” If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise”?

In responding to such a thought-provoking question, it is pertinent to first underscore the underlying implications of the Arc and social enterprise’s existence. I personally believe the interconnections made between business knowledge and innovative entrepreneurs convincingly translates to success in terms of social change, as ideas are brought and amalgamated by individuals passionate to make a difference.

I had to consider whether the extra funding for the United Nations would bring about as great an effect compared to the growing magnitude of the Arc initiative around the world. My conclusion? Social enterprises and the Arc are arguably essential in facilitating the growth of less affluent communities around the world, as this helps foster a more structured and equalized system for business and societal growth. I found that reading the Upward Arc article helped shed light on what differentiates the United Nations with the Arc: the idea of making a bigger impact through the connectivity of developing countries with educative processes, the catalytic effect in supporting government funding with shared knowledge, and the encompassing spread of innovative ideas are aspects the United Nations can never touch on to such an immersive extent.

“Everyone can make a difference” may seem like a generic, tried-and-true phrase, but with Arc, this statement may no longer be just conjecture.

Reading Jason’s blog post on paternity leave in the workplace has really made me appreciate how fast the business environment is evolving, not just in terms of technology or sustainability, but in HR management as well. Like Jason, I definitely believe that Ernst & Young is strategically promoting inter-employee-employer relationships by encouraging flexibility within the employees’ lives. Consequently, these paternity leave opportunities and the familial atmosphere fostered by company values should serve to increase overall productivity and corporate loyalty.

We fervently discussed in-class about the creation of a distinct corporate culture, using Zappos as an exemplar, but Ernst & Young has shown that by bureaucratically adapting working policies, a person-based motivational culture is undoubtedly formed. I would argue that other firms can easily emulate these morale-boosting practices through simple procedures like integrating performance-related pay (extrinsically-based) or by taking a leaf out of Handy’s Shamrock organization model and intrinsically allowing more part-time shifts.

Conversely, I thought of Facebook and Apple’s recent, radical HR-initiative of offering female employees $20,000 to “freeze their eggs”, hoping to promote workplace gender equality by limiting maternal leave. Although creative, I heavily disagree with this implementation because as Ernst & Young have shown, employee empowerment through sustainable (and ethical!) policies is the way to go. These particular firms essentially must ask themselves: what are we implicating to all stakeholders by readjusting the HR structure in this way?

While reflecting on my existing blog posts, I realized that I missed out on a very intriguing field; the realm of operations!

Thus, when glancing over Honda’s decision to invest $857-million on a new Ontario plant, I found it more interesting to examine the issue through the lens of an operations manager, instead of just a conventional financial-cost based analysis. Honda’s investment suggests that they’re hoping to maximize productive capacity and efficiency, most likely to aid mass outsourcing of manufactured units. Professor Mahesh  referenced the operations manager’s role of forecasting and variability in-class, and in my opinion, these concepts become highly essential to the future implications of purchasing the new plant, as possible ramifications Honda could consider include: the expected returns of this heavy capital expenditure, methods to mitigate sunk costs, or even the added integration of new distribution channels.

I then put two-and-two together, synthesizing the inherent importance of a functional supply chain, which Honda must develop to effectively support its operations. Another excerpt I found from Canadian Manufacturing Press claims that collaboration and innovation are key in fostering supply chain evolution, which I absolutely agree with. The intertwinement of key supplier relationships (model canvas!) and infrastructure expansion should allow Honda favourable opportunities for growth.

After all, what’s a factory without its network of distributors?

Ever since the in-class revelation that BTM was a rather new, unestablished idea in the business world, it got me thinking: to what extent are firms utilizing technology systems to aid their processes, in operations or marketing, for example? A rather provocative assertion from this article suggested that future organizational flexibility with technology translates to “sustainability”, which in my opinion is such a paradigm shift when thinking back to creating shared value. There seems to be an implicit juxtaposition between sustainability in the Triple Bottom Line from a CSV point-of-view, and interestingly, achieving sustainability through strategic technology management.

However, the article goes on to describe “Retailpay”, a new app that allows managers to access records and databases on their smartphones. To me, this has so many implications on streamlining and expediting what normally would be perpetuating managerial tasks, such as sales and inventory management, market trend analysis, or even performance monitoring of employees.

I feel as if redefining the word “sustainability”, just like in  Philip Vergragt’s illustrious sustainable technology paper, is essential to understand BTM’s impact in the workplace; here, sustainability is about the maximization of efficiency and expansion of entrepreneurial (and intrapreneurial) networks, allowing businesses to relay value propositions more effectively onto consumers (i.e. shared value!).

Ultimately, it looks like BTM may happily become the new green in the global business biosphere.

Ever since finishing that first SWOT assignment on Tesla, I feel like I’ve connected with and grasped the core characteristics of their company. Thus, it was a pleasant surprise to find an external blog scrutinizing Tesla’s research and development processes, especially given our discussion on this firm and created shared value.

Fred Wilson’s post delineates the rise of a new concept that really intrigues me: incremental innovation. In class, we explored the ideas of both sustainable and disruptive innovations, which suggested that unorthodox competitive disruption in today’s marketplace is now the standardized norm. However, the thought of an “incremental” strategy seems to speak to a middle-ground approach, where firms adopt a systematic, structured process in relaying developments to consumers: is this perhaps a step above the erratic notion of disruption?

I definitely agree with Wilson’s assertion that Tesla’s “feature-by-feature” marketing launch tactic is a highly effective technique, as it helps control and maintain consumer segments by easing buyers through rapid technological advances. While I doubt that Tesla’s corporate growth and sales are going to expand as quickly as their pool of ideas, if they continue churning out convincing points-of-difference (such as their new 3-month “happiness guarantee” return policy) and distinctive peripheral value packages (see lease rate reductions), then it is obvious that they will generate huge future returns and can focus on that shared value bottom-line more effectively.

