Tuesday 27 May 2014

Essay Plan

 Use the plan below to structure your essays

Essay title:

Key hooks:

Key/terms / concepts:
First key argument:
Point
Evidence/Explanation/Examples






First alternative argument:
Point
Evidence/Explanation/Examples






Second key argument:
Point
Evidence/Explanation/Examples






Second alternative point:
Point
Evidence/Explanation/Examples







Depends on factors:





Evaluation:

Which of your points are most significant?

What is your overall conclusion?

More Relavant Theories you can Apply



  1. The Value of Relevant Theories and Models

    The BUSS4 examiner likes relevant use of models...
    “Some students made effective use of the Ansoff matrix to highlight the riskiness of different strategic options.”
    (extract from June 2012 BUSS4 Examiner’s Report)

    Some great reasons to apply theories and models in your essays:
    They provide a framework for analysis
    Makes it easier to compare and contrast different research examples
    They help explain strategic options and analyse/evaluate the choices made
    Provide the “language” for strategy – demonstrate use of business terminology 
    Adds credibility to an answer – the right theory properly applied
    Can be used in both Section A and Section B essays

    Making Strategic Choices: Ansoff, Lewin, Handy and Porter
    A quick reminder about these classic models of strategic choice: 


    More information about Porters Generic Strategies
    http://www.slideshare.net/dipalij07/porters-generic-strategies-with-examples


    Handys Model on Organisational Culture


    More information about Handys Model of Organisational Culture http://www.tutor2u.net/business/strategy/culture-types.html

Don't Forget PEEL



Writing Great Paragraphs – the PEEL Technique

Great essays are built around a well-developed chain of argument that answers the question using a small number of well-argued points. We call these “chunky paragraphs”.
Each paragraph should make just one point. Each point should contain several stages of analysis and use of good real world business examples. Keep looking back at the essay title to ensure you are focused and link your answer back to the trigger words in the question. Towards the end of each paragraph you should also bring in some evaluation.

A useful acronym for writing each paragraph point is PEEL 

P make a POINT
E use EXAMPLES and EVIDENCE 
E EVALUATE
L LINK BACK to the QUESTION POINT

Key Terms for BUSS4


Open the link below to view a host of terms you should know for BUSS4 - If there are any you don't recognise, be sure to learn them


BUSS4 Glossary

How and Why? A Guide to GOOD ANALYSIS



How & Why. These are the two important words for students preparing for BUSS4 and as they practice their essay technique.

So, why is that? And how can they be used?
The source of their importance lies in the skill of analysis…
The challenge for students is to demonstrate to the examiner that they can respond to each chosen question with a logically-argued essay. A logical answer is one in which the argument is developed through relevant points, properly explained and supported by evidence. The use of How and Why is a great way to help "properly explain" a point and make it easier to reach Good Analysis.
In our BUSS4 exam coaching days we practice the tutor2u Stepping-Stones method for developing a 

logical chain of argument. By thinking about How & Why, the Stepping Stones method becomes much easier! 
Let's look at an example of this in action by considering the recent decision by Tesco to withdraw from the US grocery retailing market. 



Tesco's decision is a good example of retrenchment. It has decided to cut its losses in the US in order to focus the business on better investment opportunities. The result for Tesco shareholders is a £1.2bn loss on the US project.
It's a great example to use in a BUSS4 essay if it helps support a point that is relevant to the question. However, on its own, the information above is not really enough. You need to explain to the examiner why a strategy of retrenchment might be a suitable choice and how the case of Tesco helps support this argument.

So, let's take this step by step and see if we can develop some logical analysis using How & Why as our prompts?

WHY might a firm decide to adopt a strategy of retrenchment?
Retrenchment is about reducing the scale or scope of a firm's operations - for example by closing a business unit, implementing significant cost reductions or scaling back investment plans. Often a strategy of retrenchment is forced on a firm do to poor financial performance. It can also be adopted where a firm wants to make a change in strategic direction.

