I came across this news article in CNN and was amazed at how far we are taking the niche markets in our country. Without having the financial data and research obviously used to support such a decision made by Pet Airlines, I can't imagine this would be a sustainable and profitable market. However, it does cater to an extreme market, going to extents some parents don't even do for their real children (see nervous parents in bold).
What are your thoughts on servicing extreme niche markets like this one?
Here are parts of the CNN article I found worth referencing. For the complete article, visit CNN as referenced below.
More airlines embracing furry travelers
Blame America's pet obsession, but in recent years, more members of the airline industry are embracing dogs and cats on board. Midwest Airlines may be an extreme example, letting select dogs sit in the same seats as humans, but other airlines are relaxing their pet policies by letting smaller cats and dogs come into the cabin area. About a year ago, Midwest began allowing certain "celebrity" dogs that appear in canine competitions, shows or advertisements to sit in seats. "They are just passengers with four legs instead of two," said Susan Kerwin, who oversees the pet program at Midwest Airlines.
The pet travel frenzy has spurred the creation of an airline catering exclusively to pets. This month, Pet Airways, the nation's first pet-only airline, will begin flying in five major cities, including New York and Los Angeles, California. It's an alternative to shipping larger pets in the cargo area of a plane, where there have been pet injuries and even deaths.
On each Pet Airways flight, services include potty breaks and experienced animal handlers checking up on the animals every 15 minutes. Nervous parents can track their pets online.
The cost of flying your furry friend ranges from $75 to nearly $300 each leg. It's a hefty price tag, but profit-bleeding airlines are happy to offer the option.
ARTICLE REFERENCE:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/07/10/pets.fly.airlines/index.html.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Management By Objectives help improve the implementation of strategy.
A company works to reach its strategic goals through an action plan. “An action plan states what actions are going to be taken, by whom, during what time frame, and with what expected results.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 253) Action plans are used to drive programs set within a specific company strategy.
Action plans are a very useful tool in the evaluation and control of a strategy. They can help determine areas that may require adjustments in daily operations. An action plan will set responsibilities into motion and the detailed direction will act as a motivating factor. Furthermore, action plans develop a time table for anticipated progress and completion. They evaluate the targeted financial results of the actions and offer alternative scenarios as needed.
An action plan is a primary driver. The plan itself determines what resources will be used to accomplish the anticipated results. However, employee’s are assigned to tasks, with the emphasis on the activity, not the results or resources needed to accomplish the task and achieve the desired results in an efficient manner. In contrast, Management By Objectives (MBO) strives to increase the performance of a company by synchronizing goals and objectives throughout the operations. “MBO links organizational objectives and the behavior of individuals.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 255). It matches employee competencies to individual tasks within the plan. MBO assigns the best man or woman for the job.
Management by objectives is a logical and organized process that allows management to focus on obtainable goals and to achieve the best possible results from available resources. Furthermore, it works to increase a company’s performance by matching goals and employee objectives throughout the corporation. “The principles behind Management By Objectives (MBO) is to make sure that everyone within the organization has a clear understanding of the aims, or objectives, of that organization, as well as awareness of their own goals and responsibilities in achieving those aims. The complete MBO system is to get plans, which automatically achieve those of the organization.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 6)
Action plans focus on creating a system and applying resources to a function based on a broad spectrum of options. The plan starts with a desired result and is formulated and executed by management, driving it to fit within the development. Managers work toward the end result by assigning tasks to employees without a relevant connection to the entire plan. They provide detailed agendas to follow step by step, leaving little room for employee input. Management dictates the execution of the plan regardless of inefficiencies or imperfections.
MBO breaks down the process to an individual level, based on employee competencies and expertise. It matches goals with specific performance “Management by Objectives (MBO) is about setting your self objectives and then breaking these down into more specific goals or key results.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 5) Management clearly advises employees of the goals and objectives of the plan, and states the overall desired results. They then allow the employees to use their knowledge and competency to work towards the assigned goals. Since these employees have the greatest knowledge of their job, they are given the responsibility to create success in the individual task. “MBO managers focus on the result, not the activity. They delegate tasks by negotiating a contract of goals with their subordinates without dictating a detailed roadmap for implementation.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 5)
MBO will help improve the implementation of strategy in many ways. MBO creates focus on individual tasks for management and empowered employees. Instead of diluting focus with concern on multiple tasks within an action plan, each manager and employee knows what is expected of them, and develops a more detailed focus on an individually assigned task.
MBO fosters organizational characteristics within groups and units. Management and employees are provided details and acknowledge the desired results. In order to succeed, they have to work together in an organized fashion to build individual results into combined unit results. It’s a system of building blocks. Management and empowered employees accomplish individual tasks that when combined, formulate the unit task and ultimately develop into the overall company goal.
