Value Chain Analysis Operationg Companies

Question: Describe about the Value Chain Analysis for Operationg Companies. Answer: Introduction: The aim of the paper is to identify different value chain designs and structures of two companies operating in the same industry. For this purpose, Telstra, the telecommunication service provider and Samsung, the company that deals with tangible products like mobiles, laptops and other electronic and telecommunication products, have been used for the case study analysis. A detailed analysis of their value chain design will be along with the evaluation of primary Customer Benefits Packages of each firms will be carried on throughout the paper. Value chain is the set of the activities that a firm carries out in a particular industry to perform better and deliver valuable products or service to the consumers in the market to meet the demand of the consumers. The concept was characterized by Michael Porter. Value chain analysis is carried on to gain a competitive advantage among other products in the market. As point out by Erlach (2013), we live in an Omni channel world Consumers no longer depend on the availability of products from the physical stores but everything is available to them online. This has opened up the scope for better value chain design and the provision of providing personal service to the consumers. A. Firms strategic vision, strategy and competitive priorities: Telstra: Vision of the Company: The primary vision of the company is to create a better future for the consumer base. To connect the World and the future that wont happen on its own. This future has to be created by Telstra. To create a brilliant connected future. To ensure that each customer is connected. Making the nation work falls under the responsibility of Telstra (Frazelle 2012). To provide service to everyone. The aim of Telstra is to serve every people with better opportunities of communication that will help everyone to connect. Strategy used by the Company: To improve customer advocacy: The telecommunication company is dedicated to improve their customer servicing and create advocacy among all customers. To drive value to the core: To strive to build a strong customer base and network leadership and productivity improvement throughout the business activities (Holweg and Helo 2014). To build new growth opportunities: To continue with the business activity and build better opportunities to improve the business activities. Competitive priorities: Manage business activities by following strict regulations to manage any kind of competitors pressure Maintaining a good relationship with the regulations of government (Hamilton and Selen) To reduce the cost of the service by expanding the business and focusing on the enhancement of customer base Samsung: Vision of the Company: To create innovation through business: To develop high technologically developed products with advanced process that boosts the sales of the Company To build unmatched products: To offer products at a certain competitive advantage to create huge customer base (Shashi and Shabani 2016) To widespread its business: To provide large numbers of products to the consumers to select from and create huge customer base throughout the globe Strategies used: To offer best service at a lesser price. Samsung offers various mobiles in different ranges to all strata of consumers (Holweg and Helo 2014) To come up with new ranges of mobile phone to fight against competition To come up with innovative ideas towards designing and formation of their products Competitive priorities: To understand the needs of the customers and developing products that are inclined to their needs To abide by the regulations of the government to carry out a safer business To ensure better promotional activities to fight against the other major competitors B. Comparison of primary Customer Benefit package: Customer benefit package is a part of operation management that clearly defines a set of tangible and intangible service or product that a Company provides that clearly differentiates among the various Companies belonging to the same industry. Johnson (2013) pointed out a number of sub activities that supports a firms value chain design that ultimately helps in the creation of customer benefit packaging. These are: Direct activities: The activities which are directly created by the Companies to attract more consumers and create a comparative advantage in the consumers market are direct activities. These activities include, promotional and advertisement strategies. These activities are sometimes carried out intensely to fight against the competition in the market (Holweg and Helo 2014). For instance, for both Tesltra and Samsung, promotion by the means of advertisement and promotional activities holds great importance. The company has also focused on directly engaging the consumers with the Company as a part of their marketing and creation of value chain strategy. Samsung has their Priority Stores where customers can easily land up with their problems. Indirect activities: Marketing activities that include managing the sales of the product or keeping a record of the customers and designing the marketing strategy in a way to attract more consumers falls under indirect activities (Shashi and Shabani 2016). In fact, these activities require a detailed analysis of the market situation and the competitors present in the same