WHY did Tesco originally decide to enter the US market?
Tesco has pursued a strategy of international expansion in many territories - and with great success. Fresh & Easy launched to great fanfare in November 2007 – just before the recession and sub-prime mortgage crisis swept through the US causing American customers to retreat to the security of familiar retail brands.

WHY did Tesco decide to review its investment in the US? 
Because their US Chain (Fresh & Easy) continued to incur heavy losses despite sustained efforts to improve the grocery retailing format. Tesco had tried to make a success of the business for over 5 years.

WHY was Fresh & Easy incurring heavy losses?
Because it did not have sufficient economies of scale to enable the business to be competitive and revenues were not enough to cover substantial fixed costs. The business was also criticised for its retail format.

HOW can a successful retailer like Tesco get it wrong in the US?
Industry experts have also criticised Fresh & Easy’s use of self-service check-out stands which confused consumers used to heavy store helper presence. The chain’s lack of vouchers and coupons alienated price-sensitive shoppers.

HOW might a decision to close Fresh & Easy be a difficult decision for Tesco to take?
Because Tesco had developed a strong reputation for successful international expansion and the attempt to enter the intensely competitive US market was high profile. Tesco management consistently reassured shareholders that they were confident that they could make a success of Fresh & Easy.

HOW will a strategy of retrenchment work for Tesco in the US?
Tesco will attempt to sell Fresh & Easy and its 200 stores in California, Arizona and Nevada. If buyers cannot be found, then Tesco will need to close the stores and settle outstanding liabilities including redundancy costs and leases.

WHY might a strategy of retrenchment involve significant costs for Tesco?
Because there is no guarantee that a buyer will be found for the Fresh & Easy store portfolio and support infrastructure (e.g. distribution centres). The Tesco plc Board has estimated that it will cost Tesco a further £1bn in terms of the difference between what it invested in Fresh & Easy and any potential sale value.

HOW will shareholders react to the retrenchment?
In general shareholders are likely to be relieved that the business has cut its losses in the US. Whilst a £1.2bn loss on Fresh & Easy is a large amount, it is a relatively insignificant amount compared with the overall value of the business. As a result of the retrenchment, Tesco should be better able to focus its resources on the core UK retailing brand and other better-established international operations.

Localisation by McDonalds


A slideshow video showing how McDonalds localises. Gets interesting from 1 min 50 secs onwards as it explains what they do in China and India. A good source of information and an example for you to use in section A


Why Did Facebook Buy Whatsapp?


Facebook paid £19 billion for messaging app Whatsapp!!! How is that justified?
An example of acquisitions. A good example to use - Do some reading on this


Barclays Boss Antony Jenkins on the Bank's Future Agenda

Antony Jenkins (CEO of Barclays) talking about the banks new strategy of retrenchment and discussing external economic factors which has forced it to amend its strategy. 

Remember 19,000 job losses worldwide in the next 3 years, mainly in investments and deciding to concentrate on retail banking instead.  
(Mainly Section B)




Revision Session in Half Term - 29/05/2014


Hi all, the planned revision session which was supposed to take place on Thursday has had to be cancelled due to personal circumstances. However the session on Friday 30th May 2014 at 10.30am is still taking place where both BUSS3 and BUSS4 guidance will be given.

In the meantime if you have any queries can you please email me or place a comment on the blog and I'll get back to you as soon as possible

Sorry for the inconvenience and happy revising

Examples of Compare and Contrast Businesses for Section B

When writing your essays, whether it is section A or B it is important that you are able to compare and contrast businesses. Here you are provided with some good examples of it for you to research and add to your examples portfolio


Here are some “compare and contrast examples” that you might use as the basis for evidence to support the analysis developed in paragraph points in a BUSS4 Section B essay.
You'll need to dig just a little deeper into these examples to gain sufficient detail for your answers (though not too deep - beware storytelling!).

As you finalise your research, try to find some more pairs of examples that can be used to compare and contrast. And also consider how the evidence you gather can be used to help support the analysis you develop at the start of each paragraph point.


