Transess Business Development Consultant

August 20, 2008

THE VISION & THE MISSION

The moment I think of creation of an organization, the first thing that flashes in my consciousness is THE VISION & THE PURPOSE OF EXISTANCE.

Vision is the most primitive sub-conscious change happened to any successful organization before its inception. Mission is the basic BUILDING BLOCK of any organization for which whole organization come into existence. Now very basic question what derive VISION?

The search to find answer for this question starts from very basic understanding of human behavior & his aspirations. Before moving forward, I would like to answer one question “what if aspirations are achieved”? It is not important to achieve quantity gain but more important is to “How it has been achieved”. The process of moving in a path or searching path is more important of anyone’s ACTUAL growth in life.

Once individual understood his or her aspirations & visualize the path, then two things are left one is action & second is outcome. I firmly believe strong connection among aspiration, visualization, action & outcome. Once person is convinced with this cycle he or she built courage to believe on this never ending spiral cyclic process. Once courage is built to believe on your vision – it is the most enigmatic reaction in the universe & I would say it is the power house to generate energy – this generate the infinite energy of passion which propel organization to leap forward. This AURA generate tremendous vacuum to attract RIGHT people to believe on your VISION – because this is the part of cause & effect cycle in this universe, this is part of meaningful purpose to change & this is the ONLY link to bring & deliver diverse change at many ends in UNIVERSAL CHANGE. 

Therefore, build courage to believe on your dreams

For Business Consultation

http://www.transess.com

info@transess.com

Business Development Consultant – Globalization & Technology Trends

 

Globalization and Technology trends should continue to intensify competition and increase environmental uncertainties for firms. This will put greater pressure on profitability and make strategy formulation more difficult.

As a consequence, executives will be under greater pressure to be more actively engaged and will likely be held more accountable forperformance outcomes. Thus, we should expect a certain amount of instability in executive leadership to continue given current trends and competitive pressures. The problem is to identify leadership instability when it occurs, understand the underlying causes and likely outcomes of this instability, and to take action to restore leadership stability in ways that increase decision making effectiveness and enhance long-term performance.

 

 

 

 

August 19, 2008

Four Major Shifts in the Asian Competitive Environment

Understanding the drivers of change in the Asian environment and what they mean for the way Asian competition will work in the next round is the first step towards creating the new kinds of strategies and companies that will succeed in the future. Four shifts occurring in today’s Asia are particularly significant: the demise of asset speculators; China’s scattering of the pattern of orderly Asian “flying geese” development; the breakdown of national economic “baronies”; and the decay of “me-too” strategies

The demise of the asset speculators
Profitable strategies are supposed to draw their lifeblood from creating new value by finding ways to provide customers with goods and services that either better fit their needs or do so more efficiently than competitors. If we are honest, however, that was not the way a lot of companies in Asia made money during the 1990s boom. Instead, they grew rich through asset speculation: buying assets ranging from real estate to acquiring rival firms or building large manufacturing facilities and letting the rising prices of these assets swell the market value of their companies. Even as they continued to benefit from asset price inflation, too many senior managers in Asian companies were happy to bask in the illusion that they were creating new value through world-beating competitiveness and thriving in a dynamic, open market. The same was true for many of their multinational counterparts operating in the region whose management was more inclined to attribute their success to brilliant strategy and execution, than to favorable market conditions.

The Asian financial crisis of 1997 shattered those illusions because, almost at a stroke, it removed the windfall of rising asset prices that had been the unspoken secret of success in many Asian businesses. Instead of capital gains as asset prices rose year after year, Asian management was faced with a sustained period of asset price deflation. As banks and asset management companies were forced to share in the burden, the impact has been delayed for years. But now, as Asian balance sheets have been reconstructed leaving the investment community chastened, the upper hand is shifting to those who can add the most value to the assets and resources they use and away from simply adding new capacity. The next round will reward those who can do more with less, and do it differently, not those who build the largest corporate empires in Asia or assemble the biggest caches of assets on which to speculate. The drive for sheer volume is being replaced with a drive for value-added.

China scatters the “flying geese”
A second major force of change in Asia’s next round of competition is the China factor. Asia’s traditional model of economic development was often described as “flying geese” in formation. Each country began by manufacturing and exporting simple, labor intensive products like garments and shoes and assembly of low-end products. As it accumulated more capital and know-how, it moved through products of intermediate complexity, and then to high-value added products and services. As one country moved on to the next level of value added, another developing country would take its place as at the lower-value end. Japan led the flock, followed by Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Then came Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam in the tail. Albeit somewhat simplistic, this concept of national geese flying in formation underlay many a government policy and corporate strategy. It shaped the pattern of what diversified Asian-owned companies invested in next and where multinationals located their activities in Asia.

