Presentation on theme: "Philips vs. Matsushita Assignment 2008 MBA/ENG 290G International Competition in Technology."— Presentation transcript:
Philips vs. Matsushita Assignment 2008 MBA/ENG 290G International Competition in Technology
Franck Formis, Robert Kong, Vincent Ng, Jameson Slattery, Chuohao Yeo
Porters diamond Philips Matsushita Factor Conditions Initial tradition of bolstering education Creation of the Common Market in 1968 altered factor s of production (land, labor, and capital) Not a multi-domestic market anymore Demand Conditions A single market New Transistor and circuit-based technologies Unmet demand Domestic throughout 20 th century Since 1998, investing in R&D partnerships and technical exchanges abroad Need to broader sources of innovation Growth through post-war boom Shift to export markets Earlier picture of emerging foreign demand
Porters diamond (contd) Philips Matsushita Related and supporting industries Principal agreement with GE in 1919 > World split into 3 spheres of influence By 1998, JV with Lucent to target digital revolution Improved performance Strategy, Structure, and Rivalry Early local production facilities Autonomous NOs Uncoordinated decisions A technology exchange and licensing agreement with Philips Licensing of the VHS format to other local manufacturers VCR segment ~ 45% of profits Highly centralized operations High dependence of subsidiaries Low competitiveness
Philips value chain 6 R&DComponentsManufacturing Marketing and sales Distribution Philips Research has labs around the globe Acquired from suppliers. E.g. critical lamp components for LCD panels Uses wholesales, retail stores to distribute products Also support limited direct shipments and plannings Red – heavy presence by Philips Blue – no or light presence by Philips Outsourced to low cost nations Maintain some manufacturing sites. E.g. lighting has sites in 25 countries Sales in more than 60 countries Do their own marketing
Matsushita value chain 7 R&DComponentsManufacturing Marketing and sales Distribution Mainly in- house and centralized, PDCC as an initiative to outsourced R&D Depend on third-party to acquire raw materials and components, e.g. steel, plastic, semiconductors etc. Cooperation with domestic and overseas mass- scale retailers. Red – heavy presence by Matsushita Blue – no or light presence by Matsushita Maintain huge amount of manufacturing plants in Japan, Asia and China Mainly carry out by subsidiaries located in various countries
Value chain comparison Centralized versus Decentralized Philips: Decentralized Depend on National organizations to respond to local market. Moving towards more centralized decision to cut cost and enjoy economies of scale Matsushita: Centralized Most decision made by headquarters and product division in Japan; local subsidiaries are mostly sales and marketing Moving towards localization to response better to customer demand and preference, PDCC is one of this initiative. Outsourcing versus in-house Philips: Outsourced Most manufacturing are outsourced or offshored to low-cost regions. Mostly retain R&D and sales and marketing only. Matsushita: In-house Directly control most manufacturing operations located in Japan, Asia and China
Challenges faced Philips – Too decentralized Matsushita – Too centralized Powerful and autonomous national organizations (NOs) Lack of company-wide strategic cooperation among NOs Lack of accountability in NO/PD matrix Management by technical & commercial consensus Slow to respond Inefficient production due to local production centers Product divisional structure Highly centralized services Centralized product development Subsidiaries too dependent on parent company Communications between overseas subsidiaries and parent company
Key restructuring steps Philips Matsushita Rein in NOs Centralize production Focus on core businesses Empower global product development Combine product divisions Remove historical organizational structure Empower regional operations Local customization of production Combine single product divisions Tap overseas/external innovation Remove historical organizational structure Name change to Panasonic
Outcome and difficulties faced Philips Matsushita Outcome Continuing low profit margins Competitiveness impacted Difficulties Conflicted local loyalties Restructuring for tomorrow using todays parameters Cost-cutting in key aspects, e.g. R&D Outcome Low profit margins Competitiveness impacted Difficulties Culture of lifetime employment Organizational resistance Difficult Japanese economic conditions in 1990s
Philips becoming the leading consumer electronics company Focused on one product rather than diversifying in early days Became leader in industrial research Competence Independent National organizations. adept at responding to country-specific market conditions Built their own technical capabilities to address local market conditions Enforce market specific research Businesses being supported by the research are responsible for the R&D budget Incompetence Product division had no real power NO ignores main companys welfare and focuses on local profit (Ex. V2000 case) Too many factories over the world Higher cost than simply outsourcing or having one area serves the global market
Matsushita displacing Philips Focused on VCR production High volume allowed them to slash price quickly License VHS format to other manufacturer Highly centralized system Competence Huge number of retail outlets 6x the outlets of rival Sony Assured sales volume and direct access to market trends and consumer reaction One-product-one-division system Internal competition Small business environment Main company acts as a bank
Matsushita displacing Philips (cont) Competence Under fund the central research laboratory Force it to compete for additional funding from divisions Give overseas sales subsidiaries more choice over the products they sold Incompetence Over-management Expatriate managers located throughout foreign subsidiaries Strongly-held commitments to lifetime employment Can not compete with companies who outsource to low-cost Asian countries Product divisions were not giving sufficient attention to international development Oversea subsidiary companies act little more than implementing agents
New US CE Companies: Apple, Chumby, Kindle, Microsoft, Roku & Tivo R&DComponentsManufacturing Marketing and Sales Distribution Each firm is involved in product design and development. Investments both in hardware and software R&D to differentiate their products. Leverage the R&D investments of component suppliers such as Intel, Nvidia, Samsung and others. Each firm develops and controls the SW components of their product stack. Each firm makes use of third-party HW components (processors, memory, discrete components, batteries, etc.). Apple acquired PA Semi and is now developing its own chips for iPhone, iPod and potentially Macs. All firms make use of contract manufacturers and/or ODM partners. Partners include: Asus Celestica Flextronics Foxconn Quanta Wistron Each company manages the branding, advertising and positioning of its products. Tivo makes use of distribution relationships with cable and satellite providers to market and sell its products and services to end users, in addition to Tivos direct marketing and sales initiatives. Apples distribution is heavily skewed toward direct (online, company- owned retail stores). Chumby is primarily available through online distribution – both direct and w/ partners. Kindle is primarily direct Xbox 360 through nearly all online and physical retail establishments. Roku & Tivo through direct and major online and physical retail. Tivo also distributes through DirecTV, Comcast, etc.
