First of all, I would like to congratulate the prof. for moving ever so rapidly from assignment #4 to assignment #8, I am sure it's a relief for him as much as it is a relief for us. I had never run anything in my life but my own life, so running a company with a few millions of dollars in revenue was quite an excitement for me. Our major goal of the simulation was to get an A, the path in which we thrived to achieve that goal is somewhat bumpy. We didn't really start with an effective mission statement, we wanted to feel the industry at first, set the price, figure out how much are we going to sell and what is the size of compensation to our sales people, and maybe even more importantly, feel the competition, I would define us at the beginning (I may be wrong because it was a long time ago, and my group might disagree with me) as "counter punchers", we wanted to react to the market developments and not necessarily set the trend. We did, however, had the R&D bug, which means we invested in research from day 1, a gamble, but as I will elaborate soon, a good one. The shareholders are an interesting aspect, we did not directly take them into account, we had given out very small dividends on the first year because we wanted our stock price to increase, we had also figure out quite early that one of the main points is to decrease expenses and maximize revenue, I am aware of the fact that all businesses aspire for this, but we focused on ROI, as compensation for shareholders and, again, to increase the stock price. The bottom line is that I didn't feel as if they had made claims but every public company need to satisfy the shareholders in order to have a reason for existence, that is the whole reason of IPO, to raise money in return for a stake of the company, the trade off is quite clear, that is the whole essence of the stock market.
Porter's 5 forces; the supplier power was enormous, they set the price and we have to pay, no choice whatsoever, very low attractiveness; I can only assume that the threats of substitutes is also very high, you can practically choose between 7 companies, all producing the same thing, why would you choose one or the other? There are no switching costs, it seems as if there is not much differentiation, very low attractiveness; the buyer power, ironically, is limited, they have to choose between 7 sellers, who divide among them 100% of the market, high attractiveness here; I can only asses that the barriers to entry are not simple, the initial capital investment seems high, you will need to set up a production site, purchase raw materials, and most importantly, advertise and market the product, which does not come at a low cost, like in every business, the brand image and the economies of scale is also a difficult thing to achieve and a lot of time and patience is needed, I must add that I honestly believer that the entry barriers is high in any business because I am not the innovative creative type, and to me it always seem unobtainable, I think that the attractiveness here is low as well; last but not least, the rivalry among competitors, I must say that probably because of my lack of experience, this is the most fierce competition I had ever seen, a 7 company oligopoly that control the entire market, fighting over bits and pieces like a group of piranhas, neck to neck throughout the race in terms of the graded variables, very competitive in terms of price, marketing, sales people, income, stock price, cost factor and the rest of the variables, but once again, it is an oligopoly, and all 7 companies do sell, so I must conclude medium attractiveness.
The bottom line is that the attractiveness of the industry as it is presented in the simulation is medium, because again, and I am sorry to be repeating my self, although the competition is fierce, all 7 players always sold something, and remained afloat.
The overall simulation index which we relied on if I remember correctly kept going up throughout the simulation, which had a very positive affect on our market demand forecast, we tried to maintain a fixed, limited production while hoping to sell all the products we produce, I believe that here we were very successful, not spending money where we shouldn't have, and as I mentioned before hand, keeping our expanses to a minimum. Another thing that supported this strategy is that fact that raw materials were always getting more expansive (naturally) so we attempted to purchase as much as we could in advance, again, to not spend money foolishly.
Luck is a required and not acquired, and luckily, we had some, after spending and throwing money into the bottomless pit called R&D we had never dreamed (well, Josh did) to have accomplished a breakthrough, but we did, and as soon as we understood that we need to strike when the iron is hot, we increased our price to $60 and capitalized immediately on the following quarters. One of our most important decision was not to spend on capacity and sub-contracting, which means that we only produced shifts 1+2 and overtime, and our objective was simply to sell the units we produced, we were mostly successful, another important thing was not to spend too much on advertising, form the trial period we gathered that advertising is not cost-benefit effective, and decided to only spend what we believed would increase sales and would make the market aware of us, we constantly spend money on engineering in order to minimize our cost factor, and we also tried to invest a fixed amount on QC to minimize returns due to a relatively high eventual costs. That was our strategy and our main goals in general, nothing very creative or innovative, on the contrary, I saw us as a risk averse team that tried to maintain a low level of risk and to out run the competition in the long run.