Then along came China. The Economist magazine aptly summed up the result with a cartoon. It depicted a jet aircraft, piloted by a panda, zooming straight through the flock of Asian geese[1]. China wasn’t flying in the cozy formation; by the new millennium it was undertaking activities that ranged from simple manufacturing to design and manufacture of high technology components and equipment, from making rag dolls and molding plastic toys through to fabrication or semiconductors and specialized machinery. And China is doing this on a scale large enough to redraw the competitive map.

Now that the flying geese model of where to locate low- and high-end operations respectively has been exploded and the neat formation is in disarray, companies will have to re-evaluate the roles of each of their subsidiaries across Asia. With China now a key part of the Asian game, the winners will be those who can restructure their operations into a more integrated Asian jigsaw where each subsidiary in Asia supplies specialized components or focuses on particular activities within the overall supply chain.

This development represents a fundamental change in the Asian competitive environment. When companies review the footprint of their existing operations through the new lens of a more integrated Asian supply chain, they will often discover that their existing subsidiaries are in the wrong places, with too much vertical integration and possibly specializing in the wrong things.

Semiconductor companies are a good example of the kind of new strategy that will be necessary. Leading companies in this industry have had to abandon the historic set-ups where they made high-end chips in one country and low-end ones in another. They have had to replace it with a new structure where a subsidiary in one Asian country does the circuit design, another photolithography, and a different location the so-called “back-end packaging” of the final chip. These kinds of pressures for redrawing the map of Asia have huge implications for the strategies that will succeed in the future.

The breakdown of national economic baronies
Asia’s division into highly segregated national markets, separated from each other by a mix of tariff and non-tariff barriers, cultural and language differences, divergent choices about local standards, and regulatory differences between countries is legendary. Within this environment it made sense for companies to approach each national market pretty much as a separate competitive playing field. This behavior was reinforced by various forms of preference given by governments to their local companies through the allocation of licenses, preferential access to finance, and other kinds of direct and indirect support. Likewise, multinationals historically approached Asia as a collection of separate national markets.

In this environment, local “country managers” often became local barons: each in charge of a highly autonomous subsidiary within the Asian network. Each baron fought for investment of more resources in their business unit and argued the case against sharing functions from procurement and manufacturing to distribution and marketing on the grounds that any such moves would reduce their ability to respond to the peculiarities of the local market. The result was a set of largely independent subsidiaries spanning Asia under the umbrella of a “global” parent.

Today each of these country subsidiaries is under threat from the rapid growth of cross-border competition in Asia. A potent cocktail of falling trade barriers, deregulation of national markets, and falling costs of transport and communication is now opening the door to new sources of competitive advantage based on cross-border economies of scale and co-ordination. The results are striking. Trade among Asian countries is now growing more than twice as fast as the area’s trade with the rest of the world, reflecting a rapid increase in direct cross-border competition. And perhaps even more significantly, Asian companies have invested an average of almost $50 billion every year in building or acquiring operations in other countries since 1995 (despite the setback of the 1997 financial crisis)[2]. Much of this investment is in building beachheads in other Asian markets from which to mount attacks on yesterday’s national baronies. In the face of this onslaught, yesterday’s fragmented Asian strategies will become untenable.

The decay of “me-too” strategies
Primary consumer demand – from the first time purchasers of everything from cars to washing machines and mobile phones – accounts for a large part of the market when economic growth in an economy first takes off. During this phase, consumers are willing to accept standardized, basic consumer goods. If you have never owned a refrigerator before, the most basic box that keeps things cool at reasonable cost is acceptable. But once consumers move on to become second or third time purchasers, they look for features such as the exact performance, styling, color and so on that suits their individual needs. Consumers begin to demand higher product quality and variety, not simply more volume. Whirlpool’s experience when it entered the Chinese market for domestic appliances a few years ago is a good example of this change. Contrary to its initial expectations, it quickly found Asian consumers rejected last year’s American designs and technologies. Instead, they demanded environmentally friendly CFC-free refrigerators, washing-machines with state-of-the-art electronic controls, and integrated, wall-mounted air-conditioners instead of the standard type that hung precariously from a window space[3].

The same is true of fast moving consumer goods like food or cosmetics and services: once your basic needs are satisfied by the range of products and services you consume, you start to look for particular varieties, flavors, sizes, and presentations or services customized to your individual needs. Even Asia’s humble instant noodle now comes in more than 20 different flavors and a range of packaging from paper to styrofoam cups, not to mention pink “Valentine’s day” and red and gold “Chinese new year limited edition” varieties[4]. These trends are a simple fact of life that goes right back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: as consumers become richer they want better and more customised offerings, not “more of the same”.

