I’ll admit I’m not the person that you would say “good” with technology. Thankfully according to Carson Woo, business technology management (BTM), and management information system (MIS) doesn’t require you to be a whiz about the software or hardware, as long as you are able to apply it into a business.

Using technology in businesses is inevitable; the challenge is how you apply it accordingly so that it supports the business to its maximum. In fact, BTM can play crucial roles from sales to operations. However Mr. Woo points out that many companies fail to sense the importance of BTM, and the consequences range from wasting money on investments to the bankruptcy of the whole company.

An example of failing to manage technology is Kodak, the digital camera giant and RIM (Blackberry). Both companies had innovative technology that once dominated their industry, but the failure to continuously leverage their technology into the ever changing market was more than destructive. While Kodak has gone bankrupt in January 2012, RIM is still struggling. How should RIM change its MIS to prevent walking in the footsteps of Kodak? Maybe the company should follow through with their once rival Apple to improve their business innovation.

Further Reading:

Kodak Files for Bankruptcy as Digital Era Spells End to Film  by Dawn McCarty and Beth Jinks

Research in Motion the Failing Giant  by Steven Johnson

Three amazing entrepreneurs came to our class and talked to us about starting their own business. Of course we discussed the difficulties on starting a brand new business, getting their initial start-up fund and getting the first customer. But what was most memorable for me was how they used their business education on a job/ mission they were truly passionate about. Whether going after long-time passion for music (Tom Dobrzanski, Vertical Studios); a school-project-turned-innovative-product that also raises energy awareness (Janice Cheam, Energy Aware); or even after working years in the business industry, achieving the dream of seeing earth live, from space (Wade Larson, UrtheCast). There just doesn’t seem to be a limit on what you can achieve.

Our professor uses the analogy of “tool box” and it is handed to us at the start of our journey in Sauder UBC. The skills (or tools) are introduced to us in COMM 101, and I can’t wait that after years of perfecting the skills would I be fully “equipped” to chase after my own dreams. (That is if I can figure it out first.)

See clip:　Test Teaching Scandal Rocks Atlanta Schools

The intention of the No Child Left Behind Act was to encourage schools to strive for better education for students by providing a  measurable standard goal. However by rewarding schools based on student performance on taking the standardised test is causing teachers and principals to cheat the system by creating an illusion that their schools are better than it actually is.

Is the incentive of the system flawed? Yes and no. The intentions are good and the plan can be effective. “But then humans are thrown into the equation.” says Jeff in discussing the reward system. I couldn’t agree more.

Skipping around the rules, taking a short cut, or cheating, just seems like a tendency when a reward is dangled in front of us, people. These actions are predictable but can often be neglected when creating a metric system to  evaluate or award performances. It is hard to come up with a “cheat proof” metric, especially when you have to account for all the possibilities of how people will cheat (we are surprisingly creative when it comes to that), but it is essential for a effective metric.

Back to the case of cheating teachers, if it were up to me I might suggest evaluating schools by letting the parents get a say in the evaluation. They might just care more of the actual education than their children or the teachers.

Further Reading: Caught! Teachers Cheating On Students’ Standardized Tests by Tom Ashbrook

No Child Left Behind Act    Wikipedia

“What do you get when you buy stocks?” “The power to vote and the chance of getting dividends.”  This was the question our guest speaker Mr. Murray Carlson  asked us over and over again, until the concept was engraved in our minds.

A dividend is a form of monetary return distributed to the stockholder, investors invest in companies expecting dividends in return. Usually the dividend yield is found on the company’s quote summary, that is, for companies that distribute dividends. I knew that companies aren’t obligated to provide dividends, if so then why would anyone buy stocks from a company that doesn’t guarantee, why not just invest in companies that promises dividends?

“What do you want when you buy stocks?” “The power to vote and the chance of getting dividends.”

Investing in companies in hopes of getting dividends in the future. Even if the company doesn’t presently guarantee dividends, investors invest for the chance of dividends in the future. Risky. Much riskier than investing in companies that has already stated a dividend yield.

The Dividend Guy has a whole blog devoted on analysing companies that provide dividends and how he invests in those companies.  He provides insights of stock selection bases on dividends, “One of my most important stock selection criteria is a growing dividend.”

Further Reading : The Power of Dividends. by The Dividend Guy

What is a social entrepreneur? With the increasing popularity of “social enterprises,” an increasing number of organizations are combining business models with a social mission. But does doing so automatically label the organizations as “social enterprises”?

In their article Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition, Martin and Osberg observed that entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs are same in their methods of pursuing their goals. Both entrepreneurs identify an issue, finds an opportunity to adjust to the problem, and establishing a new equilibrium.  What distinguishes them is the primary mission.

