This paper analyses various cases studies of different organization heads who ventured into different and new forms of business, and the ways in which these changes were able to affect their various businesses. Businesses sometimes call for certain changes, which may make or break a company. The important factor that should be put into consideration for all business owners is that before venturing into different changes, several factors should be put into consideration to help them in determining whether the changes will help the businesses. This is because most of the time, what works for one company may fail to yield the same results in another company.
Lesson Case 1: Peter Ivine & Nabi Saleh-Owners of Gloria Jeans Coffee Franchise-Australia Carolyn
The two partners came together to come up with a business franchise that was going to handle a different section of the market than what people had been used to in the past. They offered coffee and foods to consumers, and gave consumers the chance to take away the foods with them. This does not mean that people of this area were not used to purchasing coffee. It only meant they were given the option of purchasing the coffee and having the chance to take the coffee in other areas other than the restaurants (Lehmann, 1989). This fact attracted them to more consumers, giving them the opportunity to attract more people because of this option.
The main lesson learnt from this case study is that every business owner should be wary about the operations of his company. This way, formulating methods of pleasing the customers in even better ways may become easier. For this case, the joint venture entered into by Irnive, Saleh and McDonalds to provide take away coffee seemed to have brought more people into the two businesses. This is because they were able to recognize the needs of the consumers thus were able to take advantage of the nature of their businesses to come up with one venture that would be beneficial for the consumers and the companies as well.
This type of strategy may not have worked the same way for other companies as it did for this one. This is because each company has various and different needs they may not be the same as those of this company. As a result, they may apply the wrong strategy in maintaining their consumers, a method that otherwise managed to work for this company. This is brought about by the fact that different companies have various needs and they serve different types of consumers whose interests are just as different. As such, before any company decides to venture into this kind of strategy in order to attract their consumers and maintain the ones they already have, they would have to take part in a lot of market research. The purpose of this would be to identify the specific needs of their consumers and decide wisely the kind of strategy that would work for them. This has been highlighted in the case study when it states that various companies have previously taken part in research about engaging in this kind of business. Although most of them have managed to find more disadvantages than advantages of taking part in this kind of venture, very few of those who have seen its advantages have had the courage to take the bold step and incorporate this move into their business (Deshpande & Zaltman, 1982).
Lesson caes 2: Carolyn Creswell-Founder and Managing Director of Carman’s Fine foods-Australia
The decision by Carolyn to buy the company was initially so that she could maintain a source of income when her employer began to lay off staff. However, she managed to build the company during her tenure and now after fifteen years, the company owns more than one hundred stores that are in several other countries apart from Australia where the company first began.
From this case study, the lessons learnt is it important for companies to be run by people who are well versed in the affairs of the business. This is because, like Carolyn, they will be able to make wise choices regarding new ventures their companies are supposed to make, which will benefit the company in the end. This is not easy because working with what one’s gut tells him/her does not work the same way for all people. Therefore, it means that companies should involve themselves in a lot of market research so that they are able to make accurate conclusions and decisions regarding what their companies require to succeed. Apart from market research, they should also be proactive in implementing the decisions they will have come up with (Bhojraj et al, 2003). According to the case study, the main factor that managed to put this company ahead of their competition was the fact that Carolyn was not afraid to try out the new things she had learnt about their consumers and their needs, and most of them had worked to her advantage. Business is a two-way venture meaning the results of implementation of new ventures can go either way (Lambkin, 1988).
It is important for each company to know the limits within which it can operate, depending on the kind of goods and services it offers. This is because, some ventures may seem to work for other types of business but would fail terribly if implemented on others. For instance, this company decided to come together with McDonalds in order to offer fast food that people could take way and actually eat them on their way to anywhere. This may not work for other businesses that sell food because the kind of food they sell may not be suitable for intake on a journey, thus may not be received well by the consumers (McFadden, 1986). Another thing is that another company may choose to adapt this system of providing take away foods, but may copy the packaging design, which may not work for their products as well as it worked for Carolyn’s company. Ultimately, companies should be aware of the nature of products that they sell, and then carry out enough research whenever they are thinking of methods that they feel could improve their service delivery. This research should be thorough enough so that by the time the new methods are implemented, the chances of failure are reduced drastically, if not completely eliminated (Hamel & Prahalad, 1990).
