Comparison Of Operation Strategy Of Apple, IBM And Samsung

Comparison of Operation Strategy of Apple, IBM and Samsung

Describe about the Decomposition of Coal Consumption in China Based on The Energy Allocation ?

The operation strategy of any organizations usually differs from other organization. Organizations’ highly invest their time in building strategy for the purpose of earning better market growth, customer base and better productivity from their operation. Therefore, the current assignment will be discussing operation strategy of three different organizations, Apple, IBM and Samsung. Moreover, general model has been discussed and comparison of 4 typologies between firms has also been made. Apart from that, stage model is mentioned along with 4v’s and polar diagram in the report.

Operation strategy of a company can be defined as plan for using its production resources in meeting the overall goal of the organization. The strategy of Apple is to provide a sleek design in their products like computer. Apple has implemented an outsourcing strategy in manufacturing the products and produces a huge volume of product in order to get a negotiation edge with the suppliers and logistic agencies (Totla et al. 2015). On the other hand strategy of IBM can be expressed as capabilities of management consulting in order to enable the client’s client success through providing a high degree in delivering the products (Vlasov, 2015). IBM creates an innovative strategy for increasing the competitiveness of their company. This strategy helps them to spark the centricity. They use harnessing technology and provide special solution to the big data application by Vertica.  Riverbed is designed for delivering application. Samsung is considered to be the largest in the digital media of the world. Samsung maintains a strategy for providing high quality product and gadgets to the customers (Milenković, 2015).

The success of Apple is due to innovative approach in the supply chain management. Apple manages its operation through launching huge product line in order to reduce cost (Nomakuchi and Yanata, 2015). It has been invented by the Apple to create a laser beam in order to cut perfect whole within the aluminum that helped them to save money and get control over the supply of the products. The diagrams of operation management of Apple, IBM and Samsung are shown in the following:

On the other hand operation management of IBM enables the professional of business to manage and automate the rules and operational decisions impacting the performance of the business. The operation management of IBM helps the business professionals to shift the context of business in real time to increase the performance of their business. Samsung produces all the electronics products that one person can think of (Hansen and Trego, 2015). Samsung maintains an innovative designing style in their operation. They have different design centers in different countries like London, Shanghai, San Francisco, Milan etc.

Comparison of General Model of Operation Management

The comparisons of 4 typologies of the 3 companies are shown below:

Market characteristics as well as target companies:

Apple has a detail understanding of the demography of their target market. Generally the Apple Company has targeted the rich customers of the world. Apple has a positive cash flow of 39.51B in the latest year. The company has a balance between the cash inflow and cash outflow. According to the survey of 2014 Apple has a cash of 59.71B that show that this company has increased its revenue by 11.27% (refer to appendix 1). Apple has produced $46.46 billion cash flow at the ending of June 2014.

IBM delivers accurate insight in the risk for the banking sectors (Grigorieva and Khailov, 2015). Cash flow of IBM grew to 5.78B means that it is quite able to meet the expenditure. It also shows the changes in stock process and market share of IBM (refer to appendix 2). This company used to spent 2.57B of financial activities that are used for repayment of dividend and interest paid.

On the other hand increasing power of consumers in turn increases the revenue of Samsung Company. The Main factors of growth in the market of Samsung are due to LCD and LED TV. Mobiles with high quality operating technology are also the factors of market growth. According to the company survey of 2012 the Samsung is gaining an increase in the cash flow and market share (refer to appendix 3).

Typical operation:

This option of typologies shows the stakeholder’s condition of the organization. The stakeholder of apple is defined by the lenders, employees, customers and software developers. The company has employed over 75000 people worldwide. The company has almost 166 million customers. The major Stakeholders of IBM are the users of who use the database managements system provided by this company (Shadfar and Vafadar, 2014). On the other hand Samsung has classified their stakeholder based on the impact. They have classified their stakeholders into six groups like Customers, communities, partner of business, media, employees, shareholders, and government.

Typical investment period:

The Apple Company has an investment period of 3 or 4 years. On the other hand IBM has an investment period of 4-5 years and Samsung has an investment period of 3-4 years.

Reason of operation to the seller:

The Apple Company is running its business in order to provide high technology in the electronic things. On the other hand IBM is running is business in order to provide Software database management support to the customers. Samsung is running its business in order to provide user friendly operating system in their electronic products with an affordable price (Fazlollahi et al. 2015).

Comparison of 4 Typologies of Apple, IBM and Samsung

Volume dimension: Apple provides standard operating system in their electronic product. It defines the status of Apple’s products. On the other hand IBM is a unique Organization in providing software support to the user of software. Samsung is an organization that provides user friendly and cost effective electronic products to the customers.

Variety dimension: Variety dimension defines the contrast between the products provided the company (Shneiderman and Plaisant, 2015). Apple provides the operating system Mac for their laptops and iOS operating system for their mobile phones. IBM provides various database management software’s for their software users. They also provide various cloud software. Samsung on the other hand uses user friendly android software with affordable price.

Variation dimension: Apple provides customized electronic products for expensive customers. IBM provides customized software solution to the software users. On the other hand Samsung provides customized operating system in their electronic products for their customers.