There was a difficulty in all the success; we had trouble listening in class, so none of us heard or noticed that we were supposed to maintain a debt ratio of 1to 1, by the time we found out, a year had passed (which is a very long in dog years) and it was a bit too late to teach an old do new tricks, so we stuck with it, furthermore, our amazing CFO (not me) realized that taking debt and maintaining a leverage firm is a trade off, which means that if we had take on debt, we would have fallen behind on other variables, only another reason not to do it, and two reasons were enough for us.
I think we implemented our corporate strategy almost perfectly, we introduced a low price at first because we wanted to meet the competition first hand, after establishing our low cost factor and our maximum level of production and hitting the R&D discovery, we raised the price to capitalize, we were strong competitors throughout mainly due to a sound demand forecast, production and sales forecast. In addition, I believe that if the simulation had not ended when it did, we would have performed even better because as I stated earlier, our objective was to compete in the long run with respect not necessarily to the next quarter, but the last year, naturally however, we were very much aware of the fact that if you snooze you lose, and that short term decision need to be taken all the time in order to succeed in a two year stretch.
To conclude, it was a great experience for me for a few reasons; I got to run a company and make decisions in a business environment that had a sound affect on the company's result, I got to work in a small team environment where all the voiced are heard and they all count, and we were successful, which always helps. I believe this experience was beneficial with no regards to success or failure, and being in this college for as long as I have, the more real world imitations, the better, thank you very much for the experience.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Diagnosing Strategic Problems
A strategic problem usually relates to a broad scope of issue that needs to be resolve, in most cases there is some sort of a focus on how to grow in the competitive market, the need to anticipate future customer needs, the ability to sustain a competitive advantage, and the many alternatives that must be addressed in achieving the above goals.
Microsoft has been contending with legal opponents virtually since the day it was born, for 25 years the company has been sued by many of its major competitors and has endured countless federal investigations of its business practices. Many of the suits laid the groundwork for the current fFederal antitrust case, which centers on how the owner of the dominant operating system uses its market power. Other, earlier suits, were filed by companies hoping to get or keep some control over the operating system of the personal computer, control that Gates walked away with.
As one of the most prominent tech companies, and one with incredibly deep pockets, Microsoft is bound to continue to face more than its fair share of legal hurdles in the future. In the coming months the Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case while lawyers in the private antitrust cases forge ahead. And companies who feel they've been wronged by the software giant most certainly will look for grounds to file more suits.
Microsoft earned a reputation of taking products and features created by others and incorporating them into Microsoft software, rather than developing them itself. After all, it had gotten DOS from SCP and the friendly point-and-click capabilities in Windows from Apple. One could see how such a reputation affects a company in today's free trade era. The Federal Trade Commission began sniffing around the software giant, prompted by the complaints of such companies as Novell (novl), Lotus Development Corp. and pen computer maker Go. The companies had accused Microsoft of bullying tactics, attempting to steal trade secrets and trying to quash competition. Again, all these lawsuits and the cramping reputation affects Microsoft in its attempt to maintain her vast market share and reputation among investors.
In my opinion a deteriorating company/brand image is what hurting GAP Inc lately; from its humble beginnings as a San Francisco mom-and-pop jean shop, GAP Inc has grown into the largest specialty retailer in the US, selling clothing, accessories, underwear, lounge wear and personal care items through three major brands – Gap (including GapKids, BabyGap, and GapBody), Banana Republic and Old Navy.
With approximately 4100 stores worldwide (GAP, Old Navy, and Banana Republic), GAP Inc. seems to gave control over the clothing market. However, the brand recently reported its first 2 year consecutive losses, and they have been loosing sales in the majority of the past 2 years. My suspicion is that the recession is only slightly to blame. Recession is an easy excuse. They have much bigger brand issues that bear far more blame.