industry. In case of Telstra, it has to be said that the Company always focuses on the presence of its competitors and design their service to attract more consumers (Bandarian 2012). In addition to this, Samsung carries out great market analysis practices to understand their position in the market. Quality assurance: Another vital point that helps to improve the value chain of the products or services offered by a particular company is by assuring quality service and product to the consumer base. Providing good quality services to match the expectation of the consumers as well as to fight the odd challenges in the market falls under the criteria of meeting the quality of service (Khosrow-Pour 2016). It has been observed that Telstra carries out market research to understand the changing demand of the consumers and provide best quality services to the consumer base. At the same time, if the case of Samsung is consider, it has to be said that it is a Global Company and in order to make a strong customer base globally, the company keeps conducting market research to meet the expectations of the consumer base. C. Comparison of value chain design and structure: The value chain design of Samsung mobile is meant for support and other primary business activities. The support activities include the firms infrastructure and other technological developments which are necessary for attracting more consumers. Product diversification: If the value chain design of Samsung is compared with that of Tesltra, it has to be said that Telstra is more focused on the diversification of the products. It has been observed that more focus is made on product diversification (Lukinskiy et al. 2014). There is no such scope for Telstra to modify or make diverse products. Therefore, it can be said that Samsung enjoys the the advantage of this value chain. Quality based management: Both the telecommunication companies focus on improving their business quality. As pointed out by Shashi and Shabani (2016) that Samsung being in a competitive business environment, have to focus greatly on the managing their quality of service. At the same time, Telstra also focus on improving its quality by providing better quality of internet and other telecommunication services to their consumers. Hybrid management system: One of the most influential value chain designs of Samsung is the Hybrid Management system of the Company. On the basis of this management system, the company focuses more on the Western market (Medudula 2016). It has to be mentioned here that Samsung is a global company but Telstra is not. Therefore, a hybrid management system that Samsung follows is indeed an efficient tool of management for Samsung but the same is not applicable for Telstra. Telstra has to focus on the market of Australia for its business operation. With this analysis, it can be said that the mode of operation of both the companies taken into consideration is different and it is for the same reason, their value chain design and structure is bound to be diverse. However, these designs are made to match with their business strategies and thus, they are rightly applicable to their respective businesses. Conclusion: It has been observed that the two companies in spite of operating in the same industry have different value chain designs and supply chain. This is evident because in case of Telstra, the Company mainly has to deal with government regulations to provide service to the consumers. Thus, there remains less scope and opportunity for the company to create customer value. On the other hand, Samsung has to directly deal with the customers and there remains greater opportunities of carrying out different types of value chain designs and activities to create huge customer base. However, both the companies have designed their value chain quite effectively and have been found to operate successfully in their business. Reference list: Bandarian, R., 2012. Exploiting value chain process concepts in research organisations.International Journal of Value Chain Management,2(3), pp.400-416. Erlach, K., 2013.Value stream design(pp. 97-229). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Frazelle, E., 2012.Supply chain strategy: the logistics of supply chain management. McGrraw Hill. Hamilton, J. and Selen, W., 2016. Service value encounters in the virtual service value chain: a conceptual framework.International Journal of Value Chain Management,1(2), pp.139-158. Hoerl, R., 2004. One perspective on the future of Six-Sigma.International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,1(1), pp.112-119. Holweg, M. and Helo, P., 2014. Defining value chain architectures: Linking strategic value creation to operational supply chain design.International Journal of Production Economics,147, pp.230-238. Johnson, M.E., 2012. Product design collaboration: capturing lost supply chain value in the apparel industry.Tuck School of Business Working Paper, (02-08). Khosrow-Pour, M., 2006.Emerging trends and challenges in information technology management. Idea Group. Lukinskiy, V., Lukinskiy, V. and Churilov, R., 2014. Problems of the supply chain reliability evaluation.Transport and Telecommunication Journal,15(2), pp.120-129. Medudula, M.K., Sagar, M. and Gandhi, R.P., 2016.Telecom Management in Emerging Economies. Springer India. Singh, R. and Shabani, A., 2016. Value?Adding Practices in Food Supply Chain: Evidence from Indian Food Industry.Agribusiness.