RETRENCHMENT
Compare successful retrenchment:
Harriet Green has led a transformation of travel company Thomas Cook since April 2012, bringing it back from the brink of failure through a programme of rationalisation (cost cutting, business disposals) and refocusing the business on core activities. Green, who was vote Leader of the Year 2013 and Businesswoman of the Year 2014, puts her success down to energising a committed team and moving fast. There is a clear lesson to be learned about what a successful retrenchment strategy needs: decisive action, speed and focusing on the core activities that customers value.

With unsuccessful retrenchment:
CEOs Thorsten Heins (Blackberry) and Stephen Elop (Nokia) both opted for a strategy of deep retrenchment in response to their loss of their market leadership positions. Nokia’s phone business was eventually sold to Microsoft (but only after the loss of thousands of jobs); Blackberry’s owner RIM ditched Heins after its market share continued to plummet.
Both Heins and Elop were faced with a common problem for businesses that opt for retrenchment - a lack of competitiveness and competitive advantage. Blackberry and Nokia had become too complacent about their market leadership position and they were overtaken by rapid technological change.


TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS
Compare a successful takeover:
Indian conglomerate purchased Jaguar Land Rover (“JLR”) from Ford for around £1.2bn in March 2008 at the depth of the credit crunch and global financial crisis. The takeover price represented a large loss at the time for Ford who had bought the two brands for $5,2bn and had invested a further $10bn to fund heavy losses. Since 2008, JLR has proved a spectacular success for Tata. Driven by strong sales in emerging markets (particularly China), JLR sold over 435,000 vehicles in 2013 and is forecast to achieve a profit of over £2bn alone in 2014.

With an unsuccessful takeover:
The acquisition by US technology firm HP of British software business Autonomy has proved disastrous for HP shareholders.
Autonomy was acquired by HP for $10.2bn in October 2011. The price paid by HP was approximately 50 times the latest annual profit made by Autonomy. The takeover was part of a significant change in strategy by HP involving stopping making hardware in order to refocus on software. At the time of the takeover, Mike Lynch (the CEO and Founder of Autonomy) said that "HP understands the special culture we have. This is about building Autonomy."
Just one year later HP wrote off $8.8 billion of Autonomy's value, claiming that it had been duped by a serious accounting scandal at Autonomy. Many of Autonomy's senior management left very soon after the takeover by HP and several blamed a clash of corporate cultures between the two organisations (HP was described as too bureaucratic).



LEADERSHIP STYLE
Compare a the successful democratic leadership style of Tony Hsieh of Zappos
Tony Hsieh - the founder of Zappos (bought by Amazon in 2009) wanted to build a business based around a simple idea. That it - if you get the organisational culture right - then everything else that you need to be successful will fall into place. This approach to leadership has created a hugely successful business with a unique organisational culture and supporting structure.
Hsieh has an interesting insight into what an effective leadership style is. In a recent interview he explained:
“Personally I cringe at the word 'leader.' It's more about getting people do what they're passionate about and putting them in the right context or setting. They're the ones doing the hard work. ... [Zappos is] structured a lot less hierarchical [than most companies], so we're a lot more flat. We try and decentralize a lot of the decision making. We all hang out with each other, at all different levels."

With the unsuccessful autocratic leadership style of Fred Goodwin at RBS
When the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) published their report on the collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”) they noted that RBS repeatedly ignored warnings about Sir Fred Goodwin's 'assertive and robust' management style from as early as 2003. They might just as well have used the term “autocratic” leadership style to describe a CEO who brought the RBS to its knees.
A subsequent report by Newcastle Business School went further about how the leadership style of Goodwin had contributed to the disastrous strategy which ultimately resulted in RBS being nationalised. They claimed that Goodwin’s “aggressive, macho management style” created a culture where staff were locked in constant fear of losing their jobs, and Goodwin’s lieutenants were said to have stopped employees speaking out about problems.


ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Compare a business success story rooted in the organisational culture: John Lewis Partnership
The organisational structure and organisational culture at John Lewis Partnership (“JLP”), based around employee ownership, is distinctive and highly successful. But why? What is it about the "partnership" model at JLP which drives sales and customer service so high?
The answer seems to lie in the concept of “trust” in each other based around a shared sense of purpose. All 76,500+ of John Lewis's permanent staff are partners in the business and they ultimately own the retailer's 35 department stores and 272 Waitrose supermarkets.
The JLP website explains that “partners share in the benefits and profits of a business that puts them first." John Lewis's constitution also lists a formal mission to maximise the "happiness" of its staff. The organisational structure also involves a staff council – for ideas and complaints to filter up to the board – and a weekly magazine where staff can air their views about policies and management, anonymously if they choose.

With an organisational culture that ultimately caused the spectacular failure of a business - Enron:
It is relatively easy to identify evidence like JLP to see how organisational culture can be an intangible asset of a business - a source of competitive advantage and a key reason for a business enjoying industry-beating financial performance.
However, the reverse can also be true. If organisational culture is managed incorrectly or (worse) left unmanaged, it can become dysfunctional or toxic. In these situations the organisational culture of a business can become a liability, not an asset. It can even lead to the failure of the business. The classic example is Enron.
Enron is perhaps the best example of how a toxic culture can ultimately lead to the collapse of an organisation. The collapse of Enron was one of the biggest corporate scandals of all time and much of it can be directly traced to the culture of greed, aggression and plain illegal behaviour that was encouraged and tolerated by the senior management team.
So much was wrong about the organisational culture at Enron - it is described in some detail here. Aggressive management, inappropriate incentives, lack of controls, excessive costs, deep-seated fear of senior management - Enron had it all!


BUSINESS ETHICS
Compare a business that is consistent rated as one of the world’s most ethical companies - Premier Farnell
For four years running, UK-based technology distribution business Premier Farnell has been named as one of the world's 100 most ethical businesses. Premier Farnell attributes this consistent record of achievement to a variety of initiatives which, taken together, mean that Premier Farnell has scored highly on its performance in ethics, governance (how the company is run) and citizenship. For example, as part of staff induction training which details Premier Farnell's "Core Values", the company's code of conduct is introduced to all new starters. These include keeping customers and suppliers at the heart of everything the firm does, working together, being innovative, developing the firm's people, and integrity and trust.

With a business whose ethics are consistently called into question - GSK
Sir Andrew Witty, the CEO of global pharmaceutical giant GSK, has his work cut out trying to restore the ethical reputation of a firm that continues to face allegations of unethical and illegal activity around the world.
GSK is the world's fourth-largest pharmaceutical company measured by sales (after Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi) and was established in 2000 by the merger of Glaxo Wellcome plc (formed from the acquisition of Wellcome plc by Glaxo plc) and SmithKline Beecham plc. GSK has an enormous product portfolio covering just about every disease area major disease area including asthma, cancer, virus control, infections, mental health, diabetes and digestive conditions. It also has a large consumer healthcare division that produces and markets oral healthcare and nutritional products, drinks and over-the-counter medicines. The sheer scale and complexity of GSK may be part of the problem when it comes to enforcing acceptable ethical standards. But so too might be the prevailing corporate culture. Just look at some recent examples:
  • In July 2012 GSK was fined $3bn in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history. GSK admitted to promoting antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin for unapproved uses, including treatment of children and adolescents.
  • In July 2013, GSK confirmed that some of its senior Chinese executives appeared to have broken the law after police accused it of funnelling up to 3 billion yuan (approx. £323 million) to travel agencies to facilitate bribes to doctors to boost the sale of its medicines. In May 2014 GSK was then accused of tax evasion in China.
When he became CEO in 2012, Witty promised in 2012 that GSK would make “displaying integrity in everything we do” a priority. Some might argue the business still has a long way to go!

Exemplar Section B Essay on Takeovers and Mergers


QUESTION
“To what extent is integration planning the most important factor determining the success of a takeover or merger?”