Greg Stamboulidis – Founder and managing director of Stambos Group of Companies – Australia
Greg took the chance to venture into a business that was not as familiar to him as it was for other people who had worked in the same industry for a long time (Horstmann & Markusen, 1995). This did not deter him from working hard and smart, a factor that is now responsible for his success twenty years later. As he progressed, Greg managed to come up with methods that enabled him to earn more money from the business, while at the same time minimizing the number of fish processing procedures that his company takes part in (Birkinshaw & Fry, 1998). This assisted him in reducing the amount of money his company spends in these procedures, maximizing his profits.
The main lesson that other business people can learn from Greg is that it is important to find ways in which they can minimize the amount of money that they spend on the production process or any other procedures that their products have to go through before they finally reach the market. This ultimately always ensures that the company spends a little less money than it usually does, and therefore the companies are able to make more money (Malhotra et al, 2003). From Greg’s case study, it is possible to learn the true value of having competitive advantage. This is the main factor that has ensured that his business has continued to thrive despite the fact that he notices, like many others in his line of work, that fish supply business is unpredictable and often seasonal (Song & Montoya‐Weiss, 1998). Competitive advantage refers to methods that companies and businesses ensure that they are able to stay ahead of their competitors by providing something, whether in the form of a good or service, that makes their customers faithful to them.
Similarities and Differences
The main similarities that exist in all the case study is the realization by each of the companies that for them to succeed in their new venture ideas, they would have to come together with other businesses that may have offered similar or different types of products or services.
Another similarity that exists among all the three ventures was the market research that each person in the case studies had to conduct in order to know more about the needs of their consumers so that they would introduce products and services that were unique, but yet were still able to meet the needs of the consumer.
The main difference that exists in the three case studies is the type of partnerships that they took on with the additional companies. For instance, the first case study was a joint venture, mostly because all they did was introduce a new product that was jointly provided by the two companies, without necessarily having to change other aspects of their individual companies, like share and the names.
Difficulties of Strategy Adoption
Strategy adoption in business involves coming up with new methods of running the business in order to attract new markets or to ensure that the old market is kept intact. Adoption of new strategies in business sometimes brings in a lot of benefits for the company by enabling it to attract new consumers. However, there are several challenges that a business may face during its bid to adopt new ventures, which may call for it to make drastic changes. One of the main challenges that a company may face during adoption of new strategies is lack of sufficient resources. For instance, in the first case study, Irvine and Saleh would have had to bring in more resources to facilitate their provision of take away coffee for their consumers. They would have had to come up with more stores. Instead, the drastic change that the company chose to take was to go into a joint venture with McDonalds, so that both MacDonald and Gloria Jeans coffee stores would all be able to provide this service, thus reducing the amount of money that each company would have had to spend on additional resources.
Definition of Terms
Joint venture – this refers to two different franchises combining their assets to come up with a single one that is managed by both of them together. In this case, Peter Irvine & Nabi Saleh’s was a joint venture.
Co-specialized venture – this refers to when two companies bring together unique aspects of their businesses to create a new product that attracts new markets. For this case, the two companies both specialized in food production, and they decided to come together in order to provide beverage that could be carried out of the premise.
Whether one is planning to venture into new business or expand an old one, it is important that they do some background checks in order to be well equipped with information about whether they are likely to succeed or fail.
Bhojraj, S., Lee, C., & Oler, D. K. (2003). What is my line? A comparison of industry classification schemes for capital market research. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 745-774.
Birkinshaw, J., & Fry, N. (1998). Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 51-61.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: what separates winners from losers?. Journal of product innovation management, 4(3), 169-184.
Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors affecting the use of market research information: a path analysis. Journal of marketing research, 14-31.
Eppen, G. D., Hanson, W. A., & Martin, R. K. (1990). Bundling–new products, new markets, low risk. Sloan Management Review, 32(4), 7-14.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. Harvard business review, 69(4), 81-92.
Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of marketing Research, 38(3), 362-375.
Horstmann, I. J., & Markusen, J. R. (1995). Exploring new markets: direct investment, contractual relations and the multinational enterprise (No. w5029). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Lambkin, M. (1988). Order of entry and performance in new markets. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 127-140.
Lehmann, D. R. (1989). Market research and analysis (Vol. 3). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Malhotra, N. K., Birks, D. F., Palmer, A., & Koenig-Lewis, N. (2003). Market research: an applied approach. Journal of marketing management, 27, 1208-1213.
McFadden, D. (1986). The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing science, 5(4), 275-297.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 81-101.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 29(3).
Song, X. M., & Montoya‐Weiss, M. M. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 124-135.