Apple in the MP3 Market Apple designs and controls the major consumer touch points in the MP3 market Device HW and SW, PC SW, and distribution Focus on ease of use and HW & SW elegance Apple has permeated the retail channels with iPods Advertising focus that drives demand & replacement Design as a differentiator DRM as a lock-in
Philips & Matsushita in the MP3 Market Any competitor is unlikely to unseat Apple by doing the same as Apple or making iterative improvements Philips and Matsushita should invest in the next generation of music consumption Prepare for the demise of the music-only device Shift to cloud-based subscription services available anytime to countless types of devices Explore business models of giving away the music to undermine Apples current business model
Changes at Philips More efficient production Concentrate production in International Production Centers Supplies multiple NOs worldwide Shift production to low-cost regions Outsourcing Link product development to market PD management moved to most competitive product markets R&D budget provided by supported businesses Rein in NOs PDs have formal product management responsibility Consider input from NOs, but have final decision Share re-purchase
Changes at Philips (contd) Focus on core businesses Close inefficient operations Sell non-core businesses Remove historical organizational structure Replace joint technical/commercial leadership with single management Replace PDs with general divisions Individual business units responsible for global profits
Changes at Matsushita Localization Use of local nationals in key positions Modification of processes to accommodate local equipment, requirements, components, technologies Local choice of offered product line Major headquarter operations relocated to local regional offices Integrate Japanese and overseas operation METC controls all foreign subsidiaries METC merged into parent company
Changes at Matsushita (contd) Tap overseas/external innovation Acquisition of innovative overseas companies Develop technology overseas and externally through partnerships and exchanges De-centralization Multi-product divisions to have control over multiple product plants Marketing performed by National/Panasonic
Philips Vs Matshuita Team 2: Jon Wiesner, Rachel Simon, David ExpositoCossio, Yanpei Chen, EmrehanKirimli
Porters Diamond: consumer electronics industry Factor Conditions Structure, Strategy, Rivalry Demand Conditions Related and Supporting Industries Japan: Large number of supporting industries: transportation, copiers, cameras, audio, appliances, musical instruments… Netherlands: medium/high number of supporting companies: canon, HP, TomTom, … Japan: Highly skilled labor force. Large number of engineers. Highly efficient production process. Traditions deeply rooted Netherlands: Highly unionized industry. Expensive workforce. Entrepreneurial culture. Small Country located in centre of Europe. Both countries large expenditures in R+D Japan: highly demanding and sophisticated internal buyers. Huge market. Netherlands: small internal market. Internationalization needed to survive. Japan: Centralized companies. Reluctance to delegate activities. Process innovation rooted in culture. Huge local rivalry Netherlands: Decentralized companies. Low local rivalry
Value Chain Comparison ServicesMarketingDistributionOperationsSupply Philips Matsushita Raw materials Lighting Parts DAP CE Medical Sys Manufacturing Lighting DAP CE Assembly Medical Sys Retail Lighting DAP CE Hospital Medical Sys One Philips brand Medical Sys Raw materials Components Home App Parts AVC Home App MEW Manufacturing Components AVC Home App MEW Retail AVC Home App MEW OEM & Self Use Components Merge brands into Panasonic Comparison Philips actively consolidating supplies Matsushita heavy focus on manufacturing Both are mainly retail with some enterprise Both do brand consolidation Philips trying to move in this direction
How they became leader: developed national organizations (NOs) that were independent, and specialized in local market demand for specific and diverse technologies. Philips Success Poor global strategy Strong National Organizations / Slow to market Strong R&D funding / Fragmented product line (no economies of scale) Adaptive to diverse markets / Loss of market shares to low wage outsourcing competitors Commitment to employees / Technologies lost in market flooded by competitors Reputation for quality / Common Market Competencies/Incompetencies
How they became leader: global scale approach of rapidly bringing a emerging technologies to saturate the market Competencies/Incompetencies Matsushitas Success Excess capacity Broad product line / Weak on innovationFast [follower] to market / Resistance by employees to structural change Strong culture, visionary leader / Dependant on center; loss of talent due to perceived overbearing top Centralized Japanese structure / High overhead Strong distribution system, high retail presence / 1989 crash
Both Philips and Matsushita have faced enormous challenges and multiple reorganizations in trying to manage global operations. Both have tried multiple organizational structures, but have encountered some of the following barriers Change and its Challenges Matsushita Cultural: lack of independent thinking by overseas subsidiaries Organization: legacy of product division structure Employees: tradition of lifetime employment Managerial: highly centralized management style Technological: over-reliance on declining products (TVs, VCRs, etc.) and lack of innovation Structural and Macroeconomic: economic malaise in Japan starting in the 1990s Philips Historical: legacy of WWII and decentralization of operations Cultural: strong cultural ties to Eindhoven Organization: matrix organizational structure constantly between PD and NO reorganized Manufacturing: late to outsource manufacturing Profitability: low margin business leaves little room for error Technological: big bets on losing technologies and standards Structural and Macroeconomic: high cost of layoffs of European workers
What has allowed Apple to succeed? relaxed, casual, collegial environment with high-work ethic emphasize on innovation and design (teams all over the world) User Experience Architects Office was established to make Apple products easier to use What should Philips and Matsushita do to compete? focus on innovative physical appearance and user interface add features like wireless sharing, games, etc. which iPod does not have design more than just a player, also offer software platform that allows music to be shared from PCs and other devices partnership with companies to gain more youth population (ex: Samsung & Adidas vs. iPod & Nike ) Mp3 Player Market vs. or Zune by Microsoft or Samsung and Adidas
Philips vs. Matsushita Team 3: Gonzalo Baez Silvio Filho Brian Gawalt Ryan Stanley MBA290G, Oct 8, 2008
Comparison of Porters Diamond Factors Factor Conditions Both countries have access to a highly skilled workforce due to local availability of specialized research and high extent to staff training in each country. High cooperation yet highly regulated labor relations. Tradition of lifelong employment in Japan has reduced the risk of brain drain. Limited natural resources (esp. Japan) induces constant attention to value-add services. Institutions in the Netherlands are considered highly efficient, ethical, and transparent compared to other countries: corporate boards are effective, government policymaking is transparent, intellectual property protection strong, and firm behavior ethical. The Netherlands has highly developed ports and is considered the gateway to Europe. Demand Conditions Japan has a high national demand that includes sophisticated technical users, whereas Philips had to export early on due to low national demand in the Netherlands. Related and Supporting Industries Both countries have national access to companies to suppliers in chemical and other equipment or machinery industries for production. The Netherlands includes robust research institutions Cluster development in Japan related to consumer electronics and semiconductors. Firm Strategy, Structure, and Rivalry Cluster development in Japan indicates fierce domestic rivalry. 8 of the top 10 companies in the field are Japanese. Government stability and context has been a major help to Philips as the Netherlands benefits from its central waterways, advanced neighboring economies, and political stability.
Value Chain Contrast Philips had a decentralized approach for manufacturing and sales. Matsushita had nearly everything centralized in Japan. Marketing competitive advantage over manufacturing. MFG Ware- house and direct sales In-houseOutsourced Distribution centers, retailers End customer Customer service R&DMFG Direct and online Sales In-houseOutsourced Distribution centers, retailers End customer Customer service R&D
Changes in Market Leadership Post-war Philips rose to dominance through strong R&D, technical development, and ability of national organizations to independently structure market offering Small national market instigated robust export function and global sales and marketing force Vital research facilities and top management transferred overseas as WWII approached WWII destroyed factories, so chose to rebuild on strengths of National Organizations Independence of management to act Ability to sense and respond to differences in national demands of countries of operations related to marketing Take advantage of surrounding talent and cultures for independent technical capabilities as well Developed strong competency in R&D and technical development Lacked good centralized planning (no advantage from economies of scale) and slow to market. Current strategy to move/outsource low-end manufacturing and focus on design/development makes sense given national and firm competencies. Difficulties lie in the strength of national organizations and Panasonic succeeded Philips in global dominance through central planning, strategic manufacturing choices, and a strong system of controls Opened plants in low-cost Latin America and Southeast Asia; kept high-value components in Japan. Allowed outsourcing of minor components. Plants built by division for economies of scale. Aggressive management goals encouraged innovation, but one product-one division led to subsequent spin-off and strict focus. Overseas operations reported to parent through the product division or the Trading Company. Developed competency in long-term planning, low-cost manufacturing, and being quick-to-market Lacked strong independent R&D near global markets Strategy for more regional control was hard because of ingrained culture and tight controls. However, implementing Outsourced R&D through incubators helps overcome Panasonics lagging innovation by supporting start-ups without difficult cultivation of in-house expertise.
Apples keys to success in MP3 market Apple is vertically integrated, designing its own operating system. Apple's stated philosophy is to increase investment in R&D. In-house brands set the standard: iPod & iTunes Rebel spirit: "It's better to be a pirate than join the navy". Intense work ethic and casual/informal structures. Combines Design and Marketing in one department. Organizational structure Corporate culture
2008 Philips vs. Matsushita Christian Huth Lakshmi Jagannathan Christopher Quek Daisuke Tanaka John Michael Wyrwas
Philips challenged with independent national organization focusing on R&D Supporting Industry Technology-sharing agreements and offshore manufacturing shall lead to reduced costs Firm Strategy, Structure & Rivalry Original competitive leadership by commercial and technical functions (PD/NO matrix) was succeeded simpler and structured marketing and manufacturing organization Original worldwide portfolio of responsive national organizations increases manufacturing costs (start of outsourcing) Strong industrial research Factor Conditions Dutch legislation prevents hostile raids Bureaucracy leads to slow-moving transformation of company CEO succession hinders continuous development of strategy Demand Conditions Adoption to local markets by independent national organizations in marketing as well as in product development
Matsushita with centralized organization and strong manufacturing capabilities High value-add per hour in manufacturing Low labor costs in developing countries where parts of manufacturing is outsourced Early trade-liberalization enabled Matsushita to start export business Factor Conditions Supporting Industry Low shipping rates reduces logistics costs R&D partnerships and technical exchanges as well as outsourced R&D (VC, incubator and technology partnerships) Dynamic new digital networking technologies and business models enabled by internet lead to pressure Firm Strategy, Structure & Rivalry Worldwide business based on centralized, highly efficient organizations in Japan Shift to local sourcing over time, but still in control of output (quality, productivity etc.) Expats spreading company culture and technologies Operation Localization - Internationalization including manufacturing abroad and increasing independence from Japan (but still dependent) Demand Conditions Japan as home market as early technology adopter Worldwide information of local demand provided by expats
Philips Value Chain Inbound Logistics Philips has many suppliers (255+) around the world, but they have a close connection with all of them Supply Management plays a key role in value creation, and 74% of Philips spend on suppliers is now centralized or center-led. ThePartners for Growth strategic supplier relationship management program brings Philips together with its top 30 suppliers Global Supplier Rating System (GSRS) is now operational in all businesses, resulting in a more professional structural supplier performance measurement and subsequent improvement actions (84% of Philips spending went for this last year) Operations Low Cost Country Sourcing in China: main supply base and manufacturing center Other smaller manufacturing facilities in 25 countries (including Netherlands, France, Belgium, Hungary, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil) The Supply Market Intelligence and Services group (SMIS) work closely together with businesses to identify supply market opportunities around the world
Research and Development $2.2 Billion spent on R&D (2007) Some Areas of Research: Drug Delivery Potential of Microbubbles, Contrast Agents for Medical Applications, and OLEDs as the future of indoor lighting Marketing and Sales Philips sells its products using dedicated sales representatives, telephone (to big customers), ODMs, OEMs, retail, website, and indirect channels Philips markets to its big customers (for ex: in healthcare industry) through its sales force and its small customers (for ex: individual consumers) via web, TV, and print/advertising Sales organizations in more than 60 countries Service Customer Support is very specialized since Philips products cover many areas 24 Hour Support for Consumer Electronics (such TV, portable electronics, etc) 24 Hour Professional Support for its health care products, lighting, and specialized businesses such as Dictation and Speech Recognition Systems Specific product-based FAQs and online support along with phone support Philips Value Chain
Matsushita Value Chain Inbound Logistics Matsushita is dependent on the ability of third parties to deliver parts, components and services in adequate quality and quantity in a timely manner, and at a reasonable price It is not dependent on a single supplier, and has no significant difficulty in obtaining raw materials from suppliers. In addition to devices/products, Matsushita makes its own components and devices used in various products ranging from AV equipment and information and communication devices to home appliances and industrial equipment. Works closely with its third party suppliers for timely and quality in the deliver of its components Operations Main Manufacturing center and operations in Japan Overseas, Matsushita plans to expand its manufacturing bases, particularly in South China and Vietnam, in response to rising demand for components and devices. Matsushitas international business operations is risky because of political instability as well as cultural and religious difference.
