management apple

 

Please Read through Case Study found on Pg. 37-38 and answer the 3 questions after, references are not required but if used please cite your work.

It wasn’t long ago that products from Apple, perhaps the most recognizable name in electronics manufacturing around the world, were made entirely in America. This is not so anymore. Now, almost all of the approximately 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads, and 59 million other Apple products sold yearly are manufactured overseas. This change represents more than 20,000 jobs directly lost by U.S. workers, not to mention more than 700,000 other jobs and business given to foreign companies in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. The loss is not temporary. As the late Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s iconic co-founder, told President Obama, “Those jobs aren’t coming back.”

At first glance, the transfer of jobs from one workforce to another would seem to hinge on a difference in wages, but Apple shows this is an oversimplification. In fact, paying U.S. wages would add only $65 to each iPhone’s expense, while Apple’s profits average hundreds of dollars per phone. Rather, and of more concern, Apple’s leaders believe the intrinsic characteristics of the labor force available to them in China—which they identify as flexibility, diligence, and industrial skills—are superior to those of the U.S. labor force. Apple executives tell stories of shorter lead times and faster manufacturing processes in China that are becoming the stuff of company legend. “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” one executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.” Another said, “We shouldn’t be criticized for using Chinese workers. The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need.”

Because Apple is one of the most imitated companies in the world, this perception of an overseas advantage might suggest that the U.S. workforce needs to be better led, better trained, more effectively managed, and more motivated to be proactive and flexible. If U.S. and Western European workers are less motivated and less adaptable, it’s hard to imagine that does not spell trouble for the future of the American workforce. Perhaps, though, Apple’s switch from “100% Made in the U.S.A.” to “10% Made in the U.S.A.” represents the natural growth pattern of a company going global. At this point, the iPhone is largely designed in the United States (where Apple has 43,000 employees), parts are made in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Europe and elsewhere, and products are assembled in China. The future of at least 247 suppliers worldwide depends on Apple’s approximately $30.1 billion in orders per quarter. And we can’t forget that Apple posted $16.1 billion in revenue from the first quarter of 2014, perhaps in part because its manufacturing in China builds support for the brand there.

As makers of some of the most cutting-edge, revered products in the electronics marketplace, perhaps Apple serves not as a failure of one country to hold onto a company completely, but as one of the best examples of global ingenuity.

Questions:

• What are the pros and cons for local and overseas labor forces of Apple’s going global?  What are the potential political implications for country relationships?
• Do you think Apple is justified in drawing the observations and conclusions expressed in the case? Why or why not? Do you think it is good or harmful to the company that its executives have voiced these opinions?
• How could managers use increased worker flexibility and diligence to increase the competitiveness of their manufacturing sites? What would you recommend?

