1. Write a proposal to your head of department explaining how Information Technology can be leveraged to gain a competitive advantage in your department. Explain what advantages your proposal if implemented can help achieve this. What competitive strategy or combination of strategies do you seek to employ. 2. Mention and explain 5 ways in which Business Process Reengineering differs from Business Improvement. Use an institution that you are familiar with to give examples.

1. Please analyze how to potentially avoid “Red Ocean Traps” using a hotel, retail, restaurant, healthcare, or entrepreneurship example.

Using a fast food example, how would they avoid each of the five red ocean traps as in the article.

TRAP ONE

Seeing Market-Creating Strategies as Customer-Oriented Approaches Generating new demand is at the heart of market- creating strategies. It hinges on converting non- customers into customers, as Salesforce.com did with its on-demand CRM software, which opened up a new market space by winning over small and midsize firms that had previously rejected CRM enterprise software.

The trouble is that managers, especially those in marketing, have been quite reasonably brought up to believe that the customer is king. It’s all too easy for them to assume, therefore, that market-creating strategies are customer led, which causes them to re exclusively stick to their focus on existing customers and how to make them happier.

This approach, however, is unlikely to create new markets. To do that, an organization needs to turn its focus to noncustomers and why they refuse to patronize an industry’s offering. Noncustomers, not customers, hold the greatest insight into the points of pain and intimidation that limit the boundary of an industry. A focus on existing customers, by contrast, tends to drive organizations to come up with better solutions for them than what competitors currently o er—but keeps companies moored in red oceans.

Consider Sony’s launch of the Portable Reader System (PRS) in 2006. The company’s aim was to unlock a new market space in books by opening the e-reader market to a wide customer base. To gure out how to realize that goal, it looked to the experi- ence of existing e-reader customers, who were dissat- is ed with the size and poor display quality of current products. Sony’s response was a thin, lightweight de- vice with an easy-to-read screen. Despite the media’s praise and happier customers, the PRS lost out to Amazon’s Kindle because it failed to attract the mass of noncustomers whose main reason for rejecting e-readers was the shortage of worthwhile books, not the size and the display of the devices. Without a rich choice of titles and an easy way to download them, the noncustomers stuck to print books.

Amazon understood this when it launched the Kindle in 2007, offering more than four times the number of e-titles available from the PRS and mak- ing them easily downloadable over Wi-Fi. Within six hours of their release, Kindles sold out, as print book customers rapidly became e-reader custom- ers as well. Though Sony has since exited e-readers, the Kindle grew the industry from around a mere 2% of total book buyers in 2008 to 28% in 2014. It now o ers more than 2.5 million e-titles.

TRAP TWO

Treating Market-Creating Strategies
as Niche Strategies
The eld of marketing has placed great emphasis on using ever ner market segmentation to identify and capture niche markets. Though niche strategies can often be very e ective, uncovering a niche in an ex- isting space is not the same thing as identifying a new market space.

Consider Song, an airline launched in 2003 by Delta. Delta’s aim was to create a new market space in low-cost carriers by targeting a distinct segment of i- ers. It decided to focus on stylish professional women travelers, a segment it gured had needs and prefer- ences di erent from those of the businessmen and other passengers most airlines targeted. No airline had ever been built around this group. After many focus group discussions with upwardly mobile and professional women, Delta came up with a plan to cater to them with organic food, custom cocktails, a variety of entertainment choices, free in- ight work- outs with complementary exercise bands, and crew members dressed in Kate Spade. The strategy was intended to ll a gap in the market. It may well have done that successfully, but the segment proved too small to be sustainable despite competitive pricing. Song ew its last ight in April 2006, just 36 months after its launch.

Successful market-creating strategies don’t fo- cus on a finer segmentation. More often, they “deseg- ment” markets by identifying key commonalities across buyer groups that could help generate broader demand. Pret A Manger, a British food chain, looked across three di erent prepared-lunch buyer groups: restaurant-going professionals, fast food customers, and the brown bag set. Although there were plenty of di erences across these groups, there were three key commonalities: All of them wanted a lunch that was fresh and healthful, wanted it fast, and wanted it at a reasonable price. That insight helped Pret A Manger see how it could unlock and aggregate untapped de- mand across those groups to create a commercially compelling new market. Its concept was to offer restaurant-quality sandwiches made fresh every day from high-end ingredients, preparing them at a speed even greater than that of fast food, and deliv- ering that experience in a sleek setting at reasonable prices. Today, nearly 30 years on, Pret A Manger con- tinues to enjoy robust pro table growth in the new market space it established.