Research and Development $5.6 billion spent in R&D Costs (in 2007) Develops unique technologies via a high level of cooperation, not only through in- house production, but also through a sophisticated network of cooperation among materials, components and devices, and finished product divisions Some Areas of Research: Full HD plasma TVs, Blu-ray disc (BD) recorders, and Energy Efficient/ Eco Friendly Products Marketing and Sales Sells to small customers, individual customers, and big industries Promotes environmentally friendly products Sells its products using local retailers, phone/online system, retail stores, and indirect channels (OEMs and ODMs) Sells its parts and services to the same set of customers Service Customer Support is very specialized since Matsushitas products cover many areas 24 Hour Support for Consumer Electronics (such TV, portable electronics, etc) 24 Hour Professional Support and Business Support for its small customers 24 Hour Support Specific to OEMs and its industrial customers/products Specific product-based FAQs, manuals, and online support along with phone support Matsushita Value Chain
Competances Protected company resources through war by transferring abroad Strong, self-sufficient national organizations Product development and industrial design responds to regional customer preferences Decentralized marketing and sales Innovative R&D Incompetances Weak control of national organizations by Netherlands-based product-divisions created conflicts in company strategy Local production plants could not take advantage of economies of scale Inability to capitalize on R&D Philips in the post-war era
Matsushita – Competitive Analysis Matsushita was able to displace Phillips as the leader in Consumer Electronics by: 1. Successfully capturing the advantages of localization and avoiding the management difficulties that other global companies encountered. 2. Leveraging its corporate structure to bring new technologies to market more efficiently than its competitors. 3. Implementing manufacturing best practices to keep manufacturing costs low despite differences in regional inputs. 4. Outsourced core R&D needs to better recognize new marketable technologies and business models that were congruent with Panasonics Global Strategy.
Matsushita – Core Strengths Core Strengths: 1. Manufacturing: Globally standard manufacturing processes created economies of scale (lower costs) and knowledge transfer between different manufacturing facilities. Matsushita shifted certain manufacturing processes to low cost countries, but kept highly technical manufacturing process located in Japan. This ensured the highest quality at the lowest cost. 2. R&D: Centralized R&D process where core designs were established and local offices made feature requests to tailor products to regional markets. Underfunded the Central Research Lab to encourage the development of marketable technologies. 3. Localized (Regional) Autonomy: Local offices were given the authority to create and execute local strategies with oversight from the main office. Regional offices were able to alter products and product portfolios to meet local demand.
Matsushita – Core Weaknesses Core Weaknesses: 1. Power of the Central Organization: The power exerted by the central organization limits regional innovations. 2. R&D The R&D structure is good at making marketable products but not good at creating new technologies. It is a culture of fast follower R&D.
1950s Different standards and consumer preferences across countries led Philips to give power to the NOs Successful until Common Market eroded trade barriers 1970s PD>NO Decrease SKUs, build scale, and increase flow of goods Create International Production Centers Slow implementation and NOs continued to have power 1982 Shut inefficient operations Off-shore manufacturing alliances PD>NO Focused on core operations Sales declined and profits stagnated Organizational Changes: Philips
1987 Goal: increase profits and beat the Japanese Strategically linked core businesses Restructured around 4 core global divisions Linked PDs with their markets Halved spending on basic research to 10% of R&D Huge cuts in plants and employees Loss of $2.5 billion and a shareholders lawsuit 1990 Cut 22% of workforce Sold various businesses Expand software, services, and multimedia Focused on developing 15 core technologies Low morale and lack of focus on new market demands for segmented products and higher consumer service Organizational Changes: Philips
1996 No taboos; no sacred cows Slashed 3,000 jobs in N American Added 3,000 jobs in Asia Huge cuts Relocated headquarters to Amsterdam Bet on digital revolution Focus on marketing Achieved objective of a 24% return on net assets 2001 Outsourced mobile phone production Seeks to sell off manufacturing of mass-produced items Focused on developing 15 core technologies Loss of 2.6 billion euros. Become a technology developer and global marketer? Organizational Changes: Philips
Yamashita (Operation Localization) 4 localizations: personnel, technology, material, and capital Increased number of local nationals in key positions Overseas sales subsidiaries given more choice over products they sold Expressed displeasure with lack of initiative of TV plant in Cardiff Tanii Objective: obtaining software source for its hardware Acquired MCA for $6.1 billion Japan went into recession, and Tanii forced to resign Morishita simple, small, speedy, and strategic Cut staff and decentralize responsibility Sold MCA to Seagram at a $1.2 billion loss Challenges: Korean and Chinese competition; strong yen=weak exports Increase offshore R&D: Panasonic Digital Concepts Center in California Organizational Changes: Matsushita
Nakamura From super manufacturer of products to meeting customer needs through systems and services Empower employees to respond to customer needs Destruction and creation – disbanded product division structure Streamlines plants: now integrated into multi-product production centers Streamlines marketing divisions: Panasonic and National First losses in 30 years accelerated: Matsushita seen as a takeover target Organizational Changes: Matsushita
Vertical integration First to offer excellent hardware, software, and content – iPod and iTunes Successfully convinced content providers to allow sale of mp3 R&D Idea was not internally developed, but execution was Strong collaboration with Portal Players who did bulk of the software and hardware development Manufacturing Outsourced all manufacturing Steve Jobs Genius CEO with a vision Involved in unusually detailed aspects of daily business The Apple Slide
Group 5: Varun Boriah Sonia Fereres Dilip Joseph Brendan Quinn Ada Zheng
Porters Diamond for Philips vs Matsushita Factor Conditions Philips –Geographic location: small country situated in central Europe –Initial workforce deeply involved in technological development in appreciation for firms strategy of investing in education, housing, improvement of workers conditions locally. –Expensive local labor Matsushita –Geographic location: immersed in Asian market –Skilled, relatively low cost resources
Porters Diamond for Philips vs Matsushita Demand Conditions Philips –Limited domestic market pushes international growth –Close to local market needs & opportunities due to decentralization (NOs) Matsushita –Large & highly demanding Asian market for consumer electronics
Porters Diamond for Philips vs Matsushita Related & Supporting Industries Philips –No cluster effect –Lack of domestic competitors Matsushita –Cluster effect: development of Japanese consumer electronic industry & competition
Porters Diamond for Philips vs Matsushita Firm Strategy, Structure & Rivalry Philips –Decentralization, local management & diversification –Product specialization (light bulbs) extend technological advantage to other products –Dual management system: National Organizations (NOs) and Product Divisions(PDs) Matsushita –High quality, low cost, standardized products mass production –Highly centralized organizational structure –Rivalry with other Japanese CE industries (e.g. Sony in Betamax vs. VHS)
Internal Product Value Chain Philips: Decentralized Organization + 1 Product Specialization Matsushita: Centralized Hub Organization + Mass Production ResearchServices Product Development Manufacturing Sales & Marketing Centralized initial research & innovation Multinational / Decentralized management, product development, manufacturing, sales and customer services through PDs, NOs within national/local markets. ResearchServices Product Development Manufacturing Sales & Marketing Centralized operations: research, innovation & product development. Expat management Local subsidiaries Centralized Decentralized
