking part of the business model. When consumers buy a Gogoro Smartscooter, they sign up for a monthly contract that gives them access to the batteries and battery-swapping GoStations. Gogoro actually owns the batteries and, according to the company’s math, these power cells pay for themselves after about 500 charges. So by the time they start losing their original capacity, in what is called their “second life,” they become pure profit.

“The work has started to build the pieces of hardware that are needed for us to take the battery voltages and convert those into the AC voltages that would be needed by a data center or to run a store or to back up a home,” Taylor says.

Gogoro estimates that it won’t have enough non-bike batteries to move forward with this plan for several years, but the wheels are in motion.

 

Read more

Features of Amazon

Amazon has attractors incorporated into their Website as this helps to increase the number of visitors to their website. Furthermore the more original the attractor, the more difficult it is likely to be imitated, so the more effective it is likely to be. Amazon plan ahead and incorporate changing attractors to keep visitors coming back to their website. The giving of free gifts and samples can be an effective attractor but out of the three websites I compared only Amazon gave away freebies, WWF offers free screen savers as an attractor.

The last usability feature I used to compare the three sites was any ‘other useful information’ I could think of, that would make an excellent website, things like career opportunities, how easy it is to get in contact with each company, whether their financial results are easily attainable and whether each of them has a mission statement.

Amazon got 69 points, WWF got 49 points and Directgov got 37 points. Directgov got the lowest amount of points in this section due to the fact that their website had no career opportunities listed, which I felt would have been a good idea because any visitors to the Directgov website might, after finding the information they required, want to find out about jobs in governmental departments. It was also very difficult to find contact details for the Directgov HR department and trying to find financial results was also difficult and time consuming.

Usability in a website is when you don’t need to pick up a manual to learn how to use it, that, to me, has great usability. When you can go to a website and navigate around without getting confused, that is usability. When something is usable you don’t have to think how to use it. This means there is very little to learn, which grows your confidence in the company that created the product. This confidence may ultimately lead to the purchasing of other products from that company because you’ve come to expect a high level of usability from past dealings.

Usability breeds familiarity which leads to a positive user experience. If there were two websites that contained exactly the same information and graphics, the website that was the most usable would win more sales every time. After comparing the usability features of Amazon, Directgov and WWF I found that Amazon had the best usability features of the three websites. Out of a possible 320 points, Amazon got 267 points, WWF got 249 points and Directgov got 206 points. The difficult thing with usability is that it’s subjective – you might think a horizontal menu on a web site is easy to use, while I might prefer a vertical one – so companies have to aim to make something usable for the overwhelming majority of people, because no matter what they do they’ll never please everyone.

Read more

Managing Service Quality

John Wanamaker, the legendary retailer, once said, “When a customer enters my store, forget me. He is king (Zulker, 1993 p. 3). ” He pioneered the concept of the American department store that turned shopping into an event. He was the first to open an in-store restaurant, installed electric lights and added elevators to his store. He also created February “Opportunity Sales,” July “Midsummer Sales,” and in 1878 the first “White Sale. ” In 1874, he printed the first-ever copyrighted store advertisement. When people found out what he advertised was true, business boomed and he earned the public’s trust (Zulker pp. 39-45).

Types of Customer Management “The customer is king” the shortened version of Mr. Wanamaker’s famous saying are four words that bring numerous connotations and have even more reactions. Whole businesses and philosophies such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Client Care Management (CCM) and Customer Service Management (CSM) have been created. New job titles such as Client Care Representative (CCR), Customer Service Representative (CSR) and Chief Customer Officer (CCO) have resulted. Customers get surveys about their experiences and numerous data is compiled by companies.

But what does this all mean? Is the customer really that valuable? Is the customer truly the king? Yes, because without the customer there would be no need for the business you are in. CRM is a broad based set of tools that includes soft skills training such as how to speak with a customer to find out their needs, management process creation which involves creating a framework to enable the answering of questions that relates to the customer and the company producing the required products that the customer will ultimately purchase.