ESSAY ANSWER
Takeovers and mergers are complex transactions where many things can go wrong and therefore affect the success or failure of the deal. Integration planning is an important part of the takeover process, although there are other potentially significant factors that affect whether a takeover is successful which also need to be considered. (knowledge/ evaluation)

Integration planning refers to a process in which the buying business (the acquirer) identifies how it will run the takeover target once the transfer of ownership has been completed. Integration involves many functional challenges such as how to manage customer reaction to the takeover, handle uncertainty amongst employees and integrate potentially different computer systems. Key strategic issues also arise – for example decisions over the future of competing brands, key business locations and the senior management structure.  (application)  Integration planning normally takes place before the transaction is completed with the aim of ensuring that the acquirer has a clear idea of the integration issues and a realistic action plan of how these issues can be addressed. It can be seen therefore that good integration planning can reduce the risks involved. (knowledge/ analysis)

One reason why integration planning is important (evaluation) in determining the success of a takeover is that the process of integration is closely tied in with the need to achieve synergies. Synergies include cost savings and additional revenues from the deal and are a key part of the value the shareholders of the acquiring firm aim to obtain from a takeover (knowledge). A well-planned integration process will identify the most significant synergies and how they can be achieved, which should also encourage management to focus on those synergies wheb they take control. (rAN and evaluation). 
For example, when Santander acquired Abbey National in 2004, Santander recognised that the most important cost synergies (around £350m per year) could only be achieved if the combined IT systems of the group were based on the same platform. Santander proved effective at implementing this complex IT systems integration and, as a result, the planned cost synergies were achieved earlier than planned, resulting in better returns for Santander shareholders, although the process proved disruptive for both employees and customers in the short-term. This contrasts with the recent merger of T-Mobile and Orange UK where integration of overlapping IT systems has been a significant reason why planned cost synergies have not yet been achieved, which in turn has cast doubt over the success and failure of a significant merger in the mobile phone industry. (APPLICATION)

Another reason why integration planning is important in the overall success of failure of a takeover is that it should enable an acquiring firm to better address the potential cultural and change management issues that can arise from the deal.  Takeovers inevitably involve significant change – to both sides of the transaction – and, depending on the nature of the takeover, there can be much resistance to proposed changes. As a result, resistance to change may mean that expected synergies are not realised, leading to the takeover not achieving its objectives.  Cross-border takeovers (e.g. Ferrovial from Spain taking over BAA in the UK) or those involving a hostile bid (e.g. Kraft & Cadbury) are perhaps most likely to result in cultural clashes and hostility to change, since there can be noticeable differences between the way that management do business between different countries and employees in a firm subject to a hostile bid inevitably feel more threatened. However, effective integration planning can overcome these potential pitfalls.  A good example is Tata Group’s takeover of Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) in 2008. Due to the protracted takeover process, Tata was able to produce a detailed integration plan that it was able to share with (and gain the support of) key stakeholders in JLR including employees, government and trade unions. Tata’s integration plan emphasised the importance of continuity at JLR’s UK factories and also Tata’s long-term perspective on the returns it aimed to achieve. This long-term, consultative approach to integration planning has helped Tata make a success of the JLR takeover despite very difficult market conditions in 2008 and 2009 when demand for luxury cars fell sharply, leading many observers questioning whether the takeover would be a success. (APPLICATION/ ANALYSIS)

Whilst integration planning is a key part of the takeover process, there are other factors that are also important in determining the success or failure of a takeover or merger. On such factor is the price that is paid for the deal. If success or failure is measured in terms of a return on investment, then the price paid by the acquirer (the “investment”) has a significant influence on the financial returns that shareholders obtain. A business that pays too much for its target will struggle to make the investment work, particularly in the short-term.  For example, when ITV bought Friends Reunited for £175m it soon became clear that ITV had paid far too much. No amount of integration planning could make up for a bad deal and FR was eventually sold on by ITV for £25m soon after. Similarly, when private equity investor Terra Firma paid £4.2bn for EMI it didn’t take long to find out that the price had been far too high. This was a good example of where integration planning would not have been significant to the takeover since Terra Firma (as a private equity investor) had predominantly financial motives for buying EMI and there was little if any “integration” to be done with the business. (APPLICATION/ ANALYSIS) (evaluation)

Another factor, other than integration planning, which is vital to the success or failure of a takeover or merger is whether the deal has a strong strategic rationale. The reasons or motives for a takeover or merger link directly to the objectives set for the deal and whether or not they are achieved.  For example, there is some evidence that takeovers with mainly “managerial” motives are less likely to succeed compared with those that have a stronger strategic motive, often because unrealistic objectives are set for the deal.  Takeovers driven by managerial motives are often based on the ego-building ambitions and vanity of the senior management behind them, or result from external pressure being placed on Boards to “do deals”.  An excellent example is the disastrous takeover by RBS of part of ABN-Amro which was largely motivated by the ego of Fred Goodwin and made worse by the over-confidence of the RBS Board that they could make a success of even the most risky, complex takeovers. The result of these managerial motives was a loss to RBS shareholders of over £15bn and the resulting nationalisation of the bank, which undoubtedly qualifies as a failed takeover of epic proportions! It is useful to compare and contrast the RBS / ABN Amro takeover with investments that had much stronger strategic motives. For example, Google’s takeover of YouTube was based on Google’s aim to be a leading provider of online video and its objectives for the deal were very long-term in nature. YouTube’s subsequent rapid growth and revenue generation has exceeded Google’s original objectives, which suggests that the takeover will have produced good returns for Google shareholders. (APPLICATION/ ANALYSIS)

So, overall, how important is integration planning to the success or failure of a takeover or merger?  One factor it depends on is the relative significance of cost synergies to earning the required return. When the acquirer needs to achieve substantial cost synergies to make the investment a success, then there is more pressure on the acquirer to implement a more aggressive integration strategy – e.g. through job losses; closure of locations; product rationalization. This makes effective integration planning crucially important – the risks of such changes are high and there is potential to damage the takeover target in the longer-term if the wrong decisions are taken. So, if cost synergies are significant, then integration planning must be too. On the other hand, no amount of integration planning can make up for a takeover or merger that doesn’t make strategic sense or if the price paid is so high that shareholders can’t expect to earn a satisfactory return. As the shareholders of RBS and ITV discovered, a bad deal is a bad deal, no matter how good the integration plan might have looked on paper. (evaluation)

Marking:
L5 26
E3 14
40 marks out of 40

Overall Examiners Comments:
Apart from the odd spelling error this essay is pretty much faultless. What is good about the essay is the knowledge underpinned the arguments without being overtly explicit. What I mean by this is that knowledge is demonstrated by the concepts discussed rather than a defining every term that was used. Evidence is used to support arguments which moved the work immediately to the top levels of good application. Arguments are well structured showing the consequences of the points discussed.

Evaluative comments are evident throughout and a logical and rounded conclusion is reached based on a synthesis of the earlier arguments presented.

Wednesday 21 May 2014

Alibaba - Sale of the Century


China is an ecommerce opportunity like no other. Online penetration remains relatively low, and China’s fragmented retail scene provides a chance for online to leapfrog offline activity. Lucy Hornby reports from Beijing.

Alibaba - Sale of the Century

Tuesday 20 May 2014

Alibaba - All You Need to Know


The link below will give you all the information you need to know about Alibaba who are the biggest E-commerce business in China who have dreams of expanding into new markets (Market development section of the Ansoff MAtrix.
Make sure you open the presentation link to see more information

Alibaba - All you need to know 

Models to Apply in your Essays


It is important you are able to apply the following models in your essays. You must use them to analyse your points where possible. This was the advice from the chief examiner last year

Porter 5 Forces

A Presentation on Porters 5 Forces

Revision Notes

Revision Quiz


Ansoffs Matrix

Revision Notes

A Presentation on Ansoff Matrix

Ansoff Matrix Examples

BUSS4 Revision Quizzes


Attempt all quizzes below - They all apply to both section A and B of the BUSS4 paper