Visibility dimension: Visibility dimension of Apple defines the ability of the customer for tracking the experience by the process of operation. The XML is a customized event that helps the customer to monitor the process of IBM in a global basis. The easy process of operating system helps the customer to track the business process of Samsung.

Figure 3: 4v of Samsung

Four stage models define the way of translating the barrier of a company to the most effective strategy.

Internal neutrality: Apple uses very expensive operating system in their electronic products that are not affordable to all kind of customers. The IBM produce only software related product that prevent them to increase the market share. On the other hand Samsung has a lack of variety in the design of their electronic product (Deeswasmongkol and Sachakamol, 2015).

External neutrality: Apple should use such software that is user friendly and affordable to all kinds of customers. IBM should use strategy for implementing new type of business plan out of software. Samsung should use variety in the design of their products.

Internally supportive: Apple should adopt the strategy for making lost cost products in order to capture all kinds of customers. IBM should adopt the strategy of differentiation in order to increase the market share. Samsung should adopt the strategy of creating the variety in the design of their products to attract variety of customers.

Externally supportive: Using cost effective operating system will help the Apple to be the leader in the electronic product company. Differentiation helps the IBM to increase the market share of the company (Chong et al., 2015). Making variety of design in the electronic products will help Samsung in getting the attraction of customers.

Comparison of 4v's of Apple, IBM and Samsung

Following is the diagram 4 stage model of operation contribution:

Figure 5: Polar Diagram

Cost: The cost of Apple is comparably high among the three companies. IBM and Samsung have a reasonable cost for their products. Due to the high cost of apple product all kinds of customers can not afford the products of apple.

Speed: Samsung provides high speed in delivering their products to their customers in comparison to other two companies. IBM is also good in delivering products to their customers (Hofmann, 2015).

Dependability: IBM depends on other company for their business. They have adopted outsourcing plan in their business (Hope, 2014). Apple depends on the status of the customers to whom they provide products.

Flexibility: The products of Samsung are more flexible in using. Mac or iOS software of Apple is a little much complex in using.

Quality: The product of Apple is of very high quality in comparison to two other products. Samsung products are user friendly. IBM uses standard database system in their products.

Conclusion

From the overall study, it can be concluded that operation of all the three firms have been productive as per their strategies undertaken. All the companies, IBM, Apple and Samsung have different operation system. They are different in terms of market share, profitability and customer base. Therefore, the firms are highly focusing on their operation management that helps them to generate and quality output. On the other hand, the firms are segmented based on cost, quality, etc which helped in making comparison among them.

Reference List

Chong, C., Ma, L., Li, Z., Ni, W. and Song, S. (2015). Logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) Decomposition Of Coal Consumption In China Based On The Energy Allocation diagram of coal flows.Energy, 85, pp.366-378.

Deeswasmongkol, K. and Sachakamol, P. (2015). Operation Risk Management of Planning and Piping Design in a Large Petrochemical Plant Project. International Journal of Synergy and Research, 3, p.45.

Fazlollahi, S., Schüler, N. and Maréchal, F. (2015). A solid thermal storage model for the optimization of buildings operation strategy. Energy.

Grigorieva, E. and Khailov, E. (2015). Optimal Production–Sales Strategies for a company at changing market price. RMTA, 22(1), p.89.

Hansen, M. and Trego, G. (2015). SEC “claws back” bonuses and stock sale profits from CFOs of public company charged with accounting fraud. Journal of Investment Compliance, 16(2), pp.38-40.

Hofmann, E. (2015). Big data and supply chain decisions: the impact of volume, variety and velocity properties on the bullwhip effect. International Journal of Production Research, pp.1-19.

Hope, J. (2014). Build a sense of community for an effective SEM operation. Enrollment Management Report, 18(10), pp.12-12.

Kolstø, P. (2015). John Armstrong: typologies and grand narratives. Nations and Nationalism, 21(1), pp.177-181.

Milenković, N. (2015). Market Multiples Adjustments for Differences in Risk Profile – An Airline Company example. IJTTE, 5(1), pp.17-28.

Nimeri, A. (2015). Laparoscopic Roux En Y Gastric Bypass: A Good Operation Losing Ground.Advances in Obesity, Weight Management & Control, 2(1).

Nomakuchi, T. and Yanata, S. (2015). A Study of the Strategy and Operation of Japanese Agriculture Cloud Computing. Journal of Agricultural Chemistry and Environment, 04(02), pp.8-14.

Shabanpour-Haghighi, A. and Seifi, A. (2015). Multi-objective operation management of a multi-carrier energy system. Energy.

Shadfar, S. and Vafadar, A. (2014). Crafting Strategy for Butane Run Int’l Transport and Logistics Company by Practicing SORF© Analysis Model. BMS, 5(1), p.45.

Shneiderman, B. and Plaisant, C. (2015). Sharpening Analytic Focus to Cope with Big Data Volume and Variety. IEEE Comput. Grap. Appl., 35(3), pp.10-14.

Totla, P., Saini, S., Bhele, A. and Jupally, V. (2015). Compliance Driven Cost Control for Telecom Infrastructure Operation Management. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(S4), p.259.

Vlasov, A. (2015). Implementation of the system of financial support of investment projects in the holding managing company. Èkon. prom., (1), p.82.