1. Irwin/McGraw-Hill [Modified by EvS] Mgt 485-3-1 Mgt 485 Chapter 3 GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

2. 3-2 Useful Links  http://globalgateway.t-bird.edu/GlobalGateway/ http://globalgateway.t-bird.edu/GlobalGateway/  http://www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/cominfo/ethnic/ http://www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/cominfo/ethnic/  http://international.loc.gov/intldl/intldlhome.html http://international.loc.gov/intldl/intldlhome.html  http://www.fita.org http://www.fita.org  http://www.submitshop.com/services/regional- search-engines.html http://www.submitshop.com/services/regional- search-engines.html  http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/index.htm http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/index.htm  http://www.geert- hofstede.com/hofstede_netherlands.shtml http://www.geert- hofstede.com/hofstede_netherlands.shtml

3. 3-3 Summary of Global Competitiveness  Finland as the most competitive economy, holding first position in the Growth Competitiveness Index rankings due to a good all-round performance.  Six European economies are ranked among the top ten with notable good performance from the Scandinavian countries.  The United Kingdom and Canada have dropped to 15th and 16th position respectively –mainly due to a perceived decline in the quality of their public institutions (particularly significant in Canada).  Taiwan and Singapore, ranked 5th and 6th respectively, are Asia’s best performing countries. –Taiwan’s position is largely due to its excellent performance in technology –Singapore’s to its sound macroeconomic environment and quality of public institutions.  Chile (28th) is the highest ranking economy in Latin America, way ahead of Mexico (47th), the second highest ranked economy in the region. –Gradually, through a combination of good macroeconomic management and a broad range of institutional reforms, Chile is joining the ranks of the most competitive economies in the world, effectively migrating, in a figurative sense, away from the economically troubled region Adopted from: http://www.psoj.org/pressrelease20031112.html

4. 3-4 TQM Organizations  Recognize the Technology Paradox  Create A Climate for Innovation  Create High Quality Goals & Services

5. 3-5 Technology Paradox The quality/cost dilemma Wrong: As quality increases, the cost of production also increases Right: Quality and costs are inversely related

6. 3-6 Creating a Climate for Innovation –Create corporate databases to link experts in diverse technologies –Take advantage of Experts from outside the company –Encourage Scientists to present innovations to peers –Create visions by looking to the future –Benchmark competitors –Create a wide array of products that cannot quickly be copied by the competition

7. 3-7 Quality-Cost (Traditional View)

8. 3-8 Quality-Cost (Evidence)

9. 3-9 “Quality Pays Off”  Auto manufacturing –U.S. automakers have continued to increase their quality  Asian services –Asian airliners and hotels are top ranking internationally  Aircraft manufacturing –Major manufacturers are delivering high quality and cost effective products worldwide

10. 3-10 Learning Organizations  “Learn how to learn” –anticipate change and discover new ways of creating products and services  Openness –encourage and anticipate, rather than accept change  Creativity –promote risk taking –encourage personal flexibility  Self-Efficacy –Enhance confidence that employees have the personal resources needed to accomplish specific tasks within the organization

11. 3-11 Examples of learning organizations  Anticipate change –General Electric –Sony –Kodak  Openness – Whirlpool  Creativity – Sony – Chrysler  Efficacy – IBM

12. 3-12 World Class Organizations  Customer Based  Continuous Improvement  Flexible or Virtual Organizations  Creative Human Resource Management  Egalitarian Climate  Technological Support

13. 3-13 World Class Organizations 1) Citigroup 2) General Electric 3) Exxon-Mobil 4) Altria (Formerly Kraft / Phillip Morris) 5) Royal Dutch – Shell Group 6) Bank of America 7) Pfizer 8) Wal-Mart 9) Microsoft 10) Toyota Fortune 500 Magazine v148, n2, p 122 “Global 500” (annual) The 192 U.S. companies on the list lost $461 billion in revenues

14. 3-14 World Class Organizations 1) Citigroup 2) General Electric 3) Exxon-Mobil 4) Altria (Formerly Kraft / Phillip Morris) 5) Royal Dutch – Shell Group 6) Bank of America 7) Pfizer 8) Wal-Mart 9) Microsoft 10) Toyota Fortune 500 Magazine v148, n2, p 122 “Global 500” (annual) AOL Time Warner (#80), showed a 2001 - 2002 loss of $98.7 billion

15. 3-15 New Paradigm Organizations Organizational Development 1985199019952000+ Time Total Quality (adaptive) Learning (keeping ahead of change) World Class (continuous improvement to become and sustain being the best)

16. 3-16 e-Go  Central Issues to “going international” –Customer Focus?  Market –Economics –Quality –Technology?

17. 3-17  Exercise #4 –http://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/reference/codes/index.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/reference/codes/index.html –http://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/regulations/forms/index.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/regulations/forms/index.html –http://www.unzco.com/basicguide/http://www.unzco.com/basicguide/ –http://www.officialexportguide.com/http://www.officialexportguide.com/ –http://www.oted.wa.gov/trade/importexport/default.htmhttp://www.oted.wa.gov/trade/importexport/default.htm

18. 3-18 Export Import Codes  Schedule B codes (for exports)  Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes (for imports) The HTS assigns 6-digit codes for general categories. Countries which use the HTS are allowed to define commodities at a more detailed level than 6-digits, but all definitions must be within that 6- digit framework. The U.S. defines products using 10-digit HTS codes. Exports codes (which the U.S. calls Schedule B) are administered by the U.S. Census Bureau. Import codes are administered by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).