Overview Byte Products, Inc., headquartered in the midwestern United States, is regarded as one of the largest volume supplier for the production of electronic components used in personal computers. Byte Products, Inc., was a privately owned firm that has now entered to be a publicly traded company. The majority of the stockholders are the initial owners of Byte, when it was still privately owned. The products that Byte produces are primarily found in computers used for business and engineering applications. Byte Products, Inc., has been the leader in this industry for the past six year with consistent yearly revenues of 12% and total sales of approximately $265 million. Byte also has 32% of the market share. The Board of Directors is consisted of 11 members: James M. Elliot, the Chairman of the Board, 3 inside members and 7 outside members. The economy is stable and profitable, but that also means a lot of competition in the market. This poses a great opportunity for the company to grow and gain more of the market share. The only foreseeable real threat that the company will face is new competitors in the market. Problem Unfortunately for Byte the demand for these computer components have increased and Byte simply can not meet the demands. This dramatic increase in demand has allowed many new firms to enter into the industry and have cause an increased number of competing firms. Although Byte management and shareholders are pleased with the profits and growth of the market, it still faces a major issue of the increase in demand. Byte currently operates three manufacturing facilities that operate 24 hours a day, with three shifts, and 7 days a week. This constitutes the maximum production capacity that Byte can do and can not increase its output. James M. Elliott, Chief Executive Officer, recognizes the severity of the problem and states that if Byte cannot increase its productions, then the buyers will look elsewhere for products. Moreover, if the lack of production from Byte continues, it will simply encourage other firms to enter the market. Alternative Solutions The Board of Directors unanimously voted for the immediate construction of a new state of the art facility to meet the increased demands. Unfortunately, the construction of the new facility will take three years to be completed. Jim Elliot recognizes this gap and believes that the three year gap will be too long and suggests developing short range solution while the facility is under construction.
BinOptics designs, develops, and manufactures monolithically integrated optoelectronic components based on the proprietary technology developed at Cornell University. It also produces integrated photonic components, which include its lasers. These components can be integrated into indium phosphide and other semiconductor materials, which give BinOptics a competitive advantage. This unique platform allows the company to meet commercial requirements with higher reproducibility, more elasticity for product innovation, considerably lower costs, and higher performance than alternative processes. BinOptics’ products address high growth datacom applications, parallel optical interconnects, PON and CWDM (Coarse Wave Division Multiplexing), as well as advanced non-telecom applications. Its products are sold to technology companies in the tele-communications and data-communications industry. BinOptics does not disclose its customer list but two of its customers are Agilent Technologies and Cisco Systems.
The board of directors is a good mix of people. The team has a vast knowledge about being running companies. They know about raising capital. They know about building a company from scratch. The gap of knowledge would be customer service. Of course, some of them might have a conflict of interest because they have their own company they are running. Ultimately, what team would want is a return on their investment, whether that be money or
1)The opportunity for expansion can be very beneficial to any business having the desire to branch out. The task for engineer, De Guzman, is to have a new facility opened and operational within three months. Without having any other confirmed employees of the new facility, three months is not a realistic amount of time in order to have it ready. The goal is to have the facility opened and functioning at three months with employees that are able to do their job at a minimum performance level. It could take months in order to develop employees that will run a new facility in three months. It was once said that, “I know when I was in management I didn’t spend as much time as I should have on the development of my own employees (Lipman, 2017). The amount of time spent on employees will show if the facility is operational at three months.
Initial projections show that the current schedule will take 50 weeks to finish with a final budget estimate of $3.152 million. Although the project estimate comes in under budget, the time frame for completion extends beyond the acceptable 45 weeks. Therefore, the following discussion takes a closer look at the project's conditions by developing a project priority matrix, project network, and a Gantt chart to help Bjorn Ericksen and his team reduce the project duration. The author then offers a project closure approach.
CEOs and Board Members need to be collaborative in dealing with increasing complexities of healthcare management. Having the correct Boards members could make the difference between a well run managed successful healthcare institution and one that fails. There are many components needed to have to the correct board members. As noted in our book having the correct people on the board is necessary, however the process is more complicated than just selecting those people are felt be “good fits” to be member of a board of directors.