How did Philips become the leading consumer electronics company in the world in the post war era? What distinctive competence did they build? What distinctive incompetencies? CompetenciesIncompetencies Lighting Cassettes / CDs Centralized Research and Innovation: quickly develop new products Organizational asset: NOs to develop products in individual national markets Moved research facilities abroad in anticipation of the war Low profit margins (1-2%) Fragmented management/poor global strategy Slow bringing products to market (Matsushita beat them to microwave etc) Dispersed manufacturing/marketing/ services within nations (NOs)
How did Matsushita success in displacing Philips as No. 1? What were its distinctive competencies and incompetencies? CompetenciesIncompetencies Ability to mass product at low cost, quick to market VCR manufacture – including OEM for Philips and others Placement of Japanese expat managers in international plants, strong communication with HQ Local autonomy to meet targets Shifted production to overseas markets (e.g. China) when Japanese currency strengthened Fast follower strategy Centralised R&D in Japan Not highly innovative Complex management processes Excessive control of R&D (Motorola TV)
What do you think of the change each company has made to date: the objectives, the implementation, the impact? Why is the change so hard for both of them? PhilipsMatsushita Focus on R&D (after sacking 37% of R&D staff?!) Large bets on technologies that failed (DCC, CDi, mobile) Hasnt yet outsourced much of its production Still very decentralized Why is it so hard: Working against years of inertia Created PDCC – strengthened convergence portfolio Outsourcing innovation – universities, PDCC Reduced size of HQ – less top-heavy Outsourcing some production Still very centralized! Why is it so hard: Working against years of inertia
KINDLE APPLE: iTunes, Recording companies MICROSOFT: App developers CHUMBY: Netflix TiVO: Broadcasters KINDLE: Publishers Research Product Development Manufacturing Sales and Marketing Services/ Ecosystem Customer
Corporate culture and organizational structure at Apple Apple originally outsourced : – iPod idea (Tony Fadell) – iPod hardware development (PortalPlayer) Windows compatible through MusicMatch and later iTunes Ecosystem created Product Marketing and Product Management executed by the same team Apple is vertically integrated: OS, SW/HW, retail stores Put Silicon Valley on the map Hard-working yet corporate-casual environment. Apples success based on how they add value to a cool & simple design, whole ecosystem around it and easy-to-use interface.
What should Philips and Matsushita do to compete new features price erosion – Reduce retailer and manufacturer inventory channel management shifts from classic distribution to retailers, to broadband providers, to online, to direct to consumer. digital content will shape their hardware demand both companies should exploit their competitive advantages instead of matching each other: – Philips should invest more in R&D and marketing as a way to compete with Japanese low cost efficiency. Decide on one structure/strategy instead of changing it frequently. – Matsushita: try to implement change in a more effective way, communicating more with employees/subsidiaries to improve innovation. Partner more, think ecosystems, think of the experience rather than just the product
Philips Versus Matsushita Team 6 Wan-Lin Tseng Toru Yamagishi Nuttapong Chentanez Jim Miller Ankit Gupta
Philips Porters Diamond
Matsushita Porters Diamond
Philips Internal Product Value Chain Late 19 th century, early to mid 20 th century, mid to late 20 th century R&DManufactureMarketing Sales/ Distribution Physics and chemistry labs built to address problems Highly centralized in Eindhoven Overseas joint ventures created to gain market place Exported into diverse markets, i.e. Japan, Australia, etc Independently performed by NOs with PDs as nominal formal research department Independently performed by NOs, with PDs as nominal formal production department Independent NOs were able to sense and respond to different markets efficiently Independently performed by NOs with PDs as nominal formal global distribution department Superior technological innovations from PD NOs made their own decision of product mix and which technology standard to adopt Inconsistency within the organization makes marketing a weak point in Philip Decentralized distribution around the globe Centralized lab doing research on specific business areas Reorganized structure led to specialized, multi- market production facilities worldwide Refocused on marketing rather than technology; made worldwide marketing plan as a whole Restructured distribution network work as a whole again
Matsushitas Internal Product Value Chain Early to mid 20 th century, mid to late 20 th century R&DManufactureMarketing Sales/ Distribution CRL took care of basic technology while product development occurred in product division One-product-one-division: production was done by product divisions One-product-one- division: marketing was done by product divisions 25,000 domestic retail outlets opened to obtain sales volume and customer information as well Life time research team: R&D team moved with products from central labs to product division to production plant Went internationally to search for low-wage countries, i.e. countries in Southeast Asia and Central and South America One-product-one- division: marketing was done by product divisions 25,000 domestic retail outlets opened to obtain sales volume and customer information as well With corporate treasury as a commercial bank
Phillips in post war era Phillips built post war era organization with National Organizations (NOs) oversea Product Divisions (PDs) at head quarter Competencies Local knowledge of market NOs - Can response quickly to local demand In house R&D - Leader in industrial labs, both Physics and Chemistry Incompetencies No clear line to define role of NOs and PDs Bureaucracy - NOs and PDs conflicts Slow to bring new product to market Series of bad decisions - from various CEOs Centralize to core business & acquire related companies too late Dead technologies - V2000, CD-I, DCC, analog HDTV I
Matsushitas competencies and incompetencies Competencies Cost advantages Enhanced Productivity Cost advantage of Japanese after WW2 Shifting basic manufacturing to Asia Caught up with foregoing companies Learn the strengths of others Adopted the divisional structure Giving each division clearly defined profit responsibility for its product Foster internal competition Adoptedg VHS of JVC instead of Betamax Increased capacity and reduced price: accounted of 30% of total sale Incompetencies Laying off employees is relatively difficult in Japan Strong influence of the founder, Konosuke Matsushita I
Changes of Philips and Matsushita Objectives: Phillips – Establishing effective system and organization to compete in the global markets, especially with Japanese rivals Matsushita- Effective internationalization with global expansion of the businesses Implementations: Phillips -focused on core business by selling some businesses but made lots of bad decisions, Turmoil at top level Matsushita – Localization was fostered but the system centralized to the Japanese headquarter was remained Impact: Phillips – Small positive effects on performance Matsushita – Localization effort supported the global business expansion I
Why hard to change? Long history Established corporate culture and tradition (e.g. Seven Splits of Matsushita) Bureaucracy (esp. Philips) Strong influences on the founder (esp. Matsushita) I
The New US Consumer Electronic Companies: Apple, Tivo, Roku, Chumby, Kindle, Microsoft – What are their positions in the Value Chain? New CE companies involved in market analysis, research & development and product design, i.e. at the head of the value chain. Maximum value added here for products like Tivo, Roku or Chumby, which were quite unique. Value added at the end too, i.e. distribution and marketing. Most true for Apple products, given their aggressive and distinguished marketing style. Manufacturing generally outsourced to third parties.
