cat strategy management
To what extent was market maturity the cause of Caterpillar’s restructuring? Critically examine the extent the new strategy transformed market, productive and financial performance.
The aim of this paper is to assess the extent to which market maturity influenced the restructuring phase that Caterpillar underwent after it was nearly put out of business in the 1980s. It will be argued that surely market maturity played a central role in the company’s restructuring, as the increase of competition and the need for product innovation brought up the need to develop an effective action plan. However, it was also the over-managed organization of the company itself that contributed to this degenerating stage and that therefore drove the restructuring process. Indeed it will be argued that because Caterpillar had enjoyed reliable profits, internal organizational issues had been ignored and the lack of information about the external environment decreased, causing Caterpillar to grew out of touch with the realities of the market. Therefore as the global recession grew along with the runaway inflation that kicked in in the 1980s, Caterpillar’s flawed structure was not able to successfully respond to the external environment and the company became an easy target for competitors. This argument will be developed throughout this essay according to the following structure: initially the implications of market maturity for Caterpillar will be assessed within the framework of the Product Life Cycle (PLC) theory; secondly the limits of Caterpillar’s original structure will be discussed in order to gain an insight into the internal problems that undermined the company’s opportunities; thirdly the restructuring process will be taken into consideration in order to assess how the company’s performance improved in terms of market, production, finance, and efficiency. Finally the conclusion will be drawn that both internal and external factors play a central role in a company’s
The aim of this paper is to assess the extent to which market maturity influenced the restructuring phase that Caterpillar underwent after it was nearly put out of business in the 1980s. It will be argued that surely market maturity played a central role in the company’s restructuring, as the increase of competition and the need for product innovation brought up the need to develop an effective action plan. However, it was also the over-managed organization of the company itself that contributed to this degenerating stage and that therefore drove the restructuring process. Indeed it will be argued that because Caterpillar had enjoyed reliable profits, internal organizational issues had been ignored and the lack of information about the external environment decreased, causing Caterpillar to grew out of touch with the realities of the market. Therefore as the global recession grew along with the runaway inflation that kicked in in the 1980s, Caterpillar’s flawed structure was not able to successfully respond to the external environment and the company became an easy target for competitors. This argument will be developed throughout this essay according to the following structure: initially the implications of market maturity for Caterpillar will be assessed within the framework of the Product Life Cycle (PLC) theory; secondly the limits of Caterpillar’s original structure will be discussed in order to gain an insight into the internal problems that undermined the company’s opportunities; thirdly the restructuring process will be taken into consideration in order to assess how the company’s performance improved in terms of market, production, finance, and efficiency. Finally the conclusion will be drawn that both internal and external factors play a central role in a company’s
Bibliography: http://www.caterpillar.com/investors/stock-information In-person interview with George Schaefer, retired chairman and CEO of Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, Il., October 20, 2004 In-person interview with Glen Barton, retired chairman and CEO of Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, Il., October 20, 2004. Cox, E. (1967), ‘Product Life Cycles as Marketing Models’, The Journal of Business, 40(4): pp. 375-384. Froud, W., Haslam, J., and Williams, J Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver A. and Williams, K. (2006), Financialization and Strategy: Narrative and Numbers, (London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis). Grant, R. (1991) ‘Prospering in Dynamically Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration’, Organization Science, 7(4): pp. 375-387. Javidan, M. (1998), ‘Core Competence: What Does it Mean in Practice?’, Long Range Planning, 31(1): pp. 60-70. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976), ‘Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure’, Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360. Jensen, M. & Meckling, W. H., (1995) ‘Specific and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8(2). McKinley, W. et al. (2000) A socio-cognitive interpretation of organizational Downsizing, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp Neale, A., Haslam, C., & Johal, S. (2000). Economics in a business context (3rd ed.) (London: Thomson). Neilson, G. and Pasternack, B. (2005), Result: keep what’s good, fix what’s wrong, and unlock great performance (Crown Publishing Group: New York). Porter, M. E. (2004), Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance (New York: Free Press). Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994), Competing for the future (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School). Reich, R. (1991), The work of nations (New York: Knopf). Vernon, R. (1966) ‘International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80(5): pp. 190-207. Yoo, Christopher S. (2010), ‘Product Life Cycle Theory and the Maturation of the Internet’, Scholarship at Penn Law, Paper 297.