You may be asking yourself, “why would we need the Arc or social enterprises, if the United Nations was fully funded?” The answer might not be so obvious at first, but it helps if we examine the goals the UN aims to achieve versus the goals of initiatives such as social enterprises or the Arc. The UN has four main goals: first, it aims to maintain peace throughout the world; second, it aims to develop friendly relations among nations; third, to help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms; forth, to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.

On the other hand, social enterprises and the Arc aim to improve the life of people living in many of the lesser developed countries from improving the lives of those living in less favorable communities. Social entrepreneurs and people involved in the Arc try finding solutions to problems where other people would otherwise just turn a blind eye because of the difficulty it would involve if they tried solving it.

To summarize, the UN tries to solve problems at a larger scale such as national or international, while the Arc Initiative or social enterprises try to solve problems are a smaller scale such as those in certain communities or help certain individual.

References:

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative/About_ARC

http://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

In Clay Christensen’s Milkshake Marketing blog post, he discusses some of the reasons behind why many products fail–inability to view the product from the standpoint of the consumer. From the consumers point of view, a product is hired to get the job done. In his post, he uses the example of the fast food restaurant that was trying to boost its milkshake sales. Initially, the marketing department first started by segmenting the product(milkshake) and the profile of the people buying the milkshake(demographics). After having gotten the statistics and responding to the feedback, the milkshake sales did not increase. Later, Clay Christensen pointed out that just because someone is of certain demographic group does not necessarily indicate the need to purchase a certain product. There was more to the story, and later on the marketing researchers found that many people were purchasing milkshakes because it would keep the buyer consumers entertained on their bus ride to work, which is the reason why consumers “hired” the milkshake to do.

In my opinion, this entire analysis could have also been done using the value proposition canvas we studied in class. To boost its sales, companies should try to identify the “pains” the consumer has, or target the “gains” consumers would gain from purchasing a certain product. To put this into perspective, using the milkshake example, the “pains” here would have been the boredom the consumers had to endure going to work. The milkshake served as the “pain reliever” by giving the commuters something to do while the commuted to work.

In this blog post, James touches upon the subject of organizational culture. In the blog post, he discusses many of the benefits to having a healthy organizational culture. And I agree with him, though fostering such culture can be costly the benefits will ultimately beat the cost. This is why companies like Google and Zappo thrive is because of such healthy organizational culture. In the long run, these companies enjoy lower turnover and the people working inside the companies are there because they enjoy and want to work for that companies, which leads to the companies success–passionate minds that work for the development and improvement of the company. The reason why a healthy organizational culture leads to higher performance ties back well with the concept of creating shared value, which we learned earlier this term. Creating shared value is defined as competitiveness of a company while at the same time improving the community and economy. In other words, these businesses try to improve their immediate society, which is in the office, and this ultimately leads to their better performance in the long run when compared to some of the competitors in the same field, but with a different organizational culture.

After going through a couple of my peers’ blogs, I stumbled upon this blog written by Paul titled ” The Largest Investment Bank went Bankrupt“. In this blog, Paul discusses the collapse of the Lehman Brothers. I think Paul made a really valid point in his blog, which is that even the largest of firms are still vulnerable to bankruptcy. This point goes hand in hand with our topic in class, which is that only through continuously innovation can firms thrive and succeed in this era of transient advantage. One thing I believe could have been better explained was the source for the statistics provided in the post, for he mentions that unemployment went up from 5% to 10% and by providing a source he would have made his argument a lot more convincing and credible.

Reference:

The Largest Investment Bank went Bankrupt

HTC, a cellphone manufacturer based in Taiwan, was once one of the leading smart phones manufacturers. Nowadays, however, due to various managerial decision failures and poor marketing strategy, sales and stock value plummeted, and net income have dropped yearly.

This issue caught my attention because few years ago HTC was awarded as the best corporation in Taiwan. However, nowadays in the Taiwanese media, news on HTC are usually negative, which includes plants shutting down or legal charges brought against HTC by other corporations, though the latter isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it could be that other foreign phone manufacturers perceive HTC as a threat. The issue of HTC because more interesting because Microsoft recently purchased Nokia, but at the same time the Taiwanese media was showing outcries by part of HTC employees wishing that Microsoft had bought HTC instead. With technology constantly changing there in no more sustainable economic advantage; it is all about transient advantage and constant changes. The main problem with HTC according to the article, which goes in line with what I perceive, is HTC’s inability to recognize the consumer’s gains and pains and try to match these needs using their product, or they are doing it in a really inefficient manner.

Reference:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/HTCs-market-share-continues-to-drop-can-this-company-be-saved_id62532

Xiaomi, a cellphone vendor that started three years ago in China, is now the world’s third biggest phone manufacturer.

This article really caught my attention because in these short three years, Xiaomi has made it from a unheard cellphone manufacturer to what is now the world’s third largest manufacturer. This is particularly remarkable because the company has yet to expand its business outside of Asia, and with most of its demand is coming  only from China. A large part of Xiaomi’s success was due to its ability to resonate with the mass population of China by offering its cellphones at lower cost and better specification than its competitors and having applications and an interface that is tailored to the mass Chinese consumer–cost leadership strategy. This also goes to show that China is an growing market as its economy improves.

Reference:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/30/7130753/xiaomi-becomes-worlds-third-biggest-smartphone-maker-without-leaving-asia

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Xiaomi-is-the-new-No-3-in-the-global-smartphone-market-Report/articleshow/44980773.cms