DataClear had also recorded very impressive sales growth in its first two years and, given the projections, were looking at 300 percent average revenue growth thru '02. The case analysis available shows that DataClear has a $600 million annual domestic market for its current product and $1.2 billion when you add in the global market in telecommunications and financial services. With product expansion, there was a potential annual $2.7 billion market ($1.5billion domestic/$1.26 billion abroad) to target in the telecommunications, financial services, chemical, petrochemical, and pharmaceutical industries combined.
The Hefty Hardware case study presents multiple critical issues that will impact both short-term and long-term growth and development of the company. The first issue is the communication gap and lack of integration between stakeholders in business and the Information Technology division. The second critical issue is the lack of shared knowledge and each department working on projects in essentially silos. The third critical issue is internal company politics driving the executive-level decision making process. Solutions to the above issues will need to be addressed with utmost urgency to ensure Hefty Hardware’s foothold in the marketplace.
The article is a credible primary source peer-reviewed journal article published in Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). This is a non-profit organization which publishes computing articles of differing views. Martin Ford is highly qualified in technology and the future, having a business degree along with a computer engineering degree. He is unbiased in his article, using only logic and data to support his
Intellinex LLC is an eLearning company that was recently spun off from its parent Ernest & Young LLP. At its inception Intellinex claimed to be one of the largest eLearning providers. They have an aggressive strategy to take advantage of the consolidating eLearning market and become a "one-stop" provider of all eLearning services for their clients. Their focus is on creating customized training for clients and helping them to implement and maintain their on-line courses. Products and services are geared toward large companies that spend approximately $1 million on their eLearning projects; not individuals or small companies. They have asserted a strenuous goal of $100 million revenue in the first year of business.
Production and distribution issues will also be addressed. Many production issues will be corrected as the facility is updated. Distribution is less of an immediate problem and future growth will resolve many of these concerns.
By 1984, a combination of factors had contributed to lowering the profitability of the DRAM industry. As the DRAM industry matured, DRAMs began to take on the characteristics of a commodity product (Burgelman, 1994; Burgelman & Grove, 2004). Competitors had closed the gap on Intel’s lead in technology development causing the basis of competition to shift towards manufacturing capacity. Gaining market share in an industries where product features had become standardized required companies to agressively pursue capacity expansion, while engaging simultaneously in cutthroat price competition. Also, with each successive DRAM generation, companies wishing to keep pace with the demand for increasing production yields were forced to commit increasingly large capital investments to retrofit their fabrication facilities. Figure 1 contains a snapshot of the DRAM industry between the periods of 1974 through 1984. The important thing to note is that Intel begins to fall behind the competition beginning with the 16K generation and is virtually non-existent in any of the future generations (Burgelman, 1994).
One particular digital electronics company stuck out above the rest, and that was Sony. With Sony’s recent release of the Play Station 4 and its already successful Play Station 3 model, Sony seemed like the ideal company to invest in for the coming years. With Sony’s wide range of electronic products, including stereos, DVD players, and televisions, and with new technology being developed close to every week, all sorts of new jobs are beginning to open up. Sony happens to be one of the leading manufacturers of electronic products for consumer and professional markets, and in 2013 they had employed over 145,000 people and the number is still increasing with new job fields opening up weekly and more specialists being required to keep up with the changing technology. Their increasing technological ability will also lead to a bigger and brighter future for the American and global economy. With the creation of more jobs the unemployment rate will decrease, and products will become more accessible to families and individu...
Samsung Electronics Company (SEC) began doing business in 1969 as a low-cost manufacturer of black and white televisions. In 1970, “Samsung acquired a semiconductor business” which would be a milestone that initiated the future for SEC. Entering the semiconductor industry would also be the beginning of the turnaround phase for SEC. In 1980, SEC showed the market its ability to mass produce. SEC became a major supplier of commodity products (televisions, microwave ovens and VCRs) in massive quantities to well known original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). For this reason, Samsung was able to easily transition into a major player in the electronic products and home appliances market (Quelch & Harrington, 2008).
Their dedication to their mission statement and also due to the loyalty of the local community has given way to recent construction projects, such as a $66 million dollar expansion and renovation, new construction of a new emergency department and a new outpatient surgery center. These new ve...
Executive Directors form the Board of Directors, headed by the President of the Bank. The Board of Directors is submitted by five executive directors representing the interests of the Member States with the biggest stakes: the US, Japan, Germany, France and Britain. The rest of the 19 executive directors represent groups of countries participating in the World Bank.