When asked how the current recession has affected brand strategy, a Gap Inc spokesperson said, “In terms of the general economy, like everyone, we've been experiencing the same uncertainty in the marketplace. We've acknowledged that we lost focus in our brands and are now concentrating on managing our business to improve cash flow, lower expenses, and most importantly, improve our product offering.”
When asked what measures the company will take to set brand boundaries going forward, Gap’s spokesperson talks about making a number of improvements in strategy, “We are re-focusing on our brand positioning, our customer and on delivering great design. We are focused on key item merchandising and on keeping our stores simple and easy to shop. We're backing that up with greater operating effectiveness.”
As someone who have been living in NYC for the past 5 years I must say that when I arrived to New York I would constantly shop at the GAP Inc stores, and in the past 2 years, in perfect compatibility with they're reported downturn, I had just stopped, I could not find myself buying in these stores any more. I think that branding is not about getting your buyers to choose you over your competition; it's about getting your buyers to see you as the only solution to their problem. Gap Inc brands all need to get back to that. Meanwhile I am waiting to see if Gap can mend its brand in time.
Microsoft has been contending with legal opponents virtually since the day it was born, for 25 years the company has been sued by many of its major competitors and has endured countless federal investigations of its business practices. Many of the suits laid the groundwork for the current fFederal antitrust case, which centers on how the owner of the dominant operating system uses its market power. Other, earlier suits, were filed by companies hoping to get or keep some control over the operating system of the personal computer, control that Gates walked away with.
As one of the most prominent tech companies, and one with incredibly deep pockets, Microsoft is bound to continue to face more than its fair share of legal hurdles in the future. In the coming months the Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case while lawyers in the private antitrust cases forge ahead. And companies who feel they've been wronged by the software giant most certainly will look for grounds to file more suits.
Microsoft earned a reputation of taking products and features created by others and incorporating them into Microsoft software, rather than developing them itself. After all, it had gotten DOS from SCP and the friendly point-and-click capabilities in Windows from Apple. One could see how such a reputation affects a company in today's free trade era. The Federal Trade Commission began sniffing around the software giant, prompted by the complaints of such companies as Novell (novl), Lotus Development Corp. and pen computer maker Go. The companies had accused Microsoft of bullying tactics, attempting to steal trade secrets and trying to quash competition. Again, all these lawsuits and the cramping reputation affects Microsoft in its attempt to maintain her vast market share and reputation among investors.
In my opinion a deteriorating company/brand image is what hurting GAP Inc lately; from its humble beginnings as a San Francisco mom-and-pop jean shop, GAP Inc has grown into the largest specialty retailer in the US, selling clothing, accessories, underwear, lounge wear and personal care items through three major brands – Gap (including GapKids, BabyGap, and GapBody), Banana Republic and Old Navy.
With approximately 4100 stores worldwide (GAP, Old Navy, and Banana Republic), GAP Inc. seems to gave control over the clothing market. However, the brand recently reported its first 2 year consecutive losses, and they have been loosing sales in the majority of the past 2 years. My suspicion is that the recession is only slightly to blame. Recession is an easy excuse. They have much bigger brand issues that bear far more blame.
When asked how the current recession has affected brand strategy, a Gap Inc spokesperson said, “In terms of the general economy, like everyone, we've been experiencing the same uncertainty in the marketplace. We've acknowledged that we lost focus in our brands and are now concentrating on managing our business to improve cash flow, lower expenses, and most importantly, improve our product offering.”
When asked what measures the company will take to set brand boundaries going forward, Gap’s spokesperson talks about making a number of improvements in strategy, “We are re-focusing on our brand positioning, our customer and on delivering great design. We are focused on key item merchandising and on keeping our stores simple and easy to shop. We're backing that up with greater operating effectiveness.”