TRAP THREE

Confusing Technology Innovation
with Market-Creating Strategies
R&D and technology innovation are widely recog- nized as key drivers of market development and in- dustry growth. It’s understandable, therefore, that managers might assume that they are also key drivers in the discovery of new markets. But the reality is that market creation is not inevitably about technological innovation. Yellow Tail opened a new market (in its case, for a fun and simple wine for everyone) with- out any bleeding-edge technologies. So did the chain Starbucks and the performing arts company Cirque du Soleil. Even when technology is heavily in- volved, as it was with market creators Salesforce.com, Intuit’s Quicken, or Uber, it is not the reason that new o erings are successful. Such products and services succeed because they are so simple to use, fun, and productive that people fall in love with them. The technology that enables them essentially disappears from buyers’ minds.

Consider the Segway Personal Transporter, which was launched in 2001. Was it a technology innova- tion? Sure. It was the world’s rst self-balancing hu- man transporter, and it worked well. Lean forward and you go forward; lean back and you go back. This engineering marvel was one of the most-talked- about technology innovations of its time. But most people were unwilling to pay up to $5,000 for a prod- uct that posed di culties in use and convenience: Where could you park it? How would you take it with you in a car? Where could you use it—sidewalks or roads? Could you take it on a bus or a train? Although the Segway was expected to reach breakeven just six months after its launch, sales fell way below initial predictions, and the company was sold in 2009. Not everyone was surprised. At the time of the product’s release, a prescient Time magazine article about Dean Kamen, Segway’s inventor, struck a cautionary note: “One of the hardest truths for any technologist to hear is that success or failure in business is rarely determined by the quality of the technology.”

Value innovation, not technology innovation, is what launches commercially compelling new mar- kets. Successful new products or services open mar- ket spaces by o ering a leap in productivity, simplic- ity, ease of use, convenience, fun, or environmental friendliness. But when companies mistakenly as- sume that market creation hinges on breakthrough technologies, their organizations tend to push for products or services that are too “out there,” too complicated, or, like the Segway, lacking a necessary ecosystem. In fact, many technology innovations fail to create new markets even if they win the company accolades and their developers scienti c prizes.

TRAP FOUR

Equating Creative Destruction
with Market Creation
Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction lies at the heart of innovation economics. Creative destruction occurs when an invention disrupts a market by displacing an earlier technology or existing product or service. Digital photography, for example, wiped out the photographic lm industry, becoming the new norm. In Schumpeter’s framework, the old is incessantly destroyed and replaced by the new.

But does market creation always involve destruc- tion? The answer is no. It also involves nondestruc- tive creation, wherein new demand is created with- out displacing existing products or services. Take Viagra, which established a new market in lifestyle drugs. Did Viagra make any earlier technology or ex- isting product or service obsolete? No. It unlocked new demand by o ering for the rst time a real solu- tion to a major problem experienced by many men in their personal relationships. Grameen Bank’s cre- ation of the micro nance industry is another exam- ple. Many market-creating moves are nondestructive, because they o er solutions where none previously existed. We’ve also seen this happen with the social networking and crowdfunding industries. And even when a certain amount of destruction is involved in market creation, nondestructive creation is often a larger element than you might think. Nintendo’s Wii game player, for example, complemented more than replaced existing game systems, because it attracted younger children and older adults who hadn’t previously played video games.

Con ating market creation with creative destruc- tion not only limits an organization’s set of opportu- nities but also sets o resistance to market-creating strategies. People in established companies typically don’t like the notion of creative destruction or disrup- tion because it may threaten their current status and jobs. As a result, managers often undermine their company’s market-creating e orts by starving them of resources, allocating undue overhead costs to the initiatives, or not cooperating with the people work- ing on them. It’s critical for market creators to head this danger o early by clarifying that their project is at least as much about nondestructive creation as it is about disruption.

TRAP FIVE

Equating Market-Creating
Strategies with Differentiation
In a competitive industry companies tend to choose their position on what economists call the “produc- tivity frontier,” the range of value-cost trade-offs that are available given the structure and norms of the industry. Di erentiation is the strategic position on this frontier in which a company stands out from competitors by providing premium value; the trade- o is usually higher costs to the company and higher prices for customers. We’ve found that many man- agers assume that market creation is the same thing.