I’ve always found the realm of finance to be a complex cluster of fluctuating stocks and investments and nothing much else. However, after our in-class exploration of tech IPOs, I thought back to Mahesh’s discussion on risk and uncertainty in operations, and I quickly realized: the crux of finance itself is the embodiment of volatility.

Specifically, this interesting article describes BCA Marketplace, a UK-based car auctioneer firm, that decided to withdraw their floatation decision, citing the reason “volatile global equities”. From a corporate growth standpoint, I acknowledge that the sheer amount of capital raised through public shares cannot be overlooked, as BCA’s opportunity cost by backing out was at least £200m. However, it’s easy to get caught up in the numbers and not delve into the real implications of an IPO. Logically, I feel that the dilution of ownership from shared equity could lead to internal culture clashes and the future risk of voting in a board of directors that are unrepresentative of the company vision, while the new obligation to produce financial statements for external stakeholders would also be an added managerial hassle.

To me, the financial game is now just as much about betting all of your chips to maximize your returns as it is about knowing when to safely fold until the next round.

When thinking of the business model canvas at a macroscopic scale, I initially didn’t consider issues regarding the First Nations as relevant in managerial decision-making. However, after scrutinizing Christie Clark’s efforts to amiably improve the government’s relationship with the First Nations, it seems like political factors permeate the BC government’s aims for greater cooperation and interactions between the Indigenous. Seen through peaceful negotiations and arbitration, this is similar to developing the “key partners” section in the model canvas.

While HP’s decision to de-merge into their individual B2B software services portfolio and their unit of computer-printer sales may not be an example of either national politics or First Nations disputes, there may be several implications on a deeper level. The article speaks of HP’s near “obligation” to split their company in a very positive light, but citing reasons such as “fast-paced technological market growth” and “long-term value for shareholders” seems too much an oversimplification.

I’d go far enough to say that politics and key relationships have a large part in this revelation, as compared to the First Nations disagreements – but this case speaks to internal corporate culture politics. It wouldn’t be too far-fetched to suggest that there could be a clash of interest within management or “hiccups” in operations that prompted a de-merger, but it all boils down to streamlining those important external key partnerships keeping a business (or Native party) afloat.

Christine’s blog post argues that the advent of online shopping threatens to push tangible retailers like HMV out of business. Personally, I largely agree with her assertion that HMV and similar firms must adapt to the volatility and uncongenial fast-pace of the current marketplace, but then I asked myself: can these firms really afford to fight a seemingly uphill technological battle?  Sure, tailoring the marketing mix to include selling peripheral products and placing a greater emphasis on customer experience can act as points-of-parity to keep HMV in the game, but to me, these extension strategies are merely obsolescent contingency packages with a ticking time bomb inside.

However, I then read a recent article that underscored large scale initiatives taken by shopping malls to “modernize” their competitive position. In fact, Canadian Tire’s CMO Duncan Fulton stated that, “digital blows up everyone’s business model”. Indeed, working with the business model canvas extensively in class with my theoretical business has made me realize that constant alterations are needed to ensure growth and increased competitiveness. Thus, HMV should sustain their value proposition and targeted customer segments, but revamp their key resources and activities by implementing convincing attractions, as Christine first suggested, to add value and envelop entertained consumers.

Ultimately, it’s far from the traditional retailer’s last cry.

Between this article and our in-class discussion about fraudulent accounting, I’ve come to realize that this particular field isn’t just the black-and-white of number crunching or bookkeeping. No, it seems clear that even large industry giants like supermarket chain Tesco can fall under the trap of misrepresenting revenues (inflating profits by £250m) in an attempt to improve their competitive position. I personally feel there is a lot of ambiguity on whether these alterations were misconceived or if they were deliberate, but a journalist from The Economist does state that if Tesco’s books were in fact “deliberately cooked”, then this fraud would be the biggest scandal for a supermarket retailer since the 2003 US Food scandal.

Tesco’s immediate response to being uncovered is also interesting, as hiring new financial director Alan Stewart suggests a responsive crisis management team to help the firm mitigate losses in shares and investments. I would think reaching out to the consumers through social marketing and promotional activities initially would be more beneficial in salvaging Tesco’s corporate image and revenue streams, but then I considered: what was the root cause of this revenue reporting failure?

However, as established above, Tesco does have strong internal quality and PR systems in place, which suggests to me that even structured franchises have their human resource kinks when it comes to reporting profitability and shareholder returns.

Image source 

This article describes the efforts of Loblaw Cos Ltd. and their Presidents Choice brand adapting to new consumer tastes of the “food-savvy” individuals segment. Through launching campaign “Project Max” focusing on content marketing videos, Presidents Choice will convincingly raise brand awareness and long-term profits through initiatives such as removing artificial flavours out of their foods, and partnering with Google to build a “food pulse index” conversation tracker.

I think it’s fascinating how Presidents Choice is capitalizing on technology and the social media dominated environment to meet the “foodie culture’s” desire to learn about the derivations of the food products, not just uncovering new ones. In my view, these strategies are bound to help Loblaw Cos rejuvenate and re-diversify many products in their portfolio (regarding the product life cycle), while simultaneously increase their brand equity and corporate image.

It is evident that even the food industry must conform to the fast-paced, perpetually changing needs and wants of the food-driven consumer segments. But some real food for thought is: what does that imply about changes in these industries’ financing and operations management?

At this point though, Loblaw Cos Ltd. seems one step ahead in today’s revolutionary food game.