As someone who have been living in NYC for the past 5 years I must say that when I arrived to New York I would constantly shop at the GAP Inc stores, and in the past 2 years, in perfect compatibility with they're reported downturn, I had just stopped, I could not find myself buying in these stores any more. I think that branding is not about getting your buyers to choose you over your competition; it's about getting your buyers to see you as the only solution to their problem. Gap Inc brands all need to get back to that. Meanwhile I am waiting to see if Gap can mend its brand in time.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Business Strategy
A niche, to me, is focusing on a specific area of a service or a product sector. The specific niche needs to provide either a large volume of business or small volume with lucrative profit margins. One of the biggest niche strategy advantages is the ability to quickly become a dominant player in a certain area. By definition, there is almost always a limited pool of competitors in the market area, either for the area itself or the geographic limitation.
I believe that Apple has niche dominance, although it is the largest niche I had stumbled upon, it is still a niche, despite all its increasing popularity, its still only amounts to 12% of the personal computer industry. Apple's traditional enterprise niches includes graphics, advertising, and creative departments, and although the mac may always be a minority platform, it is a stable one. Throughout their history, apple has produced some of the most expansive personal computer on the market, and in the age of $300 Dell PC's, they still do. I can only assume (since Steve Joves is not a homeless person), that they have a certain clientele that they are relying on , that would continue to afford and pay for their pricey products. The iPhone, for example, is an excellent example, in a period when people are trying to figure out how to pay the rent, Apple were pushing to the market a $600 cell phone, touch or no touch, itunes or not, its still a cell phone to me, but to my surprise (and to Apple's as well) the iPhone sold 500,000 units in the opening weekend, still a niche? Absolutely. Most business people still use a blackberry, and the companies that provide it to them, will keep on doing so.
In the left corner, weighing much more than Apple, we (and by saying we I mean all of us) have the "good" old Microsoft, playing in the role of the big bad monopoly, taking the huge market share, as Windows still dominates 98% of the PC market. I would like to go back to the beginning and explain how was Microsoft's control became possible; back in 1981 (after creating Applesoft Basic for Apple Computer) they entered the OS market with MS DOS 1.0 (the first Macs didn’t appear until 1984). Within a few years Microsoft had over 90% percent of the OS market. The Microsoft monopoly was possible, in part, because of the incredible advantages of being first. And, the monopoly made Bill Gates the wealthiest man in the United States. Microsoft became a monopoly because they created the most universally useful standard for desktop computers. People don't understand much about computers, Microsoft took advantage of that, and created the most universal user friendly access to a cuputer, priceless, or is it?
I believe that Apple has niche dominance, although it is the largest niche I had stumbled upon, it is still a niche, despite all its increasing popularity, its still only amounts to 12% of the personal computer industry. Apple's traditional enterprise niches includes graphics, advertising, and creative departments, and although the mac may always be a minority platform, it is a stable one. Throughout their history, apple has produced some of the most expansive personal computer on the market, and in the age of $300 Dell PC's, they still do. I can only assume (since Steve Joves is not a homeless person), that they have a certain clientele that they are relying on , that would continue to afford and pay for their pricey products. The iPhone, for example, is an excellent example, in a period when people are trying to figure out how to pay the rent, Apple were pushing to the market a $600 cell phone, touch or no touch, itunes or not, its still a cell phone to me, but to my surprise (and to Apple's as well) the iPhone sold 500,000 units in the opening weekend, still a niche? Absolutely. Most business people still use a blackberry, and the companies that provide it to them, will keep on doing so.