Apple has dominated the MP3 marketplace with 80% market share. Other major CE manufacturers have failed to date. With regards to corporate culture and organizational structure, what has allowed Apple to succeed? Unique product designs, i.e. having lots of style, though may not be cheap. Excellent marketing and branding exercise, to give the appeal of consumer items as luxury and personality statements. Own retail outlets, to have more control over launch and distribution. Control over music distribution as well, in the form of itunes. Over all perception of brand very favorable. More centralized company organization. And, last but not the least, the importance of leadership cannot be more emphasized. Sans Jobs, things might be much different.
What should Philips and Matsushita do to compete? Innovative product design, and branding very essential. More emphasis on marketing. Partner with content providers, for easy access to music and video. Aggressive product launching and distribution.
Philips vs. Matsushita KC Chen (Team 7) Anthony Goodrow Andrew Liao Piyapat Tantiwong Sha Tao October 8 th, 2008
Philips: Porters Diamond FS DC R&SI FC Decentralized Centralized (tilting from NOs to PDs ) Single product Diversified Divest non-core businesses R&D driven Localized manufacturing Outsourcing Hollands small size forced the company to be international Lowered trade barrier prompted to local, single site production Rich R&D resources in UK and US helped the company to diversify its assets (research labs) and resources Caring of workers founded highly skilled labor forces and strong technological base
Matsushita: Porters Diamond FS DC R&SI FC Lowered domestic post-war growth and saturated distribution channels forced company to export Strong yen prompted overseas production High value electronic components Lack of English capability required more staff (expatriate managers) Centralized Decentralized (tilting from PDs to balanced NO/PD matrix) Many products, good distribution Localized MFG and R&D Very good at time-to-market, not always a pioneer Hierarchy weakened organizational transformation
Philips: Internal Value Chain NO Tried to strike a balance between product divisions (PD) and national organizations (NO) Some PDs merged to form international production centers (IPC) PD IPC Communication link broken Power Struggle
Matsushita: Internal Value Chain Parent company in Japan has tight control over all divisions (DIV) Basic technology at central research laboratory (CRL) Parent HDQ CRL DIV No information exchange R&D underfunded, divisions compete for funding
Comparison of Internal Product Value Chain Both companies started from highly centralized organization. – Philips decentralized their organization based on geographic location – Matsushita decentralized product divisions, controlled by Japanese parent company The organizations reflected culture in such countries – Philips (Holland) gave more freedom to NOs – Matsushita (Japan) has tight control over Divisions. Philips competitive advantage & disadvantage – NOs can easily customize their products to different markets – Little communication between NOs and weak control from PD led to repeated developments of same technology Matsushitas competitive advantage & disadvantage – Central research organization to help leverage basic technology across all divisions – Each division has strong understanding about customers, but tightly controlled by parent company Both companies tried to reduce the operating cost by locating plants in low-wage areas as well as outsourcing to contract manufacturers. Repeated reorganizational changes aimed at increasing revenue and profit margin
Philips as CE leader In the post World War II era Strong Research & Development efforts Early in Philips history, Gerard and Anton Philips agreed that strong research and development efforts were vital to the Philips success. The importance of research and development is evident in the physics and chemistry lab that developed a tungsten metal filament bulb that was a great commercial success enabling Philips to compete against its giant rivals. In the postwar era, Philips continued this tradition with fourteen product divisions responsible for development, production and global distribution Independent National Organizations Another contributing factor to Philips success is the National Organizations. These postwar organizations were highly self-sufficient and extremely adept at responding to country- specific market conditions-a capability that became a valuable asset in the postwar era. Communication between National Organizations However, with the creation of the Common Market in the 1960s, the same National Organizations to which Philips attributed its postwar success soon became the reason why Matsushita displaced Philips as the leading consumer electronics company.
Matsushita displaces Philips as CE leader Link divisional structure to a global strategy Autonomous National Organizations Communications The autonomy of the divisions linked together through a global strategy enabled Matsushita to displace Philips as the leading consumer electronics company in the world.
Competencies & Incompetencies Competencies National responsiveness Technology-driven innovation Entrepreneurial NOs Central research and funding Incompetencies Slow technology to market Poor global strategy Competencies Global scale efficiency Market-driven rapid innovation Innovative PDs Linkages in the value chain Incompetencies Overseas subs not innovative PHILIPS MATSUSHITA
Philips: Company Changes, Implementation, and Impact ObjectiveImplementationImpact 1970s Rebalancing the managerial relationship between PD & NOs. Slow NOs seemed as powerful and independent as ever To deal with least profit units and the slow-moving bureaucracy Buy & sell business and continue to tilt the matrix between PD & NOs Sales declined and profits stagnated To deal with the revenue declining and maintain the market position Relocate the management and close/integrate the business divisions President and senior management were replaced 1990 To deal with the risk of bankruptcy Cost-cutting & lay-off. New focus on the software, service and multimedia. Ignored the new worldwide market demand 1996To stop bleeding Shut down/sold un-profit units and to bet on the digital revolution. 24% ROA 2001 To increase sales and revenue Outsource the manufacturing Hope to build efficiency into its global operations
Matsushita: Company Changes, Implementation, and Impact ObjectiveImplementationImpact KMs wayMaintain Central control Organization since the company began Strong Centralization and de- incentivized localization Operation Localization Innovative capability & entrepreneurial initiatives Personnel, technology, material, capital Nearly no changes on the way branches operate Integration & expansion To put more attention on the international development Merge METC to parent company to fully integrate domestic and overseas operations Not succeed and due to economic downturns, Tanii was forced to resign Morishita To deal with Japans downturn & to enhance R&D abilities Move production overseas and start joint venture with foreign academics Delivered a sign that he gave up looking for innovation internally Nakamura To transfer Matsushita from manufacturing to services to meet customers Destruction and creation program to make flatten the hierarchy Almost made Matsushita to be takeover
New U.S. CE Companies Apple TiVo Roku Chumby Kindle Microsoft
Position in Value Chain Tivo, Roku, and Chumby – All three companies are providing a widget to connect the existing multimedia entertainment to the internet. They do not have the contents and the widgets are not really technologically advanced, but the idea to provide an interface for consumers to enjoy shows or programs is become increasingly popular. Their products opens new markets for both the entertainment industry and internet applications. Apple, Kindle – Both are back up by companies that have already developed strong product (online books and music) and customer bases. The iPod, iPhone, and Kindle are new channels to sell Apple and Amazons online services. Microsoft – Microsoft is the largest OS provider on the PC value chain and is successfully leveraging its large market share to penetrate into any possible market, such as online services and gaming consoles (XBox).
