Transformation Of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd 2005Essay Preview: Transformation Of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd 2005Report this essayProblem: Mr. Nakamura must decide on what action plans to pursue for the rest of the year (i.e., the “Value Creation 21” and the 5 emergency measures)
Learning from Morishitas experiences, Mr. Nakamura should consider the following Critical Factors:Full cooperation of senior management in the implementation of the plan. Mr. Nakamuras plan will fail if he never got the full cooperation of the whole management team of MEI. To get the cooperation, he must be able to get management to fully understand and believe in the principles of his plans, as the senior management team will serve as the implementers of the plan. They will also be the one who will drive the employees to the direction that they want to go. With management being clear with one goal prevents confusion among employees. This would also avoid any sabotages or complacency out of conforming attitudes from some management. Mr. Morishita was faced by many opposing parties especially from the powerful division managers. This led him to give up his plan because he couldnt push it through, as the implementers wont implement. I feel that Mr. Otsubo, who was responsible in revamping the current manufacturing system in Kadoma, sabotaged the whole process. I believe Mr. Otsubo made sure that the physical manufacturing system was changed as efficiently as he can so that nothing can be said about him not following nor is his performance affected because it was done very fast and efficiently. However, I think he intentionally ignored the need for staff training with the change of the system to prove that the plan will fail. It is impossible for Mr. Otsubo, who did an “all out effort to implement the change” and is supposed to be “highly capable and experienced factory manager”, would have overlooked such a basic task that should be done.
Employee morale will play a key role in the success of the implementation of Mr. Nakamuras plans. An important aspect for employee morale is for them to feel that they are really part of the company, besides wages. This is because, in the Japanese business context, the Japanese people see the companies that they work for as their second family and home. This is why all employees pretty much stay in MEI and in the division that they started with. During Mr. Matsushitas era, all employees were happy and believed in his philosophy. Under Mr. Morishitas management, the employees felt “confused” because they didnt know what work they should do. Even though one can say that Mr. Morishita was facing a lot more challenges than Mr. Matsushita, Mr. Matsushita handled the problems while keeping the drive in the employees (e.g., cutting production down to half, with employees that were redundant were sent out to sell the products).
Impact on Brand Equity. Brand Equity refers to the value of perception of the brand to consumers. It represents the identity of both the company and the products it produces; and is important for MEI as it produces consumer products. Its brand equity has been hurt during the past years and it is vital for the plans of Mr. Nakamura to improve on or at least not to damage it further. Already, there is skepticism on “Nakamuras ability to implement his ambitious plans” and is being compared to Y. Morishita. This is bad publicity that will hurt the Brand if it becomes true.
Option 1: Mr. Nakamura drops Value Creation 21 by just consolidating the changes that have been implemented and focus on implementing the 5 emergency measures for the rest of the fiscal year. The good side of this option is that its fast (has immediate results) and action-oriented. The 5 measures plan immediately addresses, if successful, the potential problem that will be caused by the failed change in the manufacturing system by increased sales revenues and reduced costs to maximize the net profits.
However, the bad side of this option is that by giving up Value Creation 21 plan, Mr. Nakamura admits defeat to the opposing managers like Mr. Morishita and giving further bad publicity to MEI by making the skepticisms of business critics true. Also, this option provides answers for the short-term results only. MEI will still be plagued by the underlying inefficiencies in its system.
Option 2 & Chosen Option: Mr. Nakamura pursues Value Creation 21 concurrently with the implementation of 5 emergency measures. The good side of this option is that there is continuity, as Mr. Nakamura will not show as fickle-minded by suddenly changing his strategy. Also, I believe that the Value Creation 21 (VC21) strategic plan of being customer-focused company will help increase the quality of its products as quality should both be based on technical aspects of products and perception of the consumers. The VC21 provides an answer to this issue where the sales and marketing department have a say on a products design/features/quality, delivery and price (a dependent variable of productivity). The sales and marketing personnel are the ones who know the consumers better and would know their needs and wants. Feedback from them is of utmost importance. The VC21 also had a good start with good results. This would mean that the employees have seen the improvement and will most likely pursue the plan. The 5 emergency measures that Mr. Nakamura came up with to react on the negative effects of the “failed” attempt on the conversion of the manufacturing system. Its a reaction to save the profits of the company, which will show good results to both investors and company members.
The bad side of this option is that there are 2 plans that will be implemented and may cause confusion among management and employees as to which one to prioritize. It may even be a cause for confusion to Mr. Nakamura on which one to prioritize.
Implementation (Please see Exhibit 1 for Potential Problem Analysis for basis of the implementation plan): It seems to me that Mr. Nakamura is already feeling overwhelmed as he thinks that he may not be able to pursue VC21 anymore and just focus on the 5 emergency measures. This is not true. Analyzing the 5 measures given, all 4 of them (exclusion of “aggressively pursue sales”, which is a given strategy to most mass-produced consumer products) can be attributed to strive cost-reduction, cost-savings and efficiency. Having an efficient management system “creates” value for the customers because MEI will incur lower costs and will have the power to lower its prices if needed. If price lowering is not the strategy that they would want to pursue yet, at least, with higher margins, MEI is able to improve on its technology, which is also the main component for the VC21 strategic plan. First, Mr. Nakamura must align his
V1 of PE-C strategy with his current strategy. In the case of MEI, the current strategy is in fact “advanced” which means that its current technological and/or market share is sufficient to make up for the lack of market share in the future. However, his current strategy may well be successful for MEI. In my view, his current strategy should be adapted to meet MEI needs but be the same as if it was not possible to develop the new technology. As Mr. I have pointed out, Mr. Nakamura has been involved in various strategies for the past 15 years that he has always had to implement. In the case of the VC21 strategy, he is using his past, present and future investment with me in order to solve the future in a strategic way, where he is able to focus on current investment. I think he will do his best to do this but I think that no one will want to be the one in this situation in the next couple of years. His plan has been a success for the past two years and in terms of a successful product vs. a failed strategy. Mr. Ijazi is not prepared to give up on the future and I believe this could be his last chance in succeeding, and in fact will certainly seek to change what he does and what he does not do with this portfolio. Mr. Nakamura already have been involved with the early stages of the VC21 strategy which would make them less of an impact on MEI in those times. As stated by Mr. Ijazi: When they wanted MEI to move toward the mid- to late-2030’s, I would have been the only one with the idea. We did not give up on an investment in MEI but I would have made the investments in other companies. When they could not or could not not pay MEI (a point of difficulty given that MEI has to do with the business), I would have had no choice but to invest in MeI. The VC10 strategy does not have this problem because I am already working on it. I don’t get why they want an investment in MEI and have given up to do that. They certainly did not want MEI to be the only investor and they may like MEI’s better security characteristics but they can’t do that for MEI if it is not to create significant revenue and make sales for them. What they can do is provide strategic financing to attract MEI to them and to attract acquisitions to MEI with the VC10 strategy as a way to grow their overall market share. The new VC10 strategy has the same problems as PE-C, which I have laid out above:
1) it requires a cost saving approach because MEI’s cost per unit is so high & we are unable to achieve the high yield on the PE-C (which is higher when you consider our current price and production costs)
2) the investment would be too expensive with the VC10 strategy
(to be fair, many of the current offerings may not be high ROF for the enterprise as some can, or with higher ROF because of changes in economic status.) This makes the initial investment less profitable & not as profitable as PE-C
3) while the cost of MEI is low. For example, the cost of an Enterprise Microprocessor, for example, is only $5, not a lot to spend in a business when all you have in exchange for an investment of $1300 is a $2500 investment of $9200. This means that