In the left corner, weighing much more than Apple, we (and by saying we I mean all of us) have the "good" old Microsoft, playing in the role of the big bad monopoly, taking the huge market share, as Windows still dominates 98% of the PC market. I would like to go back to the beginning and explain how was Microsoft's control became possible; back in 1981 (after creating Applesoft Basic for Apple Computer) they entered the OS market with MS DOS 1.0 (the first Macs didn’t appear until 1984). Within a few years Microsoft had over 90% percent of the OS market. The Microsoft monopoly was possible, in part, because of the incredible advantages of being first. And, the monopoly made Bill Gates the wealthiest man in the United States. Microsoft became a monopoly because they created the most universally useful standard for desktop computers. People don't understand much about computers, Microsoft took advantage of that, and created the most universal user friendly access to a cuputer, priceless, or is it?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Porter's Five Forces Model
The effectiveness of Porter’s model for determining industry attractiveness:
Porter's five-forces models concentrates on five structural industry features that comprise the competitive environment, and hence profitability, of an industry. Applying the model means, to be profitable, the firm has to find and establish itself in an industry so that the company can react to the forces of competition in a favorable manner, in that way, it is definitley effective, however, due to the fact that Porter's model was invented 20 years ago, it is somewhat outdated; changes in technology and other industrial shifts and trends have made them somewhat obsolete. Although immediate praise for the five-forces model was exhaustive, critiques of Porter have appeared in business literature. Porter's model does not, for example, consider nonmarket changes, such as events in the political arena that impact an industry. Furthermore, Porter's model has come under fire for what critics see as his under-evaluation of government regulation and antitrust violations. Overall, criticisms of the model find their support in the lack of consideration by Porter of rapidly changing industry dynamics.
The Auto Industry:
In the automobile industry, a great proportion of income comes from selling automobiles. Globalization is the inclination of world investment and business to move from a country and local markets to a worldwide environment, is a major factor that affects the auto market. More than ever, it has been easy for foreign auto dealers to enter the American market creating competition. Competition is a major factor that takes a toll on the auto industry. In America the car making market is driven by what's known as the "Big Three:" General Motors - produces Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac, Daimler Chrysler - Chrysler, Mercedes, Jeep, and Dodge, Ford Motor Co. - Ford, Lincoln, Volvo, and Jaguar.
Threats of entry posed by new or potential competitors: it's very difficult to enter the auto industry; you need an enormous capital, the brand loyalti of existing companies is very strong, the switching costs are almost non-existing. Attractiveness--LOW.
Degree of rivalry among existing firms: the competition between the existing companies is fierce, prices are as low as ever, and the "big 3" are offering to buy a car now, and pay in 3 years, they are doing everything in their power to cut costs, in order to increase demand. Attractiveness--LOW.
Bargaining power of suppliers: A lot of suppliers depend on a certain automaker to buy a majority of their products. If an automaker decided to change suppliers it could be the end of the supplier's business. Consequently, suppliers have little power. Attractiveness--HIGH.
Bargaining power of buyers: Buyers have some bargaining power; if you already own a car, it easier and cheaper to stay with the same dealer and same brand car(low power), however, if you are leasing(most americans do) it costs nothing to switch brands. Attractiveness--MEDIUM.
Closeness of substitute products: There is always some likelihood of people taking the bus, train, or airplane to their destination. The higher the cost of operating a vehicle, the more likely people will seek alternative transportation options. The price of gasoline has a large effect on consumers' decisions to buy vehicles. Trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles have higher profit margins, but they also us a lot of gas compared to smaller sedans and light trucks. When determining availability of substitutes we should also consider time, money, personal preference, and convenience in the auto travel industry. Bottom line is that people will always use cars, its enough to enter Manhattan during rush our to obserev this peculiar phenomenon. Attractiveness--MEDIUM.
Overall, I must conclude that this industry is unattractive, the competitors are huge and are almost impossible to compete with, it take a lot of capital to get started, its very difficult to reach econonomies of scale, and its even harder to be innovative and creative at low cost.
Overall Attractiveness--LOW.
Porter's five-forces models concentrates on five structural industry features that comprise the competitive environment, and hence profitability, of an industry. Applying the model means, to be profitable, the firm has to find and establish itself in an industry so that the company can react to the forces of competition in a favorable manner, in that way, it is definitley effective, however, due to the fact that Porter's model was invented 20 years ago, it is somewhat outdated; changes in technology and other industrial shifts and trends have made them somewhat obsolete. Although immediate praise for the five-forces model was exhaustive, critiques of Porter have appeared in business literature. Porter's model does not, for example, consider nonmarket changes, such as events in the political arena that impact an industry. Furthermore, Porter's model has come under fire for what critics see as his under-evaluation of government regulation and antitrust violations. Overall, criticisms of the model find their support in the lack of consideration by Porter of rapidly changing industry dynamics.
