Business Boeing And Airbus - Research Paper

PAGES
2
WORDS
580
Cite

Other strategies included increased communication and teamwork. More recently, the difficulties faced by the airline following the recession and the fear for jobs has also served to create more unity, but this has not prevented disagreements. By comparison Airbus is a far more diverse firm, starting out in 1970 as a consortium of manufacturers from different European countries with members from France, Germany, Spain and later the UK. The culture of the organization may be argued as highly diverse, reflecting the national cultures from which the member companies originated. The internal culture had to deal with a wide range differences, including languages and general cultural practices. The firm has also had conflict, in 2011 firm faced a walk out by 11,000 German workers in protest at the requirement for productivity gains (BBC News,...

...

However, the European firms that made up Airbus, comes from an environment where there is generally a more cooperative model of collectivism with a higher level of social support (Legge, 2004; Hofstede, 2003).
It may be argued the respective cultures have influenced the way the firms develop strategy for themselves and each other. Airbus started out as the follower; only formed in 1970 when Boeing was already the market leader. Part of the firms' strategy was to find a way to compete which would allow them to compete with the larger firm, this included seeking and gaining government subsidies and support. While Boeing saw this as unfair, it was argued by Airbus and the relevant governments it was temporary, to help place Airbus in a position where they gained a sufficiently string market position and reputation to allow them to

Sources Used in Documents:

Boeing is a U.S. firm, with a long history and good relationships with many U.S. airlines, where there is a nationalistic culture and close relationships with countries such as Japan. However, the culture is one that has been influenced by internal strife at many points in time, with a high union presence following the conflict model (Bryson, 2001). For example, in 2008 the company faced a strike by more than 27,000 workers following Boeings concerns regarding job security and pay when Boeing increased the level of outsourcing cost efficiency and flexibility (Gates, 2008). Bryson (2001) argues that the reason for the emergence of a collective culture characterized by conflict is the result of an employment relationship lacking communication and trust. However, Boeing over the years have sought to overcome this and create more unity, as seen with the rebuilding of the Boeing 737 manufacturing site at Renton, Washington, after it was destroyed by an earthquake (Steelcase, 2005). The redesign of the facility sought to reduce the barriers between management and employees so create a greater level of cooperation. Other strategies included increased communication and teamwork. More recently, the difficulties faced by the airline following the recession and the fear for jobs has also served to create more unity, but this has not prevented disagreements.

By comparison Airbus is a far more diverse firm, starting out in 1970 as a consortium of manufacturers from different European countries with members from France, Germany, Spain and later the UK. The culture of the organization may be argued as highly diverse, reflecting the national cultures from which the member companies originated. The internal culture had to deal with a wide range differences, including languages and general cultural practices. The firm has also had conflict, in 2011 firm faced a walk out by 11,000 German workers in protest at the requirement for productivity gains (BBC News, 2011). However, the European firms that made up Airbus, comes from an environment where there is generally a more cooperative model of collectivism with a higher level of social support (Legge, 2004; Hofstede, 2003).

It may be argued the respective cultures have influenced the way the firms develop strategy for themselves and each other. Airbus started out as the follower; only formed in 1970 when Boeing was already the market leader. Part of the firms' strategy was to find a way to compete which would allow them to compete with the larger firm, this included seeking and gaining government subsidies and support. While Boeing saw this as unfair, it was argued by Airbus and the relevant governments it was temporary, to help place Airbus in a position where they gained a sufficiently string market position and reputation to allow them to


Cite this Document:

"Business Boeing And Airbus -" (2013, February 03) Retrieved April 20, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/business-boeing-and-airbus-85665

"Business Boeing And Airbus -" 03 February 2013. Web.20 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/business-boeing-and-airbus-85665>

"Business Boeing And Airbus -", 03 February 2013, Accessed.20 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/business-boeing-and-airbus-85665

Related Documents

0 technologies ((Wirtz, Schilke, Ullrich, 2010) Heavily reliant on a broad range of integration points throughout an enterprise, creating a real-time information network using collaboration technologies including Facebook-like applications (Salesforce.com Chatter) Comparable in design objectives to the structure of the knowedlge-sharing ecosystem; yet this business model is based on real-time social media data and collaboration Ideal for large, knowledge-based businesses that are growing rapidly; perfect fit for new business ventures based on consulting

" The foremost risk involved with implementation of the innovation is its rejection and for that matter, its failure. What if it does not work? What if it is not accepted? What if a better alternative is available? What if it is not cost efficient? What would be the correct and most suitable time to make the innovation public? There are many such questions associated with the implementation of innovation process. The risks involved are, namely,

Taken together, all these factors influenced by the stage a product is in relative to the industry lifecycle; influence the business model's profitability. Overall this factor influencing a business modes' profitability is the stage in the product lifecycle a product is relative to the industry. Another significant series of factors are the extent of the supply chain integration, supply chain management and supply chain planning the company has engaged in.

The lifecycle model is well-attuned to those product areas that have rapid product lifecycles and the need to continually bring new innovation into key markets. The lifecycle model of creating new ventures looks to capitalize on factors that will force a business to ascend or grow quickly over time. This is the case with Internet start-ups and the rise of e-commerce for example (Shi, Manning, 2009). The learning model

6. Business Model Evolution As the company's 2008 annual report points out, the company's business model is focused on ensuring the appropriate instruments that can help the consumers "capture, store, process, share, print and view" information. From that perspective, one can understand the core of the HP business model. However, in its medium and long-term strategy, it also needs to consider an additional factor that is likely to have an impact on

Of all future directions, the communications hub seems to make the most sense. Summary What makes Google such a powerful business model is its ability to translate customers' needs into technology that can be used to generate advertising revenue. Google's highly unique business model resists competition and being treated as a commodity as a result. What Google does very well is listen to customers, no matter how they choose to communicate