Globalisation

Mergers and Takeovers

Business Ethics

Business and the Environment

Strategy Models

Retrenchment


BUSS4 China Quiz

Test Your China Knowledge

Attempt the quiz to test your knowledge on China. You might learn something you didn't already know. 15 questions to answer

BUSS4 China Quiz

10 Businesses to Follow for BUSS4 as Suggested by Tutor2u


Businesses You MUST Learn About

Each year we attempt to pick a manageable selection of businesses which offer the potential for AQA BUSS4 students to combine some Section A (China) and Section B research.
Here are our suggestions for 10 firms to follow for BUSS4 students wanting to deepen their understanding of real businesses as they prepare for the two essay questions this summer. In a couple cases we’ve grouped firms together, so the total number of businesses is actually more than 10!
The tutor2u 10 is chosen entirely subjectively, based on the following criteria:
Each entrant should ideally have;
- Accessible media coverage
- Good mix of written, audio & visual research materials
- An international/global dimension
- Potential for “compare and contrast”
- Rich sources of relevant evidence for AQA BUSS4 research theme for 2014 (China)
- Reasonable expectation of examiner familiarity
The list is shown below, with a brief comment on the reason for selection.

Starbucks

A favourite for several years, and it is hard to imagine teaching BUSS4 without using Starbucks! Ideal for Ansoff, ethics, CSR, Porter’s generic strategies, organisational culture, globalisation, leadership styles - the list is endless! For 2014 Starbucks can be used as a great example of a successful market entry strategy in China. Initially Starbucks entered China through a series of joint ventures. Since then it has taken control of a business that has established market leadership in a country where people didn’t historically like coffee! We’ve written several blogs about how Starbucks’ strategy in China – read through them to grab the research evidence you need.

Ikea

A second year on our list and Ikea is fast becoming an essential research case study for BUSS4. Ikea’s patient, long-term investment in China and its strategy of successful localisation there provides compelling evidence of how to succeed in China. What can other international retailers like Tesco and Wal-Mart learn from Ikea’s strategy? Ikea has become a global retail success story based around a distinctive retail format, strong organisational culture and high quality leadership. Ikea has set itself a challenging corporate growth objective by 2020 and needs to continue its international expansion in order to be able to achieve it.

Amazon / Alibaba

We group Amazon and Alibaba together because they are now the world’s two biggest names in e-business: The "Two A's": one based in the US; the other in China!
The relentless growth and success of Amazon continues to make it an essential part of BUSS4 research as students prepare for June 2014. Amazon CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos is a great example of a leader who takes a long-term view of strategy and Amazon’s disruptive business model continues to send shockwaves through an increasingly wide range of markets, not just retailing. However, in China, Amazon has struggled to establish a strong market position in the face of strong competition from local Chinese businesses, notably Alibaba. Why is that?
The story of Alibaba’s growth is a great example for students to use. Chinese consumers and households have adopted e-commerce widely and Alibaba (set up by former English Teacher Jack Ma) is now the world’s leading e-commerce business.

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and Tata Group

We group JLR and Tata Group together, not the least because JLR is owned by Tata! The takeover of JLR has proved to be one of the most successful in British business history and is an ideal example to use for a Section B question on external growth, as is Tata’s long-term approach to investment. Tata is now the UK’s biggest employer in the manufacturing sector and operates with a distinctive organisational structure.
JLR itself is a stunning example of success in China and the fast-growing motor industry there is also worthy of study. Multinational brands like JLR, BMW, Toyota and Nissan have invested heavily in China through joint ventures and the rapid growth of an affluent Chinese middle class continues to support strong market growth.

Samsung

A new entrant in 2013 and still worthy of a place this year too! The South Korean multinational conglomerate has an aggressive growth strategy based around a "fast follower" strategy and distinctive corporate culture. Samsung is challenging Apple, Lenovo, Google and Huawei aiming to become the global leader in consumer electronics and it has looked on course to achieve that with its stunning record of new product development. However, is it now too reliant on the returns from mobile technology? As a conglomerate, how should it manage its product portfolio?