The Auto Industry:
In the automobile industry, a great proportion of income comes from selling automobiles. Globalization is the inclination of world investment and business to move from a country and local markets to a worldwide environment, is a major factor that affects the auto market. More than ever, it has been easy for foreign auto dealers to enter the American market creating competition. Competition is a major factor that takes a toll on the auto industry. In America the car making market is driven by what's known as the "Big Three:" General Motors - produces Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac, Daimler Chrysler - Chrysler, Mercedes, Jeep, and Dodge, Ford Motor Co. - Ford, Lincoln, Volvo, and Jaguar.
Threats of entry posed by new or potential competitors: it's very difficult to enter the auto industry; you need an enormous capital, the brand loyalti of existing companies is very strong, the switching costs are almost non-existing. Attractiveness--LOW.
Degree of rivalry among existing firms: the competition between the existing companies is fierce, prices are as low as ever, and the "big 3" are offering to buy a car now, and pay in 3 years, they are doing everything in their power to cut costs, in order to increase demand. Attractiveness--LOW.
Bargaining power of suppliers: A lot of suppliers depend on a certain automaker to buy a majority of their products. If an automaker decided to change suppliers it could be the end of the supplier's business. Consequently, suppliers have little power. Attractiveness--HIGH.
Bargaining power of buyers: Buyers have some bargaining power; if you already own a car, it easier and cheaper to stay with the same dealer and same brand car(low power), however, if you are leasing(most americans do) it costs nothing to switch brands. Attractiveness--MEDIUM.
Closeness of substitute products: There is always some likelihood of people taking the bus, train, or airplane to their destination. The higher the cost of operating a vehicle, the more likely people will seek alternative transportation options. The price of gasoline has a large effect on consumers' decisions to buy vehicles. Trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles have higher profit margins, but they also us a lot of gas compared to smaller sedans and light trucks. When determining availability of substitutes we should also consider time, money, personal preference, and convenience in the auto travel industry. Bottom line is that people will always use cars, its enough to enter Manhattan during rush our to obserev this peculiar phenomenon. Attractiveness--MEDIUM.
Overall, I must conclude that this industry is unattractive, the competitors are huge and are almost impossible to compete with, it take a lot of capital to get started, its very difficult to reach econonomies of scale, and its even harder to be innovative and creative at low cost.
Overall Attractiveness--LOW.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
PricewaterhouseCoopers Mission Statement
The goal of our retail & consumer industry practice is to be the best third-party advisor to our clients, offering a full array of products and services geared to industry needs, to be the distinctive retail & consumer professional services practice within the industry, and to encourage the development, personal growth and well-being of our industry professionals.
Our retail & consumer industry group is combined into a single practice in order to encourage the exchange of ideas and knowledge among clients with similar issues and to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. Our practice professionals and clients benefit greatly from an understanding of business and technical accounting issues from both the retailer and vendor/supplier perspectives — and by sharing such knowledge and best practices, our clients are better advised and served.
Our US practice is comprised of approximately 1,000 partners and professional staff who are dedicated to serving our clients and working within our global network to meet retail & consumer client needs anywhere in the world. Our professionals represent the following three lines of service: Assurance, tax, and advisory.-->Our thought leadership and leading-edge thinking on issues, trends and innovations—e.g., RFID, product traceability, channel stuffing, fraud and antifraud, transparency, brand reputation risk, emerging markets, etc.— are well-recognized within the industry and create value for our clients.
We also maintain strategic relationships with the key trade associations serving the industry such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) where we are members of the Associate Members Council and an active participant in the President’s Council and sponsor of the Greenbrier Executive Conference; the National Retail Federation (NRF) where we provide advice and counsel to the Financial Executive Council; and the World Economic Forum (Davos), where we annually facilitate a panel discussion for the governor’s of the Retail and Consumer Goods Council.