CASE INCIDENT 1 Apple Goes Global It wasn’t long ago that products from Apple, perhaps the most recognizable name in electronics manufacturing around the world, were made entirely in the United States. This is not the case anymore. Now, almost all of the approximately 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads, and 59 million other Apple products sold yearly are manufactured overseas. This change represents more than 20,000 jobs directly lost by U.S. workers, not to mention more than 700,000 other jobs given to foreign companies in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. The loss is not temporary. As the late Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s iconic cofounder, told President Obama, “Those jobs aren’t coming back.” At first glance, the transfer of jobs from one workforce to another would seem to hinge on a difference in wages, but Apple shows this is an oversimplification. In fact, some say paying U.S. wages would add only $65 to each iPhone’s expense, while Apple’s profits average hundreds of dollars per phone. Rather, and of more concern, Apple’s leaders believe the intrinsic characteristics—which they identify as flexibility, diligence, and industrial skills—of the labor force available to them in China are superior to those of the U.S. labor force. Apple executives tell of shorter lead times and faster manufacturing processes in China that are becoming the stuff of company legend. “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” one executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.” Another said, “We shouldn’t be criticized for using Chinese workers. The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need.” Because Apple is one of the most imitated companies in the world, this perception of an overseas advantage might suggest that the U.S. workforce needs to be better led, better trained, more effectively managed, and more motivated to be proactive and flexible. If U.S. and western European workers are less motivated and less adaptable, it’s hard to imagine that does not spell trouble for the future of the American workforce. M01_ROBB9329_18_SE_C01.indd 37 29/09/17 12:45 pm 38 PART 1 Introduction Perhaps, though, Apple’s switch from one hundred percent American-made items to ten percent represents the natural growth pattern of a company going global. At this point, the iPhone is largely designed in the United States (where Apple has 43,000 employees); parts are made in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere; and products are assembled in China. The future of at least 247 suppliers worldwide depends on Apple’s approximately $30.1 billion in orders per quarter. And we can’t forget that Apple posted $16.1 billion in revenue from China in the first quarter of 2015, up 70 percent from the first quarter of 2014, perhaps in part because its manufacturing in China builds support for the brand there. As maker of some of the most cutting-edge, revered products in the electronics marketplace, perhaps Apple serves not as a failure of one country to hold onto a company completely but as one of the best examples of global ingenuity. Questions 1-15. What are the pros and cons for local and overseas labor forces of Apple’s going global? What are the potential political implications for country relationships? 1-16. Do you think Apple is justified in drawing the observations and conclusions expressed in this case? Why or why not? Do you think it is good or harmful to the company that its executives have voiced these opinions? 1-17. How could managers use increased worker flexibility and diligence to increase the competitiveness of their manufacturing sites? What would you recommend? Sources: Based on B. X. Chen, “iPhone Sales in China Bolster Apple Earnings,” The New York Times, January 27, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/technology/apple-quarterly-earnings.html?_r=0; C. Duhigg and K. Bradsher, “How U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work,” The New York Times, January 22, 2013, A1, A22–A23; H. Gao, “How the Apple Confrontation Divides China,” The Atlantic, April 8, 2013, www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/04/how-the-apple-confrontation-divideschina/274764/; and A. Satariano, “Apple Slowdown Threatens $30 Billion Global Supplier Web,” Bloomberg, April 18, 2013, www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-18/apple-slowdown-threatens-30- billion-global-supplier-web-tech.html. CASE INCIDENT 2 Big Data for Dummies Do you need big data? Maybe the question is better phrased as: Can you afford not to use big data? The age of big data is here, and to ignore its benefits is to run the risk of missed opportunities. Organizations using big data are quickly reaping rewards, as a survey of 2,022 managers worldwide indicated recently. In fact, 71 percent of respondents agreed that organizations using big data will gain a “huge competitive advantage.” These managers also saw the need for big data: Fifty-eight percent responded that they never, rarely, or only sometimes have enough data to make key business decisions. They have witnessed the benefits of big data: Sixty-seven percent agreed that big data has helped their organization to innovate. So why did only 28 percent find that their access to useful data increased significantly in a year? According to Amy Braverman, a principal statistician who analyzes NASA’s spacecraft data, the problem is in interpreting the new kinds and volumes of data we are able to collect. “This opportunistic data collection is leading to entirely new kinds of data that aren’t well suited to the existing statistical and data-mining methodologies,” she said. Information technology and business leaders agree: In a recent survey, “determining how to get value” was identified as the number one challenge of big data. With strong need combating the high hurdle for usability, how should a company get started using big data? The quick answer seems to be “hire talent.” But not just anyone will do. Here are some points to ponder when hiring data professionals: 1. Look for candidates with a strong educational background in analytics/statistics. You want someone who knows more than you do about handling copious amounts of data. 2. The ideal candidates will have specific experience in your industry or a related industry. “When you have all those Ph.D.s in a room, magic doesn’t necessarily happen because they may not have the business capability,” said Andy Rusnak, a senior executive at Ernst & Young. 3. Search for potential candidates from industry leader organizations that are more advanced in big data. 4. Communication skills are a must. Look for a candidate “who can translate Ph.D. to English,” says SAP M01_ROBB9329_18_SE_C01.indd 38 29/09/17 12:45 pm What Is Organizational Behavior? CHAPTER 1 39 chief data scientist David Ginsberg. He adds, “Those are the hardest people to find.” 5. Find candidates with a proven record of finding useful information from a mess of data, including data from questionable sources. You want someone who is analytical and discerning. 6. Look for people who can think in 8- to 10-week periods, not just long term. Most data projects have a short-term focus. 7. Test candidates’ expertise on real problems. Netflix’s director of algorithms asks candidates, “You have this data that comes from our users. How can you use it to