個案總覽

An abstract is not available for this product.

For many decades, the automobile industry had played a major role in Canada's economy. A large portion of Canadian jobs depended on the auto industry, both directly and indirectly. However, by 2005, Canada faced serious globalization threats. Analysts were stating that in the future the number of automobile-related jobs in Canada would depend upon the international competitiveness of Canadian plants. To continue to increase wages would raise Canadian production costs so far above the levels in Mexico, China and other emerging nations, that the assemblers would shift production to low-cost jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the Big Three were losing market share to their non-union competitors, especially Toyota and Honda.

For many decades, the automobile industry had played a major role in Canada's economy. A large portion of Canadian jobs depended on the auto industry, both directly and indirectly. However, by 2005, Canada faced serious globalization threats. Analysts were stating that in the future the number of automobile-related jobs in Canada would depend upon the international competitiveness of Canadian plants. To continue to increase wages would raise Canadian production costs so far above the levels in Mexico, China and other emerging nations, that the assemblers would shift production to low-cost jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the Big Three were losing market share to their non-union competitors, especially Toyota and Honda.

Several new developments were threatening the success of Big Pharma. The patents on well-known blockbusters were reaching expiry, and generic manufacturers were eagerly waiting to produce lower-priced copies. Throughout the world, governments were taking a more active role in determining the prices at which drugs could be sold. The expansion of government insurance programs was adding to the complexity of the marketing challenges. Another change involved a shift towards direct-to-customer advertising, including the proliferation of information on the Internet, in addition to the traditional process of sales visits to family doctors. Research funding had doubled since 1991, but the number of new drugs emerging each year had fallen by half. The research and development process was also changing dramatically. Whereas blockbuster drugs had been developed as general treatments for common conditions, it was becoming increasingly apparent that not all patients reacted in the same ways to these drugs, and some - although a very small percentage - suffered serious side effects. This reality was expected to lead to the creation of a much larger number of niche drugs, each one targeted at a narrower group of patients. Related to this development was the growth of biopharma in which new biotech companies were creating drugs that could attack specific cells. Some analysts felt that Big Pharma was in a peculiar predicament in that profits were still very large, and this served as a barrier to necessary changes in strategy.

General Motors (GM) had a history of bold strategies in a wide variety of areas, including the creation of Saturn, the development of global operations, and the formation of strategic alliances with Fiat, SAIC, and Daewoo. Nonmarket strategies included pursuing government financial assistance, coping with new environmental regulations, and agreeing to very expensive health care and pension schemes. Meanwhile, GM had failed to create strategies to compete effectively with foreign automakers. By 2005, many of GM's strategic decisions seemed to have been inappropriate. Some that were undertaken for short-term gain had disastrous long-term consequences, and GM performed poorly compared with other global automakers. Many strategies had seemed disconnected, lacking an overall vision or purpose: GM was facing a serious crisis. In 2005-2006, GM introduced several new strategies. Whether these strategies could achieve sustainable profitability, or whether they would also bring undesirable consequences, was a subject of importance to employees, shareholders, and governments throughout the world.

General Motors (GM) had a history of bold strategies in a wide variety of areas, including the creation of Saturn, the development of global operations and the formation of strategic alliances with Fiat, SAIC and Daewoo. Non-market strategies included pursuing government financial assistance, coping with new environmental regulations, and agreeing to very expensive health care and pension schemes. Meanwhile, GM had failed to create strategies to compete effectively with foreign automakers. By 2005, many of GM's strategic decisions seemed to have been inappropriate. Some that were undertaken for short-term gain had disastrous long-term consequences, and GM performed poorly compared with other global automakers. Many strategies had seemed disconnected, lacking an overall vision or purpose. While students may discuss each strategic decision and understand why GM acted as it did, nevertheless, students can see that the compendium of strategic decisions had moved GM into a serious crisis. In 2005-2006, GM introduced several new strategies. Whether these strategies could achieve sustainable profitability,or whether they would also bring undesirable consequences, was a subject of importance to employees, shareholders, and governments throughout the world.

Several new developments were threatening the success of Big Pharma. The patents on well-known blockbusters were reaching expiry, and generic manufacturers were eagerly waiting to produce lower-priced copies. Throughout the world, governments were taking a more active role in determining the prices at which drugs could be sold. The expansion of government insurance programs was adding to the complexity of the marketing challenges. Another change involved a shift towards direct-to-customer advertising, including the proliferation of information on the Internet, in addition to the traditional process of sales visits to family doctors. Research funding had doubled since 1991, but the number of new drugs emerging each year had fallen by half. The research and development process was also changing dramatically. Whereas blockbuster drugs had been developed as general treatments for common conditions, it was becoming increasingly apparent that not all patients reacted in the same ways to these drugs, and some - although a very small percentage - suffered serious side effects. This reality was expected to lead to the creation of a much larger number of niche drugs, each one targeted at a narrower group of patients. Related to this development was the growth of biopharma in which new biotech companies were creating drugs that could attack specific cells. Some analysts felt that Big Pharma was in a peculiar predicament in that profits were still very large, and this served as a barrier to necessary changes in strategy.