Criteria for a Mission Statement:
The mission statement should be a clear and succinct representation of the enterprise's purpose for existence. It should incorporate socially meaningful and measurable criteria addressing concepts such as the moral/ethical position of the enterprise, public image, the target market, products/services, the geographic domain and expectations of growth and profitability.The intent of the Mission Statement should be the first consideration for any employee who is evaluating a strategic decision. The statement can range from a very simple to a very complex set of ideas.
The following elements can be included in a mission statement. Their sequence can be different.
Purpose and values of the organization
Which business the organization wants to be in (products or services, market) or who are the organization's primary "clients" (stakeholders)
What are the responsibilities of the organization towards these "clients"
What are the main objectives that support the company in accomplishing its mission
Why this is a sound Mission Statement:
I believe this is a very good mission statement basically due to the fact that it follows the customary framework; it combines the task, the vision, the values, and the goals. It clearly states what does the firm wish to achieve and how does it aspire to achieve it, however, to me, and I am an accountant to be, it is too long and too detailed, and is maybe right on the boarder of defeating its purpose.
Our retail & consumer industry group is combined into a single practice in order to encourage the exchange of ideas and knowledge among clients with similar issues and to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. Our practice professionals and clients benefit greatly from an understanding of business and technical accounting issues from both the retailer and vendor/supplier perspectives — and by sharing such knowledge and best practices, our clients are better advised and served.
Our US practice is comprised of approximately 1,000 partners and professional staff who are dedicated to serving our clients and working within our global network to meet retail & consumer client needs anywhere in the world. Our professionals represent the following three lines of service: Assurance, tax, and advisory.-->Our thought leadership and leading-edge thinking on issues, trends and innovations—e.g., RFID, product traceability, channel stuffing, fraud and antifraud, transparency, brand reputation risk, emerging markets, etc.— are well-recognized within the industry and create value for our clients.
We also maintain strategic relationships with the key trade associations serving the industry such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) where we are members of the Associate Members Council and an active participant in the President’s Council and sponsor of the Greenbrier Executive Conference; the National Retail Federation (NRF) where we provide advice and counsel to the Financial Executive Council; and the World Economic Forum (Davos), where we annually facilitate a panel discussion for the governor’s of the Retail and Consumer Goods Council.
Criteria for a Mission Statement:
The mission statement should be a clear and succinct representation of the enterprise's purpose for existence. It should incorporate socially meaningful and measurable criteria addressing concepts such as the moral/ethical position of the enterprise, public image, the target market, products/services, the geographic domain and expectations of growth and profitability.The intent of the Mission Statement should be the first consideration for any employee who is evaluating a strategic decision. The statement can range from a very simple to a very complex set of ideas.
The following elements can be included in a mission statement. Their sequence can be different.
Purpose and values of the organization
Which business the organization wants to be in (products or services, market) or who are the organization's primary "clients" (stakeholders)
What are the responsibilities of the organization towards these "clients"
What are the main objectives that support the company in accomplishing its mission
Why this is a sound Mission Statement:
I believe this is a very good mission statement basically due to the fact that it follows the customary framework; it combines the task, the vision, the values, and the goals. It clearly states what does the firm wish to achieve and how does it aspire to achieve it, however, to me, and I am an accountant to be, it is too long and too detailed, and is maybe right on the boarder of defeating its purpose.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Introduction
Welcome!
I am Nadav Terer, a new visitor to the "a little more sophisticated" internet community (until now I barely had an email account). I am a perfect stranger to "myspace", "facebook", and all that is in between, so I believe this would be a whole new and interesting experience to me, and I am looking forward to it!
See you soon,
Nadav.
I am Nadav Terer, a new visitor to the "a little more sophisticated" internet community (until now I barely had an email account). I am a perfect stranger to "myspace", "facebook", and all that is in between, so I believe this would be a whole new and interesting experience to me, and I am looking forward to it!
See you soon,
Nadav.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