CRM also involves technology that keeps statistics on who buys what product, which company manufactures that product and the brand name associated with it (http://www. crm-daily. com/). CSM attempts to manage the customer by having call centres, customer care centres, areas and staff trained to handle the various questions that customers may have about the product. However, CRM and CSM are only part of the solution. Companies cannot rely solely on systems, technology or even just the customer. Focus is required on all aspects from the internal customer being the general worker to the external customer that walks through the door.

Companies also need to focus on their type of management and what their organization is doing (Livingston, 1999 pp. 45-71). Customer Methodology One such framework attempts to incorporate methodical thinking and logic when approaching the customer. Customer Equity Framework (Rust, Ziethaml, and Lemon, 2000), which consists of value, brand, and relationship equity, and in which a customer, is treated like a financial asset such as a product and brand. What this framework tries to do is place the emphasis on the value of the customer by asking several questions: What is the value of the customer?

Is it easier to get a new customer or retain a current customer? What brand do the customers like to buy? Is the relationship equitable – meaning is the customer getting something of value and is the company getting something of value? The customer equity framework attempts to provide the necessary steps for providing the ability of both the customer and company to ultimately recognize the importance of the customer – why does the customer want the product and does the customer need the product; as well as, if the company is providing a product that satisfies the customers wants and needs.

By creating a framework the necessary steps in linking the role of customer and company can be further refined. Importance of Listening One such example of a corporation not understanding the role of the customer is that of computer giant IBM. IBM created an operating system named OS/2 Warp. They believed that the customer would realize this was a superior operating system to that of Microsoft Windows. They decided not to market the product (Lea, 1999). Windows won because Microsoft aggressively supplied its initial ‘early adopters’ – customers known as ‘beta-testers’ with advanced copies of the operating system.

They were able to test, play, and use the operating system and report any bugs they encountered to Microsoft. Microsoft’s business partners, such as Intel, built their CPU’s (central processing units) around Windows. While this may seemingly appear as a great marketing tactic, it really isn’t. Microsoft utilized what has been known since the beginning of mankind. Involve those around you and you will have believers. They will believe because they would have seen the results, product(s) or services that you wish to sell them.

Even more importantly if these early adopters cite any errors in the operating system and Microsoft credits their efforts, this will be seen by other customers as a huge corporation willing to listen (Green, 1998). The amount of goodwill this creates resonates for entire product cycles. You cannot buy that type of advertisement. However, Microsoft like so many companies before it has lost sight of this vision. They have in recent times ignored the value of the customer and have seen their huge market dominance decline as a backlash of customers – new and old have converted to a ‘friendly’ type of operating system known as ‘open source.

’ This allows the customer to customize the operating system and share their knowledge with others (Gaskin, 2005). While Microsoft is not the only culprit in its ignorance of its customers, every single company on every level suffers from the same symptoms: ignoring the customer, pretending to listen to the customer yet maintaining the company’s agenda, implementing solutions that appear to appease the customer but really don’t (Arygyris, 1998 pp. 101-119).

We shouldn’t forget that the general worker is also a customer. The general worker may actually tell their friends their company isn’t any good and to avoid them like the plague. While we may take this under judgment, this is still a lingering doubt to utilize that service or product. A work theory such as empowerment, which is supposed to enable workers to make decisions doesn’t really result in that being accomplished. Management feels that they are left out of the process and their power abated.

The worker feels that they aren’t really being listened to so why bother? This type of attitude sinks businesses and creates a toxic work environment (Goffee and Jones 1996 pp. 1-44). This type of double-speak characteristic also hampers a company’s ability to communicate properly with those they employ and the services and products they make. This translates into disgruntled employees and customers who notice the lack of enthusiasm the worker has for their job. Customer focus starts with those who deal with customers first.