These trends are now reaching much beyond Asia’s wealthy elite. Throughout much of Asia the mass market has now reached a stage of development where consumers are no longer satisfied with reliable but standard, often boring, products and services. Even in China and India, countries with huge rural populations (estimated at 900 million and 700 million respectively) that have been little touched by consumerism, there are hundreds of millions of urban consumers who are now sophisticated buyers who demand goods and services with the innovative features, variety and customization that precisely fit their individual needs. Companies unable to provide more innovative, flexible products will literally be left on the shelf.

In parallel, a new generation of Asian consumers is entering the market. Unlike their parents, today’s so called “X” and “Y” generations have never lived through real hardship; they were born into a consumer society. As a result, they take abundance of goods and services largely for granted. Their choices reflect a complex mix of demand for higher quality, fashion, a desire to express more individualism, and a “what’s new?” mentality. While the precise implications of serving this new consumer generation will vary by industry, it is safe to say that they will demand even greater variety, customization and innovation from suppliers than today’s mainstream consumers.

Despite all these changes, the Asian consumer is unlikely to abandon his or her traditional nose for value. Nor are Asian business buyers going to forget their historic emphasis on costs. But in the next round of competition in Asia, a strategy based solely on churning out high standard products in high volumes is unlikely to be a winner – even if the price is low. The new environment will demand that winning companies succeed in pursuing a strategy of being different from competitors, as well as better; decisively setting themselves apart from the competition with a wider range of product options, better customer segmentation and more customized offerings and stronger brands to signal differentiation from competitors.

Strategic responses
The fundamental changes in Asia’s competitive environment described above together demand new strategies. Clearly there is no single recipe for winning the new competitive game in Asia. But the new reality of Asia demands that managers stake out their territory based on four core ingredients: improved productivity; local brand and service; innovation; and internationalization that is designed to reshape the Asian playing field and reap cross-border synergies. Figure 1 lays out the strategic options.

A new productivity drive
Given the demise of asset speculation as a way of underpinning Asian profits and increasingly intense competition from local companies in China and cross-border rivalry within Asia, a key element in future Asian strategy must be to enhance efficiency of Asian operations through productivity gains – especially in neglected “overhead” areas beyond the factory gate, like administration, sales and distribution.

In a recent study I conducted on a sample of consumer-goods multinationals operating in Asia, I found that at an average of $75 million sales their unit overhead was a staggering 300 percent higher than Chinese rivals of comparative size. In fact, in a number of cases the overhead burden a foreign subsidiary expended just in dealing with their foreign headquarters was higher than the total overhead of the local Chinese competitors!

In many multinationals, overhead burdens rose during 1990s when expansion was the name of the game, at almost any cost. Companies recruited armies of staff to make sure support functions such as sales, administration and distribution did not create bottlenecks or hinder the running of their expensive new factories. But as we enter a new round of Asian competition, it will not be enough for companies to rely on high productivity in manufacturing and routine operations alone. Multinationals will have to be more assiduous about deploying advanced systems – in customer relationship management, logistics, and administration; “soft technologies” – to bring their Asian operations up to world best-practice productivity outside core manufacturing and basic service operations. They will no longer be able to afford to follow the old adage that “Asia’s different” as an excuse for inefficient administration and low-productivity support and service activities.

Renewed focus on brand building and service quality
As “me-too” strategies decay and Asian consumers demand more variety, customization and service, there will be a growing need for the capability to deliver an improved product or service experience “on the ground” to each and every individual customer in Asia. Simultaneously there will be a need to signal improved service quality to consumers and to differentiate offerings from competitors by strengthening the equity of the brands in Asia market by market and customer by customer. The need for strategies to strengthen brand differentiation will be given further impetus as local Asian companies start to build or acquire their own brands – a trend that is well underway.

In the next round of competition, multinationals won’t be able to take their brand premium for granted. To exploit this potential advantage multinationals will have to increase their investment in brands in Asia. Better localization of branding, marketing, and service will also be required.

Reaping cross-border synergies and driving consolidation
The relentless competitive pressure on yesterday’s protected national baronies in the new Asian competitive game will demand better exploitation of cross-border synergies between different subsidiaries in Asia. This will mean accelerating pan-Asian and global integration, leaving behind yesterday’s scatter of isolated national subsidiaries and facing up to country barons who resist loss of independence.

As China continues to scatter the flying geese, companies will need to rethink the role of different subsidiaries and locations within the overall Asian jigsaw. Rather than a loosely connected portfolio of largely self-sufficient national companies, each subsidiary will need to be refocused on more specialized sets of activities within a new Asian network that leverages the specific advantages and knowledge within each location.

