Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philips - Study Case
Philips - Study Case
Environment
Structure
Culture
Global Strategy
Philips
Pre 1960’s
Internationalization Process
Local production
facilities
Holding Company
Centralized to
S decentralized
T
R Tech and patent
A sharing agreements
T
E Backward Integration
G
Y Sales Organization
&
Joint Ventures
Exports
managers
hired
Research
technical production
National Organization
Level 1
Product Teams
Product policies and admin functions
Level 3
Post 1960’s
Rodenburg Chairmen
Dekker
Klugt
Timmer
Boonstra
Kleisterlee
Tilting the Matrix
Defining
relationships Yellow Booklet NO was still powerful
IPCs
Corporate Council
Creating a Product Planning process Cultural Shift
sense of urgency Layoff
Core/Non-core
New group Mgt Committee
Beating the PD linked to mkts Financial Losses
Japanese Competition
Cross-functional rotations
&
Financial Recovery
Performance Rules Unable to shift
Cost Cutting Proven mkt niches focus to
being mkt driven
Move to Asia
Elimination of NO/PD
Where does Philips stand?
1930s -Decentralized
high
1950’s - Matrix
Local
Autonomy
1970s -Centralized
low
Pre 1980’s
Internationalization Process
Matsushita: Expanding through Color TV
• Plant in Canada
• Manufacturing in
Quasar of US
Production base
S in US and Europe
• Plant in Cardiff
T
R Manufacturing
A facilities in
Low-wage countries
T
E Branch Office
MECA &
G Sales companies
Y
Exports
Headquarter
METC
Product divisions Corporate Overseas Sales & Marketing Finance & accounting
Personnel Division
36 Divisions Mgt Subsidiaries Division
Product Divisions
Tape recorder
Radio division Television division
division
Overseas sourcing
companies
Matsushita
Post 1980’s
OPERATION LOCALIZATION
Had difficulty
creating
PERSONNEL desired
flexibility &
creativity.
TECHNOLOGY
MATERIAL
CAPITAL
New Structure
Matsushita
Electric
Industrial Co.
METC
Manufacturing
Planning section Sales Section
Section
Where does Matsushita stand?
high
Local
Autonomy
centralized
Decentralized
low
low high
Central integration
Where were they on the strategy matrix?
high
Local
Responsive-
ness
low
Local
Responsive-
ness
low
Need for
Local TRANSNATIONAL
Responsive-
ness
low