Management can implement whatever policy they want, however, if their staff doesn’t have the prerequisites whether that is training, the right attitude or job satisfaction management’s frontline staff will not engage or succeed in customer satisfaction (Livingston, 1999 pp. 45-71). Over the past three years, four-fifths of America’s fastest growing companies have initiated important new programs aimed at customer expansion, customer retention, and/or customer profitability. A majority is planning to either greatly enhance an existing customer initiative, or launch a new one over the next 12 months.

There is an important payoff to this reaffirmation: those planning new customer-focused programs have achieved 46 percent faster revenue growth than their peers over the past five years, and are projecting 35 percent higher growth over the next 12 months according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers “Trendsetter Barometer,” (http://www. pwc. com). 73 percent of CEOs say their company understands the evolving needs of buyers in their market either “extremely well” (24 percent) or “very well” (49 percent).

This may be because a total of 81 percent have initiated important new programs focused on customer expansion, retention, and/or profitability over the past three years—with the typical company involved in two of three areas (http://www. pwc. com). Although more have launched programs to expand their customer base, retention initiatives are viewed as more effective–with customer profitability programs lagging, both in number and in management satisfaction. ‘Trendsetter’ CEOs suggest there is room for improvement in their customer focus:

Less than half (46 percent) are ‘extremely or very satisfied that their company is supporting customer requirements in the most cost-effective way. • Only 39 percent are ‘extremely or very’ satisfied with their company’s efforts to increase revenues among different customer segments. • Only 31 percent are ‘extremely or very’ satisfied with efforts for increasing profitability of customer segments PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ Paul Gulbin states, “Companies often build relationships with the wrong customers—or try to structure relationships with the right customers, but using the wrong capabilities.

Instead of attempting to provide full service to all, businesses can operate more profitably by focusing on products and services that relate to specific customer segments. Businesses should always be conscious of, and fine-tuning the alignment between customers and various business channels (http://www. pwc. com). ” If business success is based on customer relationships, then why is strategy still based on products? Wal-Mart is one such company that understands customer relationships. With sales of over 240 Billion and growing one cannot discount the power of the customer.

Wal-Mart achieved this by treating everyone – from the companies that manufacture the product to the companies that deliver the product – as their customer. Wal-Mart is the reason why we do not see packaging on such products as deodorant. Deodorant used to be packaged with lots of cardboard making it difficult to see the product. What Wal-Mart proposed to the various manufacturers of these products was to cut out the cardboard and let the customer see what they are buying. The packaging cost about a nickel to manufacture – pennies per package. Wal-Mart received some of this money and passed the savings to customers.

If you add up a nickel per package and multiply this by millions of product consumed by customers the savings add up. Wal-Mart was able to recognize this by watching how the customer initially reacted with packaging. The customer wasn’t terribly fond of it so Wal-Mart proposed getting rid of it (Fishman, 2006 pp. 47-98). Another area that Wal-Mart catered to their customers was in the development of their grocery aisle. Wal-Mart wanted to become a ‘one-stop shop’ where the customer shopped for everything at their stores. Wal-Mart applied the same approach to their grocery aisle. Wal-Mart now accounts for approximately 19% of grocery shopping.

Wal-Mart has overtaken the grocery business in Mexico and bought out former grocery giant ASDA in Great Britain (http://asdacares. gpalm. co. uk/) Wal-Mart employs numerous tactics to achieve this end. Chiefly it monitors what the customer is buying. If the customer only buys let’s say a certain size of garbage bag, Wal-Mart will target this by carrying only that type of garbage bag. This will vary from store to store and region to region (http://news. bbc. co. uk/2/hi/business/368430. stm). For example, Novartis worked with Wal-Mart to improve its customer focus. Wal-Mart allowed them access to buying habits of Novartis’ products.