In reality, a market-creating move breaks the value-cost trade-off. It is about pursuing differen- tiation and low cost simultaneously. Are Yellow Tail and Salesforce.com di erentiated from other play- ers? You bet. But are Yellow Tail and Salesforce.com also low cost? Yes again. A market-creating move is a “both-and,” not an “either-or,” strategy. It’s impor- tant to realize this difference, because when com- panies mistakenly assume that market creation is synonymous with di erentiation, they often focus on what to improve or create to stand apart and pay scant heed to what they can eliminate or reduce to simultaneously achieve low cost. As a result, they may inadvertently become premium competitors in an existing industry space rather than discover a new market space of their own. Take BMW, which set out to establish a new mar- ket in urban transport with its launch of the C1 in

2000. Tra c problems in European cities are severe, and people waste many hours commuting by car there, so BMW wanted to develop a vehicle people could use to beat rush-hour congestion. The C1 was a two-wheeled scooter targeting the premium end of the market. Unlike other scooters, it had a roof and a full windshield with wipers. BMW also invested heavily in safety. The C1 held drivers in place with a four-point seat-belt system and protected them with an aluminum roll cage, two shoulder-height roll bars, and a crumple zone around the front wheel.

With all these extra features, the C1 was expen- sive to build, and its price ranged from $7,000 to $10,000—far more than the $3,000 to $5,000 that typical scooters fetched. Although the C1 succeeded in di erentiating itself within the scooter industry, it did not create the new market space in transportation BMW had hoped for. In the summer of 2003, BMW announced it was stopping production because the C1 hadn’t met sales expectations.

TRAP SIX

Equating Market-Creating Strategies with Low-Cost Strategies
This trap, in which managers assume that they can create a new market solely by driving down costs, is the obvious ip side of trap ve. When organizations see market-creating strategies as synonymous with low-cost strategies alone, they focus on what to elim- inate and reduce in current o erings and largely ig- nore what they should improve or create to increase the o erings’ value.

Ouya is a video-game console maker that fell into this trap. When the company began selling its prod- ucts, in June 2013, big players like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo were o ering consoles connected to TV screens and controllers that provided a high- quality gaming experience, for prices ranging from $199 to $419. With no low-cost console available, many people would play video games either on handheld devices or on TV screens connected to mobile devices via inexpensive cables.

An attempt to create a market space between high-end consoles and mobile handhelds, the $99 Ouya was introduced as a low-cost open-source

“microconsole” offering reasonable quality on TV screens and most games free to try. Although people admired the inexpensive, simple device, Ouya didn’t have the rich catalog of quality games, 3-D intensity, great graphics, and processing speed that traditional

gamers prized but the company had to some extent sacri ced to drop cost and price. At the same time, Ouya lacked the distinctive advantage of mobile handheld devices—namely, their play-on-the-go functionality. In the absence of those features, poten- tial gamers had no compelling reason to buy Ouyas. The company is now shopping itself to acquirers—on the basis of its sta ’s talent more than the strength of its console business—but as yet hasn’t found one.

Our point, again, is that a market-creating strat- egy takes a “both-and” approach: It pursues both di erentiation and low cost. In this framework, new market space is created not by pricing against the competition within an industry but by pricing against substitutes and alternatives that noncustomers are currently using. Accordingly, a new market does not have to be created at the low end of an industry. Instead it can be created at the high end, as Cirque du Soleil did in circus entertainment, Starbucks did in co ee, and Dyson did in vacuum cleaners.

Even when companies create new markets at the low end, the o erings also are clearly di erentiated in the eyes of buyers. Consider Southwest Airlines and Swatch. Southwest stands out for its friendly, fast, ground-transportation-in-the-air feel, while stylish, fun designs make Swatches a fashion state- ment. Both companies’ offerings are perceived as both di erentiated and low cost.

1. How might organization mechanisms support implementation of a real options strategy?

What are the benefits and challenges of telephone direct marketing.?

Identify a method used to measure the effectiveness of Human Resources and explain the circumstances in which that method might be used and why it would be more effective than others.  

companies are adopting or planning to adopt blockchain technology. Since we want to focus on corporate applications, please select a non-cryptocurrency topic.