In many industries succeeding in the new competitive game in Asia will also mean taking advantage of the window of opportunity that is opening up to drive consolidation of Asia’s fragmented supply base. This window for industry consolidation is opening because more intense competition from China and the elimination of the protective barriers around national markets are putting increasingly intense pressure on Asian companies to become more efficient and more focused about where they invest their resources in the future. This means that more and more companies will be forced, however reluctantly, to dispose of businesses where they lack the scale and the prospect of building sufficient depth of capabilities to compete in the next round[5]. This will create a new supply of businesses for consolidators to mop up that wasn’t there in the past. Here strategies for quickly identifying, assessing, and executing overseas acquisitions and then reshaping these into a fully integrated business will become critical.

Innovating in Asia
With the decay of me-too strategies and the resulting increased emphasis on innovation amongst their local Asian rivals, multinationals will not only have to exploit transfer innovative technologies and products into Asia more rapidly, they will also have to ramp up their own innovation activities in Asia. Rather than just exporting innovations and new technology developed at home, American and European multinationals will need to re-structure their innovation processes to benefit from the availability of high quality researchers and engineers at lower cost, as well as to learn more from their Asian operations[6].

Too often in the past, multinationals have only seen Asia as a manufacturing base or a source of customers in a growing market. Too few multinational companies have seen the potential of leveraging innovations from their Asian operations across other markets. Even those who have done so frequently fail to recognize Asia as an important, ongoing source of innovation. The primacy of the home base and the “parent” organization as the fount of innovation die hard.

Forward-thinking multinationals are, however, beginning to reassess the potential role of Asia in their global innovation strategies. The global drinks group Diageo (owners of Smirnoff Vodka, J&B Scotch and Bailey’s Irish Cream), for example, has an innovation group in Hong Kong whose role is to seek out emerging trends and technologies within the region for global innovations. Johnson & Johnson has begun to deploy innovative manufacturing processes designed in Asia across their subsidiaries in the region, rather than implementing solutions born in the West. Over the last few years, more than 100 global R&D centres have been established in China by leading multinationals such as HP, Microsoft and Motorola. Others need to follow these pioneers.

August 18, 2008

New Strategies in Asia’s Business Competition

A fundamental strategic rethink is now required by Asian companies and Western
multinationals operating in Asia alike, because Asia’s competitive environment is
undergoing a sea change. Repeating what worked in the past is unlikely to succeed
in the face of these new realities. Change is being driven by the rapid development of China,
the cumulative impact of gradual but sustained deregulation and trade liberalization across
Asia, and the implications of a new generation of economic, demographic and social forces
that is beginning to reshape Asia’s future. These are all long-term trends, but until now their
impact on the Asian competition has been arrested by the fact that many Asian companies
have been shackled by the after-effects of the 1997 financial crisis. Only recently have these
shackles been removed as debt restructuring is completed or loans finally repaid, giving
these Asian corporations the capital and the elbow-room to respond to the pent-up
pressures for change. Faced with this new economic environment in Asia and re-invigorated
Asian competitors, Western multinationals will need to chart new strategies if they are to win
a share of the new round of Asian growth that is now underway. Rather than cloning their
global strategies or reluctantly adapting them to Asia, successful Western multinationals will
adopt innovative strategies in the Asian market that allow them to more accurately pinpoint,
and then to fully exploit, their own unique strengths.

April 24, 2008

Anticipating Change -In Right Way & In Right Time

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — vsbisht @ 12:55 pm

” The need is to consolidate what we have created & to change(=grow) as to overcome Market Dynamic” for our Mission & Vision. Therefore company’s proactive ability to run faster than its competition decides its Growth, sustainability & Long term survival.

We, at Transess, provide our expertise to proactive companies to meet this required change. When there is an opportunity & there is a threat, this leads to contious TRANSFORMATION INTERNALLY &  EXTERNALLY and survival rest on one’s openness to embrace this adaptation process.

It is very important for any organization to know “how they are being perceived – INTERNALLY & EXTERNALLY – by both Internal Customers & External Customers?, &  “will this perception add value for sustainable growth in top line & bottom line or can influence intangiable company’s goodwill?”
” It is insanity to keep doing same thing & expect different result” ……Embrace Change -> for right reason, in right way & in right time
Transess Business Consultant
                      
info@transess.com
www.transess.com

 

Hello world!

Filed under: Uncategorized — vsbisht @ 5:28 am

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

April 18, 2008

A Business Consultant for Customized Business Solution

“A Business Consultant”
Transess Business Development Consultant purpose is to help Small and Medium sized Businesses(SMB), such as Educational Institutes, Multiple Retail Outlets & Healthcare Centers, to achieve their business objectives – “Growth in Top line & Bottom line, evolving systems & processes and developing people”.
We share our Twelve years of rich experience & professional expertise in Business Advisory, Business Consultancy Service with various MNCs to meet your’s business objectives by developing Cost Effective Business Solutions
WebSite: http://www.transess.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.