What Novartis found astonished them. A certain brand called Benefiber was being sold, however, according to the data that Wal-Mart had, customers would prefer a bigger size because Benefiber was a superior product. However, Benefiber only had a 21-day supply and not more like their competitors. Novartis listened and created a 30-day supply. Novartis as a result of listening to the customers and analyzing specifically what they wanted now has a commanding 25% share of that market. They have even targeted consumers in certain states such as Florida that has a higher proportion of customers that use their product (http://www.

novartis. com/annual_reports/2004/customer_king. shtml). Customer Relationship Management, Customer Care Management, Customer Service Management and Customer Equity Framework are all great methods of understanding the behaviour of the customer. The essential question is if one method is better than the other. The outstanding answer seems to be no. No because all the methods incorporate many of the same ideas and share the same goal: to create an atmosphere where the customer is satisfied and becomes a repeat customer. These methods appear to work better together because they are focused on the whole customer process.

John Wanamaker made customer focus the most essential part of his company’s operation. However, as this paper has indicated only a handful of company’s recognize this fact. Wal-Mart has paid attention and dominates the market because it listened to its customers and provided the data necessary to its other customers – the manufacturers of the products – and this has resulted in superior customer satisfaction. The customer is king is very true and very much alive. Long live the customer!

References

  1. Argyris, Chris. 1998. ‘Empowerment: The Emperor’s New Clothes’, The Harvard Business Review, pp. 101-119.
  2. Bliss, Jeanne. 2006. Chief Customer Officer: Getting Past Lip Service to Passionate Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  3. Business: The Company File Wal-Mart bids for ASDA. [online]. http://news. bbc. co. uk/2/hi/business/368430. stm [cited 3 December 2006].
  4. Cochran, Craig. 2006. Becoming a Customer-Focused Organization, Paton Press, Chico, Ca.
  5. Craven, Robert. 2005. Customer is King: How to Exceed Their Expectations, Virgin Books, UK. Fishman, Charles. 2006. The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World’s Most Powerful Company Really Works–and How It’s Transforming the American Economy, The Penguin Group, New York pp. 47-98.
  6. Gaskin, James E. , 2005, ‘Microsoft vs. the world’, Network World, [Online] Available from http://www. networkworld. com/net. worker/columnists/2005/1114gaskin. html
  7. Goffee, Rob and Jones, Gareth. 1996. ‘What Holds the Modern Company Together? ’, The Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-44.
  8. Green, Heather. 1998. ‘OS/2 vs. Windows, All Over Again’, Business Week, [Online] Available at http://www. businessweek. com/microsoft/updates/up81117a. htm Hill, Nigel and Alexander, Jim. 2006. 3rd edn.
  9. Handbook of Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Measurement. Gower Publishing. Croft Road. http://www. crm-daily. com. [online]. [cited 3 December 2006]. http://www. pwc. com. [online]. [cited 3 December 2006].
  10. Lea, Graham. 1999. ‘IBM chief: Microsoft killed OS/2’, BBC News World Edition, [Online] Available from http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/business/the_company_file/368660. stm Livingston, Sterling J. , 1999. ‘Pygmalion in Management’, The Harvard Business Review pp. 45-71.
  11. Novartis. , 2004 Annual report 2004. [online]. Available from: http://www. novartis. com/annual_reports/2004/customer_king. shtml [cited 2 December 2006]. Rosenbluth, Hal F. , and Peters, Diane McFerrin. 1998. Care to Compete?
  12. Secrets from America’s Best Companies on How to Manage with People and Profits in Mind. Perseus Books. New York. Rosenbluth, Hal F. , and Peters, Diane McFerrin. 2002.
  13. The Customer Comes Second: Put Your People First and Watch ‘Em Kick Butt. HarperCollins. New York.
  14. Rust, Roland T. , Zeithaml, Valerie A. , Lemon, N. Katherine. 2000
  15. . Driving Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value is Reshaping Corporate Strategy, The Free Press, New York. Welcome to All About Our Website http://asdacares. gpalm. co. uk [online]. [cited 3 December 2006].
  16. Zulker, William Allen. 1993. John Wanamaker: King of Merchants. Eaglecrest Press. Wayne, PA.

