Este blog es solo...
un vómito de pensamientos, de esos que se esconden dentro de mi, pero no pueden ser lanzados por mi lengua.
lunes, 26 de agosto de 2013
mine its reputation – if it delivers another kind of
value or attempts to deliver two inconsistent
things at the same time. For example, Ivory soap,
with its position as a basic, inexpensive everyday
soap would have a hard time reshaping its image to
match Neutrogena’s premium “medical” reputation.
Efforts to create a new image typically cost
tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in a
major industry–a powerful barrier to imitation.
Second, and more important, trade-offs arise
from activities themselves. Different positions
(with their tailored activities) require different
product configurations, different equipment, different
employee behavior, different skills, and different
management systems. Many trade-offs reflect
inflexibilities in machinery, people, or systems.
The more Ikea has configured its activities to
lower costs by having its customers do their own
assembly and delivery, the less able it is to satisfy
customers who require higher levels of service.
However, trade-offs can be even more basic. In
general, value is destroyed if an activity is overdesigned
or underdesigned for its use. For example,
even if a given salesperson were capable of providing
a high level of assistance to one customer and
none to another, the salesperson’s talent (and some
of his or her cost) would be wasted on the second
customer. Moreover, productivity can improve
when variation of an activity is limited. By providing
a high level of assistance all the time, the salesperson
and the entire sales activity can often
achieve efficiencies of learning and scale.
Finally, trade-offs arise from limits on internal
coordination and control. By clearly choosing to
compete in one way and not another,
senior management makes organizational
priorities clear. Companies
that try to be all things to all customers,
in contrast, risk confusion in
the trenches as employees attempt
to make day-to-day operating decisions
without a clear framework.
Positioning trade-offs are pervasive
in competition and essential to
strategy. They create the need for
choice and purposefully limit what a company offers.
They deter straddling or repositioning, because
competitors that engage in those approaches undermine
their strategies and degrade the value of their
existing activities.
Trade-offs ultimately grounded Continental Lite.
The airline lost hundreds of millions of dollars, and
the CEO lost his job. Its planes were delayed leaving
congested hub cities or slowed at the gate by
baggage transfers. Late flights and cancellations
generated a thousand complaints a day. Continental
Lite could not afford to compete on price and
still pay standard travel-agent commissions, but
neither could it do without agents for its fullservice
business. The airline compromised by cutting
commissions for all Continental flights across
the board. Similarly, it could not afford to offer the
same frequent-flier benefits to travelers paying the
much lower ticket prices for Lite service. It compromised
again by lowering the rewards of Continental’s
entire frequent-flier program. The results:
angry travel agents and full-service customers.
Continental tried to compete in two ways at
once. In trying to be low cost on some routes and
full service on others, Continental paid an enormous
straddling penalty. If there were no trade-offs
between the two positions, Continental could have
succeeded. But the absence of trade-offs is a dangerous
half-truth that managers must unlearn. Quality
is not always free. Southwest’s convenience, one
kind of high quality, happens to be consistent with
low costs because its frequent departures are facilitated
by a number of low-cost practices – fast gate
turnarounds and automated ticketing, for example.
However, other dimensions of airline quality – an
assigned seat, a meal, or baggage transfer – require
costs to provide.
In general, false trade-offs between cost and quality
occur primarily when there is redundant or
wasted effort, poor control or accuracy, or weak coordination.
Simultaneous improvement of cost and
differentiation is possible only when a company begins
far behind the productivity frontier or when
the frontier shifts outward. At the frontier, where
companies have achieved current best practice, the
trade-off between cost and differentiation is very
real indeed.
After a decade of enjoying productivity advantages,
Honda Motor Company and Toyota Motor
Corporation recently bumped up against the frontier.
In 1995, faced with increasing customer resistance
to higher automobile prices, Honda found
that the only way to produce a less-expensive car
was to skimp on features. In the United States,
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios de la entrada (Atom)
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario