According to Amal’s Blog post, DiGi, a large cellular provider in Malaysia, is aiming to change its corporate structure from a tall organizational structure to a more flatter one – in other words: de-layering. This decision holds many benefits within it, including less management costs because there are less levels of management, shorter chain of command and channels of communication, and greater employee motivation as they feel trusted and there is greater chance for delegation and empowerment. Still however, this decision has many disadvantages. A more flat structure will lead to a greater number of employees under every manager, which means a greater chance of slack in this sense, as employees feel less supervised and monitored by their managers. Additionally, decision making within the same level will be very time-consuming. Also, employees might feel less motivated by less promotion opportunities. All of this will all lead to high costs.

Thus, although a more flat organizational structure will lead to a decrease in costs in some aspects, it will lead to an increase in costs in other aspects. DiGi thus has to decide if the productivity and efficiency will be enhanced so that the benefits of such a decision outweigh the costs.

In response to Vadim’s blog about Air Canada overbooking, I completely agree that overbooking ruins Air Canada’s reputation and negatively affects customers’ trust and loyalty to Air Canada. However, I believe that it is not just a matter of reputation. Since Air Canada does not sell a tangible product, and what it actually sells are the services of providing flights, unsatisfied and let-down customers are a huge concern. This is not like a non environmentally-friendly company that produces too much toxic chemicals and substances and has a bad image while providing high quality products, Air Canada – by letting down customers who have booked flights – is not providing high quality services anymore!

Although overbooking might prove profitable in the short run, it definitely won’t in the long-run, as costs incurred from unsatisfied customers will be very high. Air Canada should thus work on eliminating this policy as soon as possible, to re-establish its position in consumers’ minds.

You might consider this crazy, but Snapchat owners have just recently refused Facebook’s offer to buy Snapchat for 3 Billion US Dollars! Yes, $3 billion! This implies that Snapchat owners value it at a higher price than 3 billion dollars, but is it really worth what they think it is?

Well, Snapchat has made a great success thus far, as an incredible amount of “Snaps” are being sent every single day. So why is Snapchat so appealing? And in particular, to whom is it so appealing? Well, in the current world of increased use and heavy reliance on social media, people have been sharing so much information and data about their selves and their personal lives via social networks, such as Facebook, and such a database is not private nor is it secure, while holding, basically, all information about users’ lives. Snapchat provides the solutions to these issues: data shared is not only private, but also secure, as pictures get deleted 10 seconds after they’re opened!

This is particularly appealing for teenagers and young adults, who prefer sharing data privately. Snapchat; however, by being not just used, but abused, raises some ethical and legal concerns regarding the types of images being shared between users.

http://www.businessinsider.com/teens-deserting-facebook-for-messaging-apps-2013-11

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/snapchat-s-founders-make-3-billion-bet-on-themselves.html

Apple seems to be known for having a very positive and strong internal corporate culture, but is it really that way?

This article portrays employees’ opinions and feelings towards working in Apple. Some employees believe that the physical environment and atmosphere, mainly Apple’s campus and the food provided, is a very good place to be at. Some employees also believe that Apple encourages team work and creativity, which promotes a positive corporate cultures. Also, Apple employees are required to keep information about what they’re working on secret, which promotes a sense of unity and commitment in the workplace.

However, some employees argue that although team work and creativity is encouraged, the only department that gets to implement its creative ideas and make decisions is the marketing department, which discourages employees working in other departments. Also, they believe that the culture is top-down, not very  open to different opinions and perspectives.

This shows that how corporate culture is experienced and viewed is subjective and differs from employee to another, depending on where they are placed in the organizational structure, including where they stand in the levels of hierarchy, as well as which business division they work in at the company.

Nestlé has been contributing to sustainability through Creating Shared Value. One of the ways in which they do so, as discussed by Hans Jöhr, the Corporate Head of agriculture in Nestlé, in his blog, is by granting farmers training and access to agricultural knowledge , since they source cocoa, coffee, and milk from a very large number of farmers in rural areas that do not undergo immense agricultural development.

Nestlé thereby creates shared value as it is benefiting the farmers, while also gaining the benefit of getting high quality agricultural products from the farmers. This type of shared value is created by “redefining productivity in the value chain”.

Nestlé also builds “supportive industry clusters” by providing the Nestlé prize in creating shared value to one of its partners who contribute to economic and social value.

I found this blog interesting to comment on as it tackles shared value directly, and grants me the  opportunity to break down the approaches that Nestlé has adopted, in the agricultural sector at least, to create economic and social profit for society as a whole.

Nike lately announced the launching of its updated version of the “FuelBand”, a device which allows people to track their activity level, including the hours of sleep that they get. Nike decided to improve its FuelBand just to keep up with other companies with competing devices. But WHY? The question isn’t just why update, but why have a device like this in the first place?