MBO motivates individuals to perform at high levels. Since employees are provided with important decision making processes and responsibilities, MBO’s fosters a sense of pride and importance related to the individual task. “Empowerment recognizes ‘the demise’ of the command-and-control system, but remains a term of power and rank. A manager should view members of his or her team much as a conductor regards the players in the orchestra, as individuals whose particular skills contribute to the success of the enterprise.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 16) In addition, individual tasks can be measureable in time and performance as a direct result of the individual’s effort. An individual effort that is performed at sub par levels, can not be blanketed within the overall effort, hiding its lack of effort and deficiencies. Since employees must take ownership of their work, performance levels are increased.
MBO increases the need for cooperation and communication as a team. Since many individuals are working as individual parts of the larger picture, communication is needed for progress and coordination of various efforts. In addition, individuals develop an increased awareness of various aspects of the plan as they are subjected to various communications regarding the plan. The end result is a unification of efforts and an increased knowledge of how each part works together in the process, thus increasing overall employee knowledge and awareness of the functions within the unit.
MBO, as stated earlier, requires a building block system to achieve the overall goals of the plan. This building block system creates synergy among units, in various locations with different cultures, as they work together to complete the company wide plan. As units become familiar with each other and their associated functions within the company, increased resource awareness can develop. Management and employees of various units work together and start developing competitive advantages with increased levels of synergy. This can lead to new productive systems such as virtual teams or even concurrent engineering.
These examples are just a few of the advantages Management By Objectives fosters in the implementation of strategy.
References
---------------------------
Hunger, David J. & Wheelen, Thomas L. (2008). Concepts on Strategic Management and Business Policy. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
eCoach Effective Management. Management By Objectives – The Five Step MBO Process. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from eCoach. Website: http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/mgmt_mbo_main.html
Action plans are a very useful tool in the evaluation and control of a strategy. They can help determine areas that may require adjustments in daily operations. An action plan will set responsibilities into motion and the detailed direction will act as a motivating factor. Furthermore, action plans develop a time table for anticipated progress and completion. They evaluate the targeted financial results of the actions and offer alternative scenarios as needed.
An action plan is a primary driver. The plan itself determines what resources will be used to accomplish the anticipated results. However, employee’s are assigned to tasks, with the emphasis on the activity, not the results or resources needed to accomplish the task and achieve the desired results in an efficient manner. In contrast, Management By Objectives (MBO) strives to increase the performance of a company by synchronizing goals and objectives throughout the operations. “MBO links organizational objectives and the behavior of individuals.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 255). It matches employee competencies to individual tasks within the plan. MBO assigns the best man or woman for the job.
Management by objectives is a logical and organized process that allows management to focus on obtainable goals and to achieve the best possible results from available resources. Furthermore, it works to increase a company’s performance by matching goals and employee objectives throughout the corporation. “The principles behind Management By Objectives (MBO) is to make sure that everyone within the organization has a clear understanding of the aims, or objectives, of that organization, as well as awareness of their own goals and responsibilities in achieving those aims. The complete MBO system is to get plans, which automatically achieve those of the organization.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 6)
Action plans focus on creating a system and applying resources to a function based on a broad spectrum of options. The plan starts with a desired result and is formulated and executed by management, driving it to fit within the development. Managers work toward the end result by assigning tasks to employees without a relevant connection to the entire plan. They provide detailed agendas to follow step by step, leaving little room for employee input. Management dictates the execution of the plan regardless of inefficiencies or imperfections.
MBO breaks down the process to an individual level, based on employee competencies and expertise. It matches goals with specific performance “Management by Objectives (MBO) is about setting your self objectives and then breaking these down into more specific goals or key results.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 5) Management clearly advises employees of the goals and objectives of the plan, and states the overall desired results. They then allow the employees to use their knowledge and competency to work towards the assigned goals. Since these employees have the greatest knowledge of their job, they are given the responsibility to create success in the individual task. “MBO managers focus on the result, not the activity. They delegate tasks by negotiating a contract of goals with their subordinates without dictating a detailed roadmap for implementation.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 5)
MBO will help improve the implementation of strategy in many ways. MBO creates focus on individual tasks for management and empowered employees. Instead of diluting focus with concern on multiple tasks within an action plan, each manager and employee knows what is expected of them, and develops a more detailed focus on an individually assigned task.
MBO fosters organizational characteristics within groups and units. Management and employees are provided details and acknowledge the desired results. In order to succeed, they have to work together in an organized fashion to build individual results into combined unit results. It’s a system of building blocks. Management and empowered employees accomplish individual tasks that when combined, formulate the unit task and ultimately develop into the overall company goal.
