Showing posts with label strategy, telecommunication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy, telecommunication. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Gorilla Glass and Strategic Sourcing

Mobile phones, televisions and laptop computers all use glass as a major component. Yet, glass is not a product that the electronics and computer manufacturers create themselves. Glass, while integral to their products, is not their core competency. Glass is the the core competency of Corning and it is the reason Corning is a major supplier of glass for all of these products.

While mobile phones and televisions both use glass, the products are used differently and so the type of glass that they require sometimes differs to accommodate that usage. A key difference is portability. Portable products often require low weight components to ease carrying. Portable products must also be strong because users may drop them or sit on them, conditions that are unlikely to happen to a stationary TV.

A solution to the need for low weight components has been Gorilla Glass, a Corning product. The product was invented in 1963, but went mostly unused because the expected uses at that time didn’t need all of its benefits and most of its benefits could be found in cheaper products#. However, the rise of large screen mobile phones called for all of its benefits. Gorilla Glass is now in more than 100 products and the product has revenues of $170 million dollars per year#.

In Strategic Sourcing From Periphery to Core, Mark Gottfredson, Rudy Puryear and Stephen Philips provide a strategic framework to help understand how Corning and its Gorilla Glass product could become a key component for the products of competing companies.

First, firms should consider the proprietary nature of a process or function and the uniqueness of business process or function. Processes that are not proprietary and are common across industries should be outsourced. Glass displays used in mobile phones meet both of these criteria.

Second, Gottfredson et al evaluate firm capabilities. They assess capabilities by ability to perform a function and cost per transaction. Mobile phone providers would probably have a low ability to create and research glass and a high cost per transaction which should result in a firm sourcing to increase capability and to lower cost.

Mobile phone manufacturers recognize that they design circuitry and software to facilitate accessing, sending and receiving information. While some handset providers differentiate themselves through elegant design or market segmentation, none have the capacity to design a basic material like glass as well as Corning.

While Gottfredson et al approach sourcing from a purchasers stand point, their framework may also be used to evaluate the strengths of a supplier directly. Considering the ability of the supplier as compared to its customers reveals a market need. Considering the cost for a customer also reveals the potential size of the market. By meeting the needs of firms in these conditions, Corning has a stable marketplace and an ability to extend its core competencies to continue to meet the needs of its customers.


Works Cited:
1962 glass could be Corning's next bonanza seller
Ben Dobbin, AP Business Writer, On Sunday August 1, 2010, 2:14 pm EDT
Sturdy Corning glass from 1962 could be a multibillion winner in frameless TV market
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1962-glass-could-be-Cornings-apf-978849301.html?x=0

Mark Gottfredson, Rudy Puryear and Stephen Philips, Strategic Sourcing From Periphery to Core, Harvard Business Review, February 2005

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Need a long term strategy planning


Company overview: China Mobile is largest mobile telecommunication carrier in the world, which is in the 77 of the Fortune Global 500 Ranking in 2010. It plays a monopoly role in mobile communication market.


Since 2008, the main driver of the revenue growth of China Mobile transform from the voice service to value-add service. Obviously, the whole telecommunication industry faces a very big challenge of the replace of internet and terminal devices.

For voice business in mobile market, China mobile hard to pursue further development, since they already own absolute advantage and already play a monopoly role in this market.
Value-added service, obviously, is the main growth driver for China mobile in next stage competition.



What challenge they face?

The opened value-added service platform, like apple store and Google’s Android, become a biggest challenge to the traditional value-added service provider. These new business models bring a revolution of form of profit distribution. The telecommunications providers must be facing the challenge of channelize. This is means, the telecommunication providers just a channel to provide the value-add service but cannot share the profit when the customers use it. On the contrary, the value added application provider will share the profit from the telecommunication provider. And current trend is the customers are much more interested in the value added application and service rather than the voice service.




What they did wrong before?


From my perspective, they did strategy planning mistake. My bachelor degree’s graduation paper researched on this topic, the title is “the cooperation modes between the telecommunication carrier and value-added carrier”. From my investigation, they did very unfairly on the profit distribution, which is 70% for telecom carrier and 30% for the value-added carrier. But that is 4 year ago, customers do not have choices and the value –added carriers do not have choices. They must use the telecom carrier’s channel to upload and download application. Besides this, telecom carriers copy the content and idea of the small value-added carrier, which make majority small value-added carrier died very soon. Finally, only china mobile’s owned or partnership company can survived. It seems they maximize the profit from this. But, is that really right decision?

This is an improvident strategy.

The unfair competition at value-added service market via channel advantage only make benefit in short term. For China Mobile, it have chance to build a healthier value-added platform at before. If they did so, the value –added service will grow much better than now. These value added carrier can provide much better service than China mobile’s own value added companies. . The customer can have much more choices and they can cultivate the customer loyalty. China mobile can accumulate more users from this and peruse profit for long time. A good competition environment is very essential for the industry development.