Prompt: A summary of the specific application of blockchain you selected. A discussion of the types of companies and/or industries that will benefit from this application. An analysis of whether or not this application of blockchain technology will be successful. Minimum 450 words

What are the cons of cyberloafing? (at least two paragraphs )

Three (3) ways of grouping them are: 1. free market system / public policy; 2. Protecting consumers from unfair business practices; 3. Protecting the interests of society.

From one (1) of each of these three (3) categories, explain a single law (by name / date of enactment) and its likely impact with your participation professionally or personally in the marketing world

1. The concept of mutual assent is also called a/an: ___ Agreement of sorts. ___ Meeting of the minds. ___ Intent to negotiate. ___ Void contract. ___ Contract in rem.

2. If the offeror revokes her offer before acceptance by the offeror, the offer is: ___ Terminated, by operation of law. ___ Terminated, by action of the parties. ___ Not terminated, because all offers are irrevocable. ___ None of the above.

3. The mailbox rule determines the effective date of the: ___ Acceptance ___ Revocation ___ Rejection ___ Postmark ___ Mutual assent

4. The night before his commencement ceremony, Leland’s uncle promises to buy him a new car after he actually sees Leland receive his diploma. Leland gladly accepts. After the ceremony, Leland’s uncle says, “Just kidding, no car!” Leland cannot prevail in a breach of contract claim because the agreement lacks: ___ Offer ___ Acceptance ___ Consideration ___ Legality ___ Mutual assent

5. Which of the following does not result in the termination of an offer? ___ Revocation ___ Acceptance ___ Rejection ___ Death of the offeror ___ Destruction of the subject matter

Write an explanatory note on the impact that the external environment is likely to have on pharmacy companies. Assuming the impact that you assess, suggest what internal organization design changes these companies would need to make in the coming two to three years.

“I’ll Take That Customer!” Neal Erwin has a reputation he has always been proud of in the Haskin’s Bookstore customer service department. He takes calls from customers that others don’t want to deal with. Sometimes, when he is on the phone with a customer, he asks co-workers to come near his desk to hear his side of the argument. In the past, he has gotten loud and belligerent with customers and later has even boasted of “winning.” Things have changed, however, and Neal is now in trouble with management because of a recent incident. A loyal 20-year customer, who spoke to Neal on the phone last week, contacted owner Mr. Charles Haskins and told him in no uncertain terms that she was taking her business elsewhere.

1. In your opinion, should Neal have been allowed to get away with his behavior to customers? Explain.

2. As a co-worker of Neal’s, would you have any responsibility to report his aggressive communication style to his supervisor?

A temporary, six-month CSR position has just been filled at Dallas Distribution Center. The new hire is Abhey Patel, a very nice and bright person, who everyone agrees works extremely hard. Abhey has recently established citizenship in America from his homeland, India. Realizing the need to write to customers using proper English and grammar, the other CSRs have been covering for Abhey, proofreading his letters and e-mail messages for him. He is currently enrolled in an ESL (English as a Second Language) night class, but he hasn’t mastered all the fine points yet. Respond to these questions regarding Abhey’s situation:

1. What are some ways that Abhey can complete his duties on his own more easily?

2. Do you feel that the supervisor should be informed that Abhey has not yet developed his business writing skills and that others are helping him with his work? Is this practice of helping Abhey hurting his co-workers or the company?

around when communicating with customers?

Which fundamental communication skills should CSRs use, in both spoken and written communication, to minimize any form of mixed or vaguely communicated messages?

1. Have you or anyone you know attended a communications seminar provided by an employer? If so, in what ways was it more or less effective than training that used other approaches?

2. Recount a situation you participated in or observed recently in which all elements of the communication model were successfully implemented and resulted in a shared message. Was the communication successful? What, if anything, might have improved communication between the sender and receiver?

3. Describe the behaviors of a person you know who predominately uses a passive communication style, one who uses an aggressive communication style, and one who uses an assertive communication style. How did each of those styles impact upon their dealings with customers and colleagues?

4. Assume that a customer returns an article of clothing or a household item for a refund or credit. Develop six queries a CSR might use in this situation that make use of each type of question: open, probing, closed, alternative choice, leading, and direct.

5. Describe your reaction to a business letter or e-mail message you’ve received recently that you perceived as having an inappropriate tone. In what ways was it insensitive? How did it make you feel?