MBO motivates individuals to perform at high levels. Since employees are provided with important decision making processes and responsibilities, MBO’s fosters a sense of pride and importance related to the individual task. “Empowerment recognizes ‘the demise’ of the command-and-control system, but remains a term of power and rank. A manager should view members of his or her team much as a conductor regards the players in the orchestra, as individuals whose particular skills contribute to the success of the enterprise.” (Management Help. Date. Para. 16) In addition, individual tasks can be measureable in time and performance as a direct result of the individual’s effort. An individual effort that is performed at sub par levels, can not be blanketed within the overall effort, hiding its lack of effort and deficiencies. Since employees must take ownership of their work, performance levels are increased.
MBO increases the need for cooperation and communication as a team. Since many individuals are working as individual parts of the larger picture, communication is needed for progress and coordination of various efforts. In addition, individuals develop an increased awareness of various aspects of the plan as they are subjected to various communications regarding the plan. The end result is a unification of efforts and an increased knowledge of how each part works together in the process, thus increasing overall employee knowledge and awareness of the functions within the unit.
MBO, as stated earlier, requires a building block system to achieve the overall goals of the plan. This building block system creates synergy among units, in various locations with different cultures, as they work together to complete the company wide plan. As units become familiar with each other and their associated functions within the company, increased resource awareness can develop. Management and employees of various units work together and start developing competitive advantages with increased levels of synergy. This can lead to new productive systems such as virtual teams or even concurrent engineering.
These examples are just a few of the advantages Management By Objectives fosters in the implementation of strategy.
References
---------------------------
Hunger, David J. & Wheelen, Thomas L. (2008). Concepts on Strategic Management and Business Policy. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
eCoach Effective Management. Management By Objectives – The Five Step MBO Process. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from eCoach. Website: http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/mgmt_mbo_main.html
The Importance of the Strategy and Culture Mix.
A good mix between strategy and culture is vital to a company’s success when implementing new strategies for a company. If they conflict, research shows that failure rates are high.
Strategies that conflict with strong cultures are likely to experience resistance. A company’s culture is its identity. It states who they are and what they do. “Because an organizations culture can exert a powerful influence on the behavior of all employees, it can strongly affect a company’s ability to shift its strategic direction. A problem for a strong culture is that a change in mission, objectives, strategies, or policies is not likely to be successful if it is in opposition to the accepted culture of a company.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 248).
However, in the case of a weak culture, strategic changes may be welcome, even if they change the current culture. This was the case when Maytag purchased Admiral, formerly known as Magic Chef. Admiral employees, out of respect for Maytag’s success and leadership in quality, gladly accepted a new culture, based on a strategy they anticipated would develop success for their future.
“An optimal culture is one that best supports the mission and strategy of the company of which it is a part. This means that, like structure and staffing, corporate culture should support the strategy. Unless strategy is in complete agreement with the culture, any significant change in strategy should be followed by a modification on the organization’s culture.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 248).
Therefore, strategy must fit with culture to be successful for a company. However, to succeed in a competitive market, companies must develop strategies that align a company with success. Properly formulated and implemented strategies result in success within an industry. A company’s culture does not drive this success. It definitely can play a significant role in the ultimate achievement of desired results and the effort, timing and implementation of strategies. Culture does not provide a “roadmap” for a company’s planning to success. It is a considerable factor in the planning implementation, but a company’s ability to reach its goals is a result of the direction provided through strategy.
As such, the strategy-culture compatibility assessment is based on strategy as the dominant driving factor. However, this may vary in different unique situations. The ultimate goal of the compatibility assessment is to evaluate the current correlation between the company culture and the affects of implementing a new strategy. If a possible conflict occurs, it can be addressed in a manner that evaluates possible ways to gradually evolve the culture to match the new strategy. Since strategy is the driving force of a company’s efforts, the assessment also focuses on the current culture effect on its outcome. The assessment can prove that if a culture is too strong, a new strategy may not work. As a result, in some circumstances, culture may actually shape a strategy.
In most circumstances, culture can be gradually adjusted to mesh with a new strategy. It is management’s responsibility to evaluate this connection and try to develop a new strategy that is most inline with the current culture. However, the strategy remains the driving factor in a company’s effort to reach its goal. Only after all attempts to adjust culture have been determined unobtainable, should a company decide to change its strategy.
In evaluating the effects of culture on new strategies, management should follow a process of evaluation based on the strategy-culture compatibility assessment. They should first consider if the planned strategy is compatible with the company culture. If it is, the new strategy is likely to be accepted by the workforce. If they are not inline with each other, management must determine if the culture can be easily modified to make it more compatible with the new strategy.
Once a company determines that the culture can be easily modified to make it more compatible with the new strategy, management must proceed with caution, introducing new culture characteristics. This can be achieved through modifying structures, training and development and establishing new management personnel compatible with the new strategy. If management determines that the culture can not be easily modified consistent with the new strategy, they need to determine if they are willing to make organizational changes, accept delays and increases in cost associated with the new strategy that conflicts with the current culture.