Read more

Nintendo Entertainment Systems

Nintendo Entertainment Systems is a Japanese company that was introduced in 1985. With its first handheld gaming device, the Nintendo Game Boy, the Nintendo Company brought new life to an otherwise decaying gaming entertainment industry. The Game Boy was a revolutionary item, the first generation of portable entertainment. Nintendo has always upheld its initial position in the gaming industry by utilizing unique gaming console design and interface.

However, the gaming industry represents a highly competitive field globally, with companies such as Sony releasing their hand held PSP gaming console to counter the success of older Nintendo products. In 2001, Nintendo was actually in a weakening position, with its GameCube console facing intense competition from the Xbox. However, in 2006, Nintendo made an epic come back. The latest addition to their console line is the Nintendo Wii.

Wireless motion sensitive remote controllers, Wi-Fi capability, a touch sensitive Wii-fitness board; all this and a bundle of other features have made the Nintendo Wii the best selling latest generation console system in the world (Nintendo – Corporate Information ). The gaming industry has been characterized by two different types of value chain organization. Compared to Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo’s value chain has shown much more integration. Participants within Nintendo’s value chain are: game publishers, game developers, hardware manufacturers and finally retail outlets.

Most of Nintendo’s game software development is handled in-house, and the company issues a strictly limited number of licenses to game publishers. By keeping direct control over sales through licensing fees, Nintendo has been able to historically limit the market power of independent publishers and thus ensuring Nintendo games are not designed to be compatible with competing consoles (Dietl & Royer, 2003). This product-system specific process means that consoles are designed with exclusively compatible games, which creates value and increases the perceived quality of the game due to exclusivity.

Thus, Nintendo controls their whole value chain by implementing a system based on strict licensing policy. This is significantly different from the value chains of Sony, which follow a more open and disintegrated system structure (Dietl & Royer, 2003). However, ultimately Nintendo’s value chain organization is much more efficient than those of its competitors. Most software development is handled in house, and value creation activities are only outsourced under conditions where Nintendo does not have to sacrifice control over coordination of value chain activities.

However one disadvantage here is that a rigidly controlled, integrated value chain system is not conducive to innovation. Since Sony and Microsoft have more disintegrated value chains, there arises increased intra-system competition, where Sony can produce games for Microsoft and vice versa. This allows for greater research opportunities, boosting development. Nintendo’s core value has always rested on the company’s ability to innovate great design. To counter existing competition, the company has employed the Blue Ocean Differentiation Strategy to great success.

Their design philosophy has rested on simplicity while delivering the most entertaining, interactive experience possible (Olhava, 2006). Currently the gaming industry comprises of seventh generation consoles – Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony Playstation 3, and the Nintendo Wii (Turnbull, 2008). This generation of consoles goes beyond merely gaming to provide a holistic computing format, offering increased options for connectivity, web-browsing etc. Of these consoles, the Wii is currently the highest selling gaming device.

Thus in terms of value addition, additional features are a key focus. Internet connectivity and Wi-Fi is essential as gaming takes on the world wide web – global gaming events, competitions and communities all come together via the net. Motion sensitive hand held gaming devices take interactive games to a new level, opening an avenue for Wii Fitness – a new exercise platform that syncs with the console wirelessly. Works Cited Dietl, H. M. , & Royer, S. (2003, August 28). Intra-system competition and innovation in the international videogame industry .

Retrieved from InnovationL Management, Policy and Practice : http://www. utdallas. edu/~liebowit/emba/videogame. pdf Nintendo – Corporate Information . (n. d. ). Retrieved 2010 , from http://www. nintendo. com/corp/history. jsp Olhava, S. (2006, March). Nintendo: Looking Toward a Blue Ocean . Retrieved from http://www. gonintendo. com/files/IDC-Nintendo-Blue-Ocean. pdf Turnbull, D. B. (2008, June). Forensic Investigation of the Nintendo Wii: A First Glance . Retrieved from http://www. ssddfj. org/papers/SSDDFJ_V2_1_Turnbull. pdf

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