Nike is known to be a sportswear brand, mainly focused on clothing and footwear. Personally, I am a customer who is loyal to the Nike brand, for the value proposition that it offers, including the consistent quality of its products, encouraging people to be achievers, as well as promoting a healthy lifestyle. I believe that trying to integrate technology with a healthy lifestyle is actually very contradictory, as huge dependence on technology is actually negatively affecting human beings’ health. Human beings should seriously take a break from technology, especially when exercising or walking while wearing NIKE CLOTHES AND SHOES!

I feel like this issue with Nike is very similar to the case of Amazon discussed in class. As Amazon tried to start streaming TV shows and movies to compete with Netflix, it eventually failed because it had tried to expand beyond its niche in the market.

Therefore, Nike should remain inside the niche that it fills in the market, and not diversify too much, to develop good corporate strategy, as strategy does not only consider what a business should go into, but what a business should avoid going into, so that it can maintain its competitive advantage.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-15/sorry-nike-youre-a-tech-company-now#r=read

http://globotext.com/the-nike-values-proposition/

Reading about Financial Accounting Fraud has led me to thinking about a concept that I’ve encountered earlier: window dressing.

Nope, it is not the kind of window dressing above that you’re thinking of. It is this kind:

Window dressing is basically the “legal manipulation” of a firm’s financial data to make it look more appealing and flattering, according to the country’s laws. It is used for many reasons, including, but not limited to: showing the firm as profitable and sustainable, improving the liquidity position of the firm, showing less liabilities, mainly to impress and attract investors, financial lenders, and employees-mostly managers.

But then, what makes window dressing different from financial statement fraud?

Financial statement fraud is intended misrepresentation of the financial position of a firm in order to deceive and manipulate the users of financial statements. It is seen that financial statement fraud is making major changes to the figures, whereas window dressing is making minor changes that heavily impact the firm’s image. Still, what makes window dressing legal while financial statement fraud illegal? One thing is for sure, in my opinion, is that for both, it is a matter of being unethical towards stakeholders, who deserve to know of the actual financial position and performance of the firm.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19470942/Window-Dressing

https://www.cga-pdnet.org/Non_VerifiableProducts/ArticlePublication/FinStatFraud/FinStatFraud_p1.pdf

So throughout the Marketing and Accounting meet Operations lecture, an overarching concept we were discussing was the disadvantages of holding too much stock and inventory, and the advantages of having just the right amount of stock. The advantages include less costs of storage, more flexibility in responding to changes in preferences and tastes of customers, and less wastage if the products don’t sell. However, can forecasts accurately predict the level of demand? No matter how much market research is conducted, there is still a significant level of inaccuracy and uncertainty. This brings us to the benefits of holding too much stock! Yes, there can be benefits. Holding too much stock enables businesses to respond quickly to a sudden increase in demand. This also ensures a less time-consuming process of having to get raw materials from suppliers, and go through the production process, therefore ensures less loss of sales. Storing inventory also allows firms to buy in bulk from suppliers, thereby reducing costs of factors of production.

As I was opening a Google tab to search for ideas for my blog post, a creative idea popped into my head. Why not write about Google? What are Google’s Points of Parity with other search engines like Yahoo! and Bing? And what are its points of difference? What makes it so unique? What makes us want to “Google” everything instead of “Yahoo!” everything? Its points of parity, of course, mainly consist of it being a search engine for acquiring information, a place for advertising, and so-forth. What is more important is what makes it a valuable brand. Google is  first very easy, quick, and simple to use, yet provides a very large base of information, ranging from to scholarly articles, to news, to images, to books.. the list goes on. Google continues to develop its services and continues to be innovative as it has no contracts with external parties, which enables it to be as innovative as it wants to. It has established a loyal relationship between it and its customers. For example, it changes its doodles according to worldwide events, and plays April Fool’s pranks on people. Google has definitely made its brand relevant, credible, and distinctive.

http://www.programmersparadox.com/2008/03/17/googles-unique-advantage/

http://www.google.ca/about/company/history/

Apple’s factory, Foxconn in Shenzhen, southern China, used to employ around 400,000 18-20 year old workers. Now, this number has dropped significantly. Well, why is that? Workers at this factory, in particular, have been exploited to an extent that your human mind cannot comprehend. They have been suffering from terrible working conditions, such as having to share a room in the dormitories with 23 other people, working TRIPLE the maximum number of hours Apple indicates in its employee contract, constantly humiliated and undignified if they disobey any orders, and rarely get any breaks. Anyways, so you get the point by now, the workers were severely exploited to the extent that some of them even committed suicide. Still however, the question remains, how does Apple get away with this? I bet so many people have read this article on their iPhones and felt bad while reading it, but then just disregarded it and continued surfing the internet, still on their iPhones which were made by these young adults who are being abused (well I know I am one of those people anyways).. How come Apple’s image was not ruined after this? Why was it not brought to justice? This shows the lack of awareness that most consumers have about ethical concerns, and the company’s carelessness towards this issue. Surely, there is a more ethical way for Apple to be more productive and innovative without exploiting its workers so badly, which will backfire on Apple on the long-run.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-factory-workers-suicides-humiliation