How can Philips and Matsushita compete with Apple? Target niche markets – Tech-savvy users who desire more features Change the game – Combine technologies (iTune & HDTV)
Philips vs. Matsushita MBA 290G Prof. Charles Wu Team 8 Fuat E. Celik Gopal Chaudhoory Ignacio Contreras Francois Gallet Camilo Mendez
Porters Diamond Factor Conditions Demand Conditions Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry Related and Supporting Industries Philips European countries heterogeneity encourages customization to local markets (distributed approach) Expensive labor focuses companies in product differentiation strategies Matsushita Japanese geographical isolation promotes focus in domestic market (centralized approach) Cheap labor (pre-70s) focuses companies in cost-cutting strategies Philips Heterogeneous European cultures leads to differences in demand High income fosters desire for differentiated / tailored products Matsushita Big but isolated domestic market drives focus in local market Low income in Japan (per-70s) cultivates low-cost strategies Population eager to adopt new tech Philips Underdeveloped ecosystem derived from lack of competition (world divided between GE and Philips) Matsushita Developed ecosystem derived from intense competition (Sony, JVC, Sanyo, etc) Philips Regionalized focus – independent management Functional division (Biz vs Engineering) Not-invented-here culture Government protectionism Matsushita Centralized focus – dependency on headquarters Business line division Copycat / follower culture Government encourages competitiveness
Porters Diamond Analysis Worldwide consumer electronics demand ended being: Homogeneous Price conscious Matsushita was far more prepared for this scenario: Follower takes advantage of cost benefits Centralization builds economies of scale Philips strategy In-house innovation and market differentiation Matsushitas strategy Centralized approach with focus in cost advantage and copied but better products
Internal Product Value Chain Philips – Market differentiation Matsushita – Cost advantage based on EOS Research (centralized) Development (Market A) Development (Market B) Development (Market C) Development (Market D) Production (Market A) Production (Market B) Production (Market C) Production (Market D) Commercialization (Market A) Commercialization (Market B) Commercialization (Market C) Commercialization (Market D) Research (centralized) Commercialization (Market A) Commercialization (Market B) Commercialization (Market C) Commercialization (Market D) Development (centralized) Production (centralized)
Philips Emerged as a World Leader Forced by the War, Philips divided operations into several quasi-independent National Organizations (NOs) NOs focused on country-specific markets and adapted quickly to local market conditions and consumer tastes and expectations – e.g. TVs Common Market system removed advantages of regional specialization, increased importance of manufacturing cost competition Outstanding research division led to strong technical innovation and new product development NOs thwarted centralized product development by pursuing independent agendas – e.g. V2000 video cassette Highly decentralized NOs were efficient and competitive within the market they served Autonomous corporate subdivisions had too high a stake in self- preservation and prevented real restructuring reform The Good The Ugly The Bad Decentralization leads to organizational inertia and the company is slow to react to changes in market conditions in a World economy
Matsushita Overtook Philips Matsushita dominated its home market by offering thousands of products at its tens of thousands of retail locations Centralization led to cost- competitiveness, which led to exports reaching a world market Manufacture needed to relocate to cheaper labor markets to stay competitive, while devotion to domestic employment weakened restructuring efforts Matsushita was quick to adopt standards, allowing it to achieve high sales volumes on products it would otherwise struggle with Weak R&D efforts and expenditure led to undifferentiated products and commoditization, which led to shrinking margins Corporate culture valued low cost and high profit operations and held each division accountable for meeting goals High degree of centralization stifled innovation The Good The Ugly The Bad Matsushita is now forced to look outside the company and outsource its innovation in the hopes of developing differentiated products and more profitable ventures
Philips reorganizes its activities, focusing on its core competencies Objectives Increase profitability Drive costs down to get back in the competition Implementation Focus on core competencies (technology development and marketing) Simplification of the network Outsourcing of manufacturing activities to Asia Impact Fairly good financial impact in the 2000s Huge loss of human capital
Matsushita is moving up the value chain Objectives Become a leader in technology development Mitigate the R&D risks Implementation Increase of the investments in internal R&D Creation of the PDCC: investment in external R&D (open innovation leader) Impact External growth or Spinning-in Increased dependency on external factors
Copying Apples Strategy: making the best of an existing technology Vertically integrated structure Control of the value chain Few high-quality appealing and trendy products based on existing technologies Casual corporate culture Pretty flat organization Fostering individual excellence
James An Zishan Khan James Su Boaz Ur
Factor conditions Philips Small country, immersed in the European eco-system and constantly exposed to other forces. Small local work force. When Philips become international they have the potential and try to utilize the strength of the different Geographies they operate in. (Manufacture where its cheap, R&D where they have talent etc.) However, European regulations require expensive HR. Matsushita Substantial local market, in a country that isolated from the rest of the world. Local highly skilled and disciplined work force with life dedication to the company Japanese norm make it hard to change the HR structure of the org (Lifetime employment) Japanese Yen making it hard to export from Japan and creating a need to open factories in cheaper places.
Demand conditions Philips Demand has to come from other parts of the world. Exposed to all market forces and competition in every single segment. Matsushita Substantial local demand with high rewards as well as losses when there is a slowdown. Until 2000 centralized strategy with strong product divisions located in Japan. At first, hard to compete in international markets because lack of brand. Later becoming the OEM for other brands (video)
Related and supporting industries Philips Depend on the country the NO is located in. Not related to specific industries in particular countries. Complete decentralization. Each NO totally responsible for its results. Firm strategy structure and Rivalry Philips Being an innovator. Complete decentralization. Each NO totally responsible for its results. Diversification of products. Philips is a multinational company it is even hard to define it as Dutch. Matsushita Being a fast follower – Matsushita – Copycat Until 2000 centralized strategy with strong product divisions and operations located in Japan. Making sure that there are loyal Japanese reps in every company around the globe in senior positions. Matsushita is definitely a Japanese company
Philips value chain is mainly based on an aggregate of NO. They have decentralized R&D centers and had constantly tried to shift the balance back and forth between PDs and NO. Finally they decided to create business units responsible for profits. In essence, these business units hold the value chain for each product. However this business unit can probably leverage the sales organization that is spread around the globe. Matsushita for the majority of its life span was highly focused on central management and Japan based product divisions. The central R&D got its resources from the product divisions. The international operations were traditionally just local manufacturing to overcome import / export obstacles. The main components and knowledge was always Japanese, most of the value stays in the headquarters.