My classmate Casey Chen provides a good example in his blog post My Sister’s Closet, Social Enterprise of BWSS . My Sister’s Closet is a social enterprise of Battered Women’s Support Services that sells and designs clothings that are sold for funding for violence prevention against women and children. Casey suggested that the organization is similar but different to a social enterprise. He suggests that it should “achieve fundamental societal change using innovative approaches” with an increase in social and financial impact. However Martin and Osberg stated “Ventures created by social entrepreneurs can certainly generate income, and they can be organized as either not-for- profits or for-profits. What distinguishes social entrepreneurship is the primacy of social benefit…” It doesn’t matter if the organization makes enough money, or if the impact is big enough. What matters is the “pursuit of “mission-related impact.”“

Businesses strive to maximize their profits and have as much sales as possible. In order to do so, appealing to consumers would be crucial between businesses that are competing with similar products. So how do firms find out what consumer want? Through the process of understanding consumer behaviours. Consumer behaviour can be be explained explicitly (culture, previous experience), and  implicitly (personal perceptions). In Austin Feltham’s Blog, Austin gives a good example of how competing companies in the frozen yogurt  industry reach out to these different factors of consumer behaviour with different approaches. Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt focuses on the explicit social factor by reminding consumers the “trendy,” “popular” side of frozen yogurt, and constantly showing pictures of celebrities eating frozen yogurt.

 Another frozen yogurt company,Yogurty’s, as Austin points out, built their strategy on consumer perceptions by changing their brand name from their original company, Yogun Fruz. Yogurty’s uses the new name to their advantage by distancing the fixed consumer perception of Yogun Fruz to build a brand new image along with the new product, frozen yogurt.

Understanding consumer behaviour is an important for companies to establish their business strategy. The methods may be different but ultimately the goal is the same, to appease the most customers as possible, earning the most sales as possible.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs shows the basic structure of where behaviour takes place, and when researching consumer behaviour there is usually two categories to deal with, derived from the five levels in the structure. The top three levels being Discretionary Wants, and the bottom two are Fundamental Needs.

A report  based on a survey of more than 3,000 Chinese consumers, called “Understanding China: The Opportunities and Challenges“,  from the research company Forrester, found out a major trend that Chinese consumers like Western products.

They elaborated on that point by asking “why do you prefer foreign brands?” And more than half of the people answered that they  believed that foreign brands tend to be of superior quality than of domestic brands. From our understanding of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs we can tell that this marketing research is based on the category of discretionary wants. Most Chinese consumers feel that by possessing goods from foreign (Western ) brands they would be satisfying their discretionary wants, for example distinguishing themselves from others.

If a company was to set foot in the market in China, this research would be great use to them to understand the behaviour trend of Chinese consumers, they may adjust their marketing tactics to appeal to this behaviour, maybe emphasizing on their foreign brand.

Market positioning is crucial for companies, it’s a war of positioning itself in the minds of consumers. In their book, Positioning: The Battle for your Mind, Ries and Trout points out the  importance for a company to occupy a position in the consumer’s mind.  Even if the company isn’t first in it’s industry, they can still grasp customers with successful marketing strategies, such as finding an unoccupied position or repositioning their competition.

Below are some interesting ads in the car industry. These companies not only announces their position in the market, they also try to reposition their competition.

From the first ad we can see how BMW is establishing their position by showing that they are the best car in the world, while limiting their competition, Audi, within South Africa. The second ad from Audi quickly responds and tell consumers they are consecutive winners in endurance racing, while BMW has only been chosen in 2006. Subaru took advantage of both companies and repositions BMW and Audi as winners of “beauty contests,” and positioned Subaru as the best engine.

Further Reading:  Product Positioning

There has been many dismissals  on corporates that don”t practice “business ethics” in a sense that they’re treating employees unfairly or causing environmental issues. But economist Milton Friedman simply points that business’s aren’t obligated to keep these responsibilities in his essay The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits . 

One of his argument is that businessmen are hired to maximize the company’s profit not to preform social justices. The businessman’s primary responsibility is towards the business owners, and stockholders, and in which case their expectations for the businessman is to make money.

Another notable point is that if the business’s incentive is to sell a product at the most profitable price; the incentive of a costumer is to buy the product at the lowest. The addition of expenses on “social responsibilities,” would be like a “tax” on consumers, and they would be less willing to purchase. If everyone is for saving the environment why isn’t everyone driving a hybrid car?

So where does this bring us? I am merely introducing another side of the story, I do not stand on either arguments. But maybe next time before shaking fingers at “soulless corporations,” we can stop and consider if the responsibility is entirely on them.

Further reading: The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibilities

 Foxconn is one of the largest electronics and computer components manufacturer in the world, it supplies huge corporations including Apple Inc., Dell, and Microsoft . In 2010, eleven employees of Foxconn’s factory in China committed suicide by jumping off a building, and three more attempted. Foxconn was accused of inadequate management by forcing workers to work overtime in harsh working conditions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEvo_5uwxw

Of course, Foxconn has a serious issue of poor business ethics, resulting in this tragedy. But what I find interesting is that Apple was also heavily blamed for being negligent, and socially irresponsible. Therefore raising the question, while taking care of their own employees within their corporations, should companies also be responsible for the working conditions of their suppliers?

And how should this problem of be resolved? How much profit is a company willing to give up in order to raise the working quality of workers?

The article in the link further reveals the situation after an investigation on Foxconn factories, examines the solution, and the effects of change.

http://business.time.com/2012/03/29/apple-agrees-to-labor-reforms-after-serious-foxconn-violations/