Huawei and Lenovo

We’ll group these two together and they are new to the tutor2u 10 in 2014 with good reason! They are both great examples of Chinese-based multinational technology firms with credible global ambitions.
Huawei is a Chinese multinational networking and telecommunications equipment and services company. It has grown rapidly to become the largest telecommunications equipment maker in the world, having overtaken Ericsson in 2012. Almost half of Huawei’s 150,000 employees are engaged in research and development as it seeks to grow market share in a wider range of business and consumer electronic markets (including smartphones and tablets). A major competitive threat to the likes of Apple and Samsung, Huawei is also a controversial business (from the perspective of the West) as you’ll discover if you choose to research it!
Perhaps one of the best-known Chinese brands in developed economies, Lenovohas set its sights on Apple and Samsung as it aims to become a global leader in electronic and other computing devices. It first came to prominence in 2005 when it bought IBM’s personal computer division and it has grown rapidly to become the world’s largest manufacturer of personal computers. Now it wants to be a global leader in smartphones and tablets. It is already the market leader in China and its recent acquisition of Motorola from Google has given it a potential platform to challenge the big two!

Apple

Back in the list for 2014 and an almost perfect case study for understanding the opportunities and threats of doing business with and in China! Several years ago, Apple was the centre of media attention because of the working conditions at several of its key suppliers in China (notably the factories operated by Taiwan-based Foxconn). Whilst the CSR issues are still relevant, the focus has now shifted to the competitive battle being waged in China by Apple. To sustain its growth record of recent years, Apple simply must succeed in China. Yet, despite the recent distribution deal with China Mobile, Apple faces intensive competition from local smartphone manufacturers such as Lenovo, Xiaomi and Huawei.

GSK
A new entrant for 2014, but with much to offer the BUSS4 student. GSK is the world’s third largest pharmaceutical business with widespread business interests in developed and emerging markets. However, its operations have come under intense scrutiny after it was fined a record amount by authorities in the US for unethical and illegal business practices. GSK appointed a new CEO (Sir Andrew Witty) to lead a major change programme. However, this has been undermined by further accusations (denied by GSK) of illegal activity in the Chinese healthcare sector. An excellent case study of the threat and risks posed by doing business in China, GSK is also excellent for Section B (new leadership, corporate culture, ethics, innovation).

Sony

Another favourite over recent years which remains relevant for June 2014. Sony combines just about everything you might want for BUSS4. The so-called “Apple of the 80’s” has ensured a terrible time recently. Hit by the Japanese earthquake (contingency planning; external shocks); new leadership (Kazou Hirai); heavily losses due to intense competition and the high Yen. Add in innovation (PS4, Sony Xperia) and organisational culture (“Sony must change… Sony will change” says Hirai) and you have a terrific case study for BUSS4. Hirai’s turnaround strategy is struggling to gain momentum and activist shareholders are circling the business demanding faster and more dramatic change.
In terms of China, Sony has taken a strategic decision NOT to invest heavily in China, preferring instead to focus on building market share in Europe and Japan. The intense existing competition for smartphone operators in China might make this a smart move. Perhaps a better opportunity in China is the opening-up of the games console market there. This is a good example of how a change in the external environment (in this case, a change in regulation) opens up opportunities for multinationals like Sony. However, it will face strong competition from the likes of Microsoft, Lenovo and Huawei.

Yum! Brands / KFC

And finally, the company that claims to “feed the world”! Yum! Brands is the world's largest fast food restaurant company with around 40,000 restaurants around the world in over 125 countries. It owns and operates KFC and Pizza Hut as part of its product portfolio. It is a great example of truly globalised business, with a distinctive team-based corporate culture, that has relied on organic rather than external growth for its success.

In China, Yum Brands invested for the long-term and built KFC (in particular) into a one of the most successful Western brands through a clever strategy of operational control and localisation. However, 2013 proved to be a tough year for KFC in China after some of its outlets were discovered to be serving chicken products with excessive chemicals. KFC sales in China dropped significantly and have been held-back again by the outbreak of bird-flu in early 2014. How can KFC respond?