Competencies Self-sufficiency allowed ability to respond to country-specific market conditions Product development as a function of local market conditions - (Philips of Canada – first color TV; of Australia – first stereo TV; of United Kingdom – first TV with teletext) Direct and frequent communications between NOs and top management Development of elite expatriate managers that can represent country-oriented views
Incompetency's Inability to boost production levels to increasing global demand Production within the NOs nations, not the low-wage areas (East Asian, Central and South America in the 1960s) Lack of centralized marketing strategy (Philips continued to innovate, but unable to compete effectively to capture the mass market (e.g. audiocassette and microwave oven) Disagreements among the NOs and contradiction with the research arm of Philips (Philips V2000 videocassette, superior to Matsushitas VHS, but was outsourced, branded, and sold by North American Philips under license from Matsushita) The history of strong individualized NOs resisted reorganization
Competencies Matsushita was more successful in maintaining control over its national organizations. It did this by having expatriate Japanese managers, technicians, and advisors in overseas offices. Philips national organizations operated independently from the home base. Matsushita had more focused company-wide effort on products. Highly centralized R&D operations in Japan governed direction of research in overseas companies e.g. Motorolas TV business. Philips product development differed between national organizations. Matsushita was faster at getting products to market than Philips. Incompetency's In the 1990s, Matsushitas management was unwilling to restructure some of its inefficient production facilities in Japan. This was due to the companys deeply-rooted commitment to lifetime employment.
Philips Multiple organizational shuffles primarily aimed at becoming more profitable/efficient and client focused. Company culture orientated towards R&D rather than Marketing, difficult to shift focus of existing employees. Continual cost cutting measures and relocation of HQ affects the core culture of the firm. Matsushita Multiple policies implemented to attempt to decentralise organisation. Success in decentralisation difficult due to reluctance to remove roles from Japan. Lack of transferring roles resulted in competitors undercutting the firms pricing structure.
Great Marketing Firm Distribution Channels include Apple Stores Use of iTunes as a reverse razor and blade model Stylish product design Ability to recognise opportunities to commoditise products Strong company culture and shared vision Central Product Designer and Leader (Steve Jobs)
Philips versus Matsushita Team 10 Anirban Sen Raluca Scarlat Elihu Luna-Thomas Yilun(Alan)
Porters Diamond-Philips Factor Conditions Among largest producer of light-bulb Geographically diversified research facilities and local tech talents, managers Trade barriers and tariffsforced to build local production facilities Demand Conditions Expansion to Europe, Asia, US, etc., capture world market share Diversification of product range Supporting Industries Globalizing product development and production Strategy, Structure, & Rivalry Wrote down assets rapidly to use new production technology (1910s) Tradition of caring for workers (1912) Adapt to country specific market conditions – National Organizations(1930s) Restructure(1987), core business vs. non-core business Outsource most of manufacturing and become technology developer(2001) Rivalry: GE, Japanese counterparts, and other local competitors
Porters Diamond-Matsushita Factor Conditions Highly skilled work force Post war rebuilt, pro-business Cost rise in 1960s in Japan Demand Conditions Post war boom Export --> global leadership through VCRs Domestic market demand collapsed(1999) Supporting Industries Fast copycat Offshore innovations Strategy, Structure, & Rivalry First to adopt divisional structure, internal competition(spin off hungry spirit) Strong centralization gradually weakened (Operation Localization) Rivalry: GE, Sony, Philips, etc. China, Korea
Value Chain SupportSolution & DeliveryCapture Demand Global Assembly Global Logistics Sales & Marketing Service Domestic, Asia, US, Europe Individual, Business, Government Domestic, Asia, US, Europe Individual, Business, Government Invest Expansion R&D Strategy R&D Strategy Tech Support Distribution Global Suppliers
Philips success after the war Operation based on National Organizations (nearly autonomous subsidiaries around the world) Responsive to country-specific market necessities Geographically diversified research facilities brought several technological breakthroughs NOs keep the Phillips traditional internal competence (Production vs. Sales) Effective in a world of close frontiers
Phillips 60s-90s struggles Competitors relocating production in low cost of labor regions (South Asia and Central and South America) Inability to align the interests of powerful NOs, where each manager represented the particular interest of his region Several failed endeavors to globalize production and R&D A bureaucratic organization that could not follow the pace of its Japanese counterparts Painful process of shutting down plants, get rid of some business units, outsource some manufacturing, re-orient companys main focus Phillips becoming a research, developer and marketer. A lost battle to be an efficient manufacturer.
Matsushitas Success Matsushita had a long term vision (250 year plan). This was very uncommon for most international companies. The plan was broken into 25-year stages. Philips decentralized operations and R&D during WW2 to US and UK. This gave those organizations autonomy, but also made it difficult to control them post-war. An example was the development of V2000 format, but North American Philips adopted VHS which was a Matsushita standard. Philips focused on cost cutting through layoffs and selling off various businesses and R&D units such as integrated circuits. With new leadership, and new strategies, some of these business units were needed and not available to Philips in the development of their strategy. Therefore, Philips was resigned to continue to outsource even more of their operations and become a technology developer and a global marketer.
Matsushitas strengths Diverse offerings from early in the companys history. This leads to greater market penetration. Opened 25,000 domestic retail outlets to distribute the products. These provided sales volume and access to market trends. Shifted production earlier than other companies to low-wage countries in Asia and South and Central America. Agreed to give up its own standard and adopt the established VHS format. This prevented a costly standards war. Instead the company ramped up production to meet its own needs as well as those of OEM customers such as Philips. Increased sales volume allowed Matsushita to cut unit price 50% within 5 years of product launch while continuously improving quality. Close headquarters-subsidiary relations allowed greater control of the activities of globally dispersed subsidiaries. Gave overseas subsidiaries a greater choice on what products they sold.
Matsushitas weaknesses Centralized control of foreign subsidiaries caused some negative backlash. Corporate culture of lifetime employment led to inefficient production facilities. There was resistance to cutting back on manpower and plant. Vertical hierarchy within organization. Front line employees were not empowered to respond to customer needs due to the centralized organizational structure.
Philips: Changes made and impacts Started out with one product instead of attempting to diversify. As a result, they had significant innovations in the light-bulb industry. Started with a centralized structure, but was forced to create autonomous subsidiaries in US and UK during WW2. This resulted in some loss of control and power by the central organization. Did not move as quickly into low wage labor markets and as a result lost some competitiveness to companies such as Matsushita. Power struggle between product divisions and national organizations. Led to divisive strategies as leadership changed. This in turn led to poor productivity.
Matsushita: Changes made and impacts Started with one product, but quickly diversified and gained domestic market penetration by the sheer number of product offerings and retail outlets. Adopted the product division structure. This organized the company based on the product lines that were being developed regardless of location. Developed and established presence in television market. Expanded production to low wage countries in Asia and South America and thus drove prices lower and volume higher. Adopted VHS standard and began manufacturing and marketing of VCRs for themselves as well as OEM customers who were their competitors. Began de-centralizing their leadership in response to backlash from local division workforce.