In the early 2000s, De Beers Consolidated Mines has successfully managed the global diamond industry for many decades, propping up prices at all stages of the value chain, reducing price volatility and increasing consumer demand. By the end of the 20th century, however, a series of forces threatened De Beer's role and profitability. New diamond mining firms were selling their production on the open market rather than through De Beers' Central Selling Organization. The new competitors were attempting to grade, polish and cut diamonds outside of the De Beers value chain. Some retailers were purchasing shares in new mines in order to create their own value chain. New technology offered the possibility of creating synthetic diamonds that would be indistinguishable from diamonds created by natural forces. Governments were threatening antitrust actions. Meanwhile, an illicit trade in conflict diamonds was supporting revolutionary groups and disrupting the market. De Beers now had to decide whether to maintain its traditional functions or to embark on a new strategy. In particular, De Beers contemplated a shift into the retail jewelry business in a joint venture with France's Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton luxury goods corporation that would sell De Beers-branded diamond jewelry.

De Beers Consolidated Mines has successfully managed the global diamond industry for many decades, propping up prices at all stages of the value chain, reducing price volatility and increasing consumer demand. By the end of the 20th century, however, a series of forces threatened De Beer's role and profitability. New diamond mining firms were selling their production on the open market rather than through De Beers' Central Selling Organization. The new competitors were attempting to grade, polish and cut diamonds outside of the De Beers value chain. Some retailers were purchasing shares in new mines in order to create their own value chain. New technology offered the possibility of creating synthetic diamonds that would be indistinguishable from diamonds created by natural forces. Governments were threatening antitrust actions. Meanwhile, an illicit trade in "conflict diamonds" was supporting revolutionary groups and disrupting the market. De Beers now had to decide whether to maintain its traditional functions or to embark on a new strategy. In particular, De Beers contemplated a shift into the retail jewelry business in a joint venture with France's Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton luxury goods corporation that would sell De Beers-branded diamond jewelry.

For General Motors (GM) China, 2004 brought a wide variety of new challenges that added to an already complex business environment. Industry structure was changing quickly, demand and supply projections for motor vehicles had promised substantial increases in sales and profits but suddenly optimism faded. China's membership in the World Trade Organization created expectations of a level playing field for foreign investors, but major barriers remained, including continuing government intervention, competition from government-owned assembly firms, arbitrary rules such as sector-specific credit restrictions and violation of intellectual property with the copying of foreign automobile designs and false-branding of parts. Meanwhile, inflation was increasing and the government was unsure whether and how to use monetary and fiscal policies. This is an abridged version of GM in China, product 905M07.

For General Motors (GM) China, 2004 brought a wide variety of new challenges that added to an already complex business environment. Industry structure was changing quickly, demand and supply projections for motor vehicles had promised substantial increases in sales and profits but suddenly optimism faded. China's membership in the World Trade Organization created expectations of a level playing field for foreign investors, but major barriers remained, including continuing government intervention, competition from government-owned assembly firms, arbitrary rules such as sector-specific credit restrictions and violation of intellectual property with the copying of foreign automobile designs and false-branding of parts. Meanwhile, inflation was increasing and the government was unsure whether and how to use monetary and fiscal policies. This is an abridged version of GM in China, product 9B05M007.

For General Motors (GM), the year 2004 brought a wide variety of new challenges that added to an already complex business environment. The industry structure was changing quickly. Demand and supply projections for motor vehicles had promised substantial increases in sales and profits, but suddenly the optimism faded. China's new membership in the World Trade Organization created expectations of a level playing field for foreign investors, but - at least in the short run - major barriers remained. Government intervention persisted, particularly the requirement of a joint venture partner, competition from government-owned assembly firms, and arbitrary rules such as sector-specific credit restrictions. Violation of intellectual property, with the copying of foreign automobile designs and false-branding of parts, was an ongoing threat. Also, inflation was increasing and the government was unsure whether and how to use monetary and fiscal policies. The government had purposely kept the renminbi undervalued for many years. Pressure was building for the government to change its foreign exchange rate policy, but a higher renminbi would suddenly decrease GM China's international competitiveness.

For General Motors (GM), the year 2004 brought a wide variety of new challenges that added to an already complex business environment. The industry structure was changing quickly. Demand and supply projections for motor vehicles had promised substantial increases in sales and profits, but suddenly the optimism faded. China's new membership in the World Trade Organization created expectations of a level playing field for foreign investors, but - at least in the short run - major barriers remained. Government intervention persisted, particularly the requirement of a joint venture partner, competition from government-owned assembly firms, and arbitrary rules such as sector-specific credit restrictions. Violation of intellectual property, with the copying of foreign automobile designs and false-branding of parts, was an ongoing threat. Also, inflation was increasing and the government was unsure whether and how to use monetary and fiscal policies. The government had purposely kept the renminbi undervalued for many years. Pressure was building for the government to change its foreign exchange rate policy, but a higher renminbi would suddenly decrease GM China's international competitiveness.