If these factors are acceptable to management, they can implement the new strategy working around the culture. They will need to develop and implement a new organizational structure to move forward with the new strategy. If they are unwilling to accept these factors, they must evaluate their commitment to the new strategy. If they are still convinced that implementing the new strategy is the correct course of action, they should consider finding a “joint venture partner or contract with another company to carry out the new strategy.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 250). Once management has determined that they are not committed to the new strategy due to the challenges it faces within the culture, they should find a different strategy.
Since numerous efforts are made to modify the culture to work with the strategy, one would conclude that culture follows strategy according to the strategy-culture compatibility assessment.
References
---------------------------
Hunger, David J. & Wheelen, Thomas L. (2008). Concepts on Strategic Management and Business Policy. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Strategies that conflict with strong cultures are likely to experience resistance. A company’s culture is its identity. It states who they are and what they do. “Because an organizations culture can exert a powerful influence on the behavior of all employees, it can strongly affect a company’s ability to shift its strategic direction. A problem for a strong culture is that a change in mission, objectives, strategies, or policies is not likely to be successful if it is in opposition to the accepted culture of a company.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 248).
However, in the case of a weak culture, strategic changes may be welcome, even if they change the current culture. This was the case when Maytag purchased Admiral, formerly known as Magic Chef. Admiral employees, out of respect for Maytag’s success and leadership in quality, gladly accepted a new culture, based on a strategy they anticipated would develop success for their future.
“An optimal culture is one that best supports the mission and strategy of the company of which it is a part. This means that, like structure and staffing, corporate culture should support the strategy. Unless strategy is in complete agreement with the culture, any significant change in strategy should be followed by a modification on the organization’s culture.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 248).
Therefore, strategy must fit with culture to be successful for a company. However, to succeed in a competitive market, companies must develop strategies that align a company with success. Properly formulated and implemented strategies result in success within an industry. A company’s culture does not drive this success. It definitely can play a significant role in the ultimate achievement of desired results and the effort, timing and implementation of strategies. Culture does not provide a “roadmap” for a company’s planning to success. It is a considerable factor in the planning implementation, but a company’s ability to reach its goals is a result of the direction provided through strategy.
As such, the strategy-culture compatibility assessment is based on strategy as the dominant driving factor. However, this may vary in different unique situations. The ultimate goal of the compatibility assessment is to evaluate the current correlation between the company culture and the affects of implementing a new strategy. If a possible conflict occurs, it can be addressed in a manner that evaluates possible ways to gradually evolve the culture to match the new strategy. Since strategy is the driving force of a company’s efforts, the assessment also focuses on the current culture effect on its outcome. The assessment can prove that if a culture is too strong, a new strategy may not work. As a result, in some circumstances, culture may actually shape a strategy.
In most circumstances, culture can be gradually adjusted to mesh with a new strategy. It is management’s responsibility to evaluate this connection and try to develop a new strategy that is most inline with the current culture. However, the strategy remains the driving factor in a company’s effort to reach its goal. Only after all attempts to adjust culture have been determined unobtainable, should a company decide to change its strategy.
In evaluating the effects of culture on new strategies, management should follow a process of evaluation based on the strategy-culture compatibility assessment. They should first consider if the planned strategy is compatible with the company culture. If it is, the new strategy is likely to be accepted by the workforce. If they are not inline with each other, management must determine if the culture can be easily modified to make it more compatible with the new strategy.
Once a company determines that the culture can be easily modified to make it more compatible with the new strategy, management must proceed with caution, introducing new culture characteristics. This can be achieved through modifying structures, training and development and establishing new management personnel compatible with the new strategy. If management determines that the culture can not be easily modified consistent with the new strategy, they need to determine if they are willing to make organizational changes, accept delays and increases in cost associated with the new strategy that conflicts with the current culture.
If these factors are acceptable to management, they can implement the new strategy working around the culture. They will need to develop and implement a new organizational structure to move forward with the new strategy. If they are unwilling to accept these factors, they must evaluate their commitment to the new strategy. If they are still convinced that implementing the new strategy is the correct course of action, they should consider finding a “joint venture partner or contract with another company to carry out the new strategy.” (Hunger and Wheelen. 2008. pg. 250). Once management has determined that they are not committed to the new strategy due to the challenges it faces within the culture, they should find a different strategy.
Since numerous efforts are made to modify the culture to work with the strategy, one would conclude that culture follows strategy according to the strategy-culture compatibility assessment.
References
---------------------------
Hunger, David J. & Wheelen, Thomas L. (2008). Concepts on Strategic Management and Business Policy. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
