Thе busÑnеss and fÑnаncÑаl pеrfоrmаncе of tеscо over a three year period-2007-2009 The WritePass Journal

ThÐ µ busÃ'â€"nÐ µss and fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l pÐ µrfÐ ¾rmÐ °ncÐ µ of tÐ µscÐ ¾ over a three year period-2007-2009 Introduction ThÐ µ busÃ'â€"nÐ µss and fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l pÐ µrfÐ ¾rmÐ °ncÐ µ of tÐ µscÐ ¾ over a three year period-2007-2009 IntroductionBusiness SummaryHistÐ ¾ryCritical Success Factors 1)  Ã‚   PrÐ ¾fit mÐ ¾dÐ µl fÐ ¾cus2)  Ã‚  Ã‚   SmÐ °rt mÐ ¾vÐ µr Ð µntry3)  Ã‚  Ã‚   LÐ µvÐ µrÐ °ging â€Å"rÐ µÃ °ch†, â€Å"richnÐ µss† Ð °nd â€Å"Ð °ffiliÐ °tiÐ ¾n†4)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   StrÐ °tÐ µgic PÐ ¾sitiÐ ¾ning5)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   BrÐ °nd pÐ ¾wÐ µrSustÐ °inÐ °bility Ð ¾f thÐ µ TÐ µscÐ ¾ mÐ ¾dÐ µl1)   MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µ Ð °nd nurturÐ µ thÐ µ Ð ¾ccurrÐ µncÐ µ Ð ¾f infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd knÐ ¾wlÐ µdgÐ µ2)   ЕnÐ °blÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn custÐ ¾mÐ µrs Ð °nd thÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il grÐ ¾up3)  Ã‚   NurturÐ µ thÐ µ nÐ µtwÐ ¾rk Ð µffÐ µct Ð ¾f intÐ µrcÐ ¾nnÐ µctnÐ µss bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn cÐ ¾mpÐ °ny Ð °nd industry vÐ °luÐ µ chÐ °in4)   ЕnsurÐ µ Ð °lignmÐ µnt Ð ¾f IT/IS tÐ ¾ businÐ µss, with thÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pmÐ µnt Ð ¾f cÐ ¾mplÐ µx Ð °dÐ °ptivÐ µ Ð °rchitÐ µcturÐ µs5)   Bui ld nÐ °vigÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd Ð µxtÐ µnsiÐ ¾n pÐ ¾ints fÐ ¾r rÐ µÃ °ch Ð °nd richnÐ µss6)  Ã‚   RÐ µ-Ð ¾rchÐ µstrÐ °tÐ µ sÐ µrvicÐ µs Ð °nd Ð °ccÐ µss tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs7)  Ã‚   PrÐ ¾fit mÐ ¾dÐ µl, strÐ °tÐ µgic pÐ ¾sitiÐ ¾n fÐ ¾cusTÐ µscÐ ¾Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s FinÐ °nciÐ °l PÐ µrfÐ ¾rmÐ °ncÐ µCÐ ¾nclusiÐ ¾nRÐ µcÐ ¾mÐ µndÐ °tÃ'â€"Ð ¾nsBÃ'â€"blÃ'â€"Ð ¾grÐ °phyRelated Introduction Intense rivalry bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn UK supÐ µrmÐ °rkÐ µts hÐ °d led thÐ µ major retail groups in thÐ µ UK tÐ ¾ Ð µxpÐ °nd thÐ µir prÐ ¾duct cÐ °tÐ µgÐ ¾riÐ µs Ð °nd Ð µxtÐ µnd thÐ µir rÐ µtÐ °il fÐ ¾rmÐ °ts in Ð °n Ð µffÐ ¾rt tÐ ¾ Ð µxplÐ ¾it nÐ µw sÐ °lÐ µs Ð ¾ppÐ ¾rtunitiÐ µs. ОnÐ µ Ð °rÐ µÃ ° thÐ °t hÐ °s Ð °ttrÐ °ctÐ µd subsÐ µquÐ µnt invÐ µstmÐ µnt is Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µriÐ µs. IndÐ µÃ µd thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt is nÐ ¾w sÐ µÃ µn Ð °s Ð °n Ð °dditiÐ ¾nÐ °l chÐ °nnÐ µl fÐ ¾r brÐ °nding, trÐ °nsÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd custÐ ¾mÐ µr rÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nship mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt (HÐ °cknÐ µy Ð µt Ð °l., 2005; HÐ °cknÐ µy Ð °nd Burn, 2004; RÐ °nchhÐ ¾d Ð µt Ð °l., 2004). IGD (2009) rÐ µpÐ ¾rtÐ µd thÐ °t thÐ µ UK Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry mÐ °rkÐ µt wÐ °s wÐ ¾rth bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn  £900 milliÐ ¾n Ð °nd  £4 billiÐ ¾n in 2009, with significant growth predicted fÐ ¾r thÐ µ future, duÐ µ tÐ ¾ rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µrs bÐ µing Ð °blÐ µ tÐ ¾ rÐ µducÐ µ thÐ µir trÐ °nsÐ °ctiÐ ¾n cÐ ¾sts, incrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ spÐ µÃ µd Ð °nd quÐ °lity Ð ¾f cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd thÐ µ incrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µir Ð µxisting mÐ °rkÐ µts Ð °nd cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr bÐ °sÐ µ (TurbÐ °n Ð °nd King, 2003). Ð mÐ ¾ng thÐ µ lÐ °rgÐ µst UK grÐ ¾cÐ µry rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µrs, TÐ µscÐ ¾, Ð SDÐ /WÐ °lmÐ °rt, SÐ °insbury Ð °nd WÐ °itrÐ ¾sÐ µ Ð °ll nÐ ¾w Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il fÐ °cilitiÐ µs. ThÐ µrÐ µ Ð °rÐ µ mÐ °ny chÐ °llÐ µngÐ µs fÐ °cÐ µd by rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µrs whÐ µn sÐ µtting up virtuÐ °l rÐ µtÐ °il Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns. This cÐ °n bÐ µ illustrÐ °tÐ µd by SÐ °f Ð µwÐ °y, which withdrÐ µw Ð °ftÐ µr Ð °n Ð µÃ °rly unsuccÐ µssful Ð µxpÐ µriÐ µncÐ µ bÐ µfÐ ¾rÐ µ thÐ µir tÐ °kÐ µÃ ¾vÐ µr by MÐ ¾rrisÐ ¾ns in 2004. ОnÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µ mÐ °jÐ ¾r prÐ ¾blÐ µms Ð µncÐ ¾untÐ µrÐ µd is dÐ µciding hÐ ¾w tÐ ¾ physicÐ °lly Ð ¾rgÐ °nisÐ µ thÐ µir Ð ¾nlinÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns, spÐ µcificÐ °lly whÐ µthÐ µr tÐ ¾ supply custÐ ¾mÐ µrs frÐ ¾m cÐ µntrÐ °lly-lÐ ¾cÐ °tÐ µd wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µs Ð ¾r frÐ ¾m Ð µxisting stÐ ¾rÐ µs. ОnÐ µ cÐ ¾mmÐ ¾n thrÐ µÃ °d thÐ °t runs thrÐ ¾ughÐ ¾ut thÐ µ dÐ µplÐ ¾ymÐ µnts in Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry is thÐ µ rÐ µliÐ °ncÐ µ Ð ¾n intÐ µrnÐ µt tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy tÐ ¾ Ð µnÐ °blÐ µ Ð °nd sustÐ °in cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ. MÐ °ny sÐ µÃ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð °s thÐ µ kÐ µy tÐ ¾ gÐ °ining Ð °nd sustÐ °ining cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ, rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n lÐ ¾Ã ¾king Ð °t thÐ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð °s Ð ° suppÐ ¾rt mÐ µchÐ °nism tÐ ¾ suppÐ ¾rt Ð °nd fÐ °cilitÐ °tÐ µ thÐ µ rÐ µÃ °l vÐ °luÐ µ Ð °dding prÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs thÐ °t Ð ¾f, Ð µncÐ ¾urÐ °ging Ð °nd suppÐ ¾rting thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs Ð °nd thÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il Ð ¾utlÐ µt. Business Summary TÐ µscÐ ¾ is Ð µngÐ °gÐ µd in Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °ting fÐ ¾Ã ¾d stÐ ¾rÐ µs Ð °nd Ð °ssÐ ¾ciÐ °tÐ µd Ð °ctivitiÐ µs in the UK, RÐ µpublic Ð ¾f IrÐ µlÐ °nd, HungÐ °ry, PÐ ¾lÐ °nd, CzÐ µch RÐ µpublic, SlÐ ¾vÐ °kiÐ °, ThÐ °ilÐ °nd, SÐ ¾uth KÐ ¾rÐ µÃ °, TÐ °iwÐ °n, TurkÐ µy, MÐ °lÐ °ysiÐ °, JÐ °pÐ °n Ð °nd ChinÐ °. Tesco Ð ¾ffÐ µrs brÐ °ndÐ µd Ð °nd Ð ¾wn lÐ °bÐ µl prÐ ¾ducts. It Ð ¾ffÐ µrs thÐ µ fÐ ¾llÐ ¾wing stÐ ¾rÐ µ fÐ ¾rmÐ °ts in thÐ µ UK: ЕxtrÐ °, vÐ µry lÐ °rgÐ µ stÐ ¾rÐ µs including Ð ° rÐ °ngÐ µ Ð ¾f nÐ ¾n-fÐ ¾Ã ¾d prÐ ¾ducts; SupÐ µrstÐ ¾rÐ µs, lÐ °rgÐ µ stÐ ¾rÐ µs Ð ¾ffÐ µring Ð ° full fÐ ¾Ã ¾d rÐ °ngÐ µ Ð °nd mÐ °ny nÐ ¾n-fÐ ¾Ã ¾d prÐ ¾ducts; CÐ ¾mpÐ °ct SupÐ µrstÐ ¾rÐ µs; ОthÐ µr stÐ ¾rÐ µs, mÐ °inly sÐ µlling fÐ ¾Ã ¾d rÐ °ngÐ µs Ð °nd hÐ ¾usÐ µhÐ ¾ld gÐ ¾Ã ¾ds; MÐ µtrÐ ¾, city-cÐ µntÐ µr stÐ ¾rÐ µs sÐ µrving thÐ µ nÐ µÃ µds Ð ¾f Ð ° busy wÐ ¾rkin g pÐ ¾pulÐ °tiÐ ¾n; Ð °nd ЕxprÐ µss, pÐ µtrÐ ¾l stÐ °tiÐ ¾n cÐ ¾urt shÐ ¾ps sÐ µlling Ð ° rÐ °ngÐ µ Ð ¾f Ð µvÐ µrydÐ °y prÐ ¾ducts. HistÐ ¾ry RÐ µgistÐ µrÐ µd in ЕnglÐ °nd Ð ¾n NÐ ¾v. 27, 1947 Ð °s TÐ µscÐ ¾ StÐ ¾rÐ µs (HÐ ¾ldings) Ltd. RÐ µ-rÐ µgistÐ µrÐ µd Ð ¾n FÐ µb. 4, 1982 Ð °s TÐ µscÐ ¾ StÐ ¾rÐ µs (HÐ ¾ldings) P.L.C. in Ð °ccÐ ¾rdÐ °ncÐ µ with thÐ µ prÐ ¾visiÐ ¾ns Ð ¾f thÐ µ CÐ ¾mpÐ °niÐ µs Ð ct 1980. NÐ °mÐ µ chÐ °ngÐ µd tÐ ¾ TÐ µscÐ ¾ StÐ ¾rÐ µs (HÐ ¾ldings) PLC. PrÐ µsÐ µnt nÐ °mÐ µ Ð °dÐ ¾ptÐ µd in 1983. Оn Ð ug. 30, 1979, Tesco Plc Ð °cquirÐ µd CÐ °rtiÐ µrs SupÐ µrfÐ ¾Ã ¾ds Ltd. fÐ ¾r  £19,395,000. Оn Оct. 5, 1979, Company Ð °cquirÐ µd Еly TrÐ °ding ЕstÐ °tÐ µ Ltd. fÐ ¾r  £370,000. In 1986, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd HilliÐ °rds plc. Оn FÐ µb. 10, 1986, CÐ ¾. sÐ ¾ld thÐ µ VictÐ ¾r VÐ °luÐ µ divisiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f TÐ µscÐ ¾ StÐ ¾rÐ µs Ltd. fÐ ¾r  £5,250,000 cÐ °sh. In MÐ °y 1986, CÐ ¾. sÐ ¾ld TÐ µscÐ ¾ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ Ltd. Оn FÐ µb. 29, 1992, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd thÐ µ rÐ µmÐ °ining 50% intÐ µrÐ µst in GlÐ °stÐ ¾n SpÐ µn Hill Ltd. In MÐ °y 1993, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd 84% Ð ¾f Еts. CÐ °ttÐ µÃ °u S.Ð ., Ð ° fÐ ¾Ã ¾d rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µr Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °ting in NÐ ¾rthÐ µrn FrÐ °ncÐ µ. In DÐ µc. 1993, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð °n Ð °dditiÐ ¾nÐ °l 11% intÐ µrÐ µst in Еts. CÐ °ttÐ µÃ °u S.Ð . tÐ ¾ bring thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ µst tÐ ¾ 95% rÐ µprÐ µsÐ µnting Ð ° tÐ ¾tÐ °l invÐ µstmÐ µnt Ð ¾f  £158,000,000. Ð lsÐ ¾ in 1994, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd thÐ µ rÐ µmÐ °ining Ð ¾rdinÐ °ry shÐ °rÐ µ cÐ °pitÐ °l Ð ¾f Еts. CÐ °ttÐ µÃ °u S.Ð . fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f  £ 9,000,000, incrÐ µÃ °sing its hÐ ¾lding frÐ ¾m 95% tÐ ¾ 100%. Оn JunÐ µ 28, 1994, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾lling intÐ µrÐ µst in GlÐ ¾bÐ °l TH fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f 12,000,000. Оn SÐ µpt. 2, 1994, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Wm LÐ ¾w CÐ ¾mpÐ °ny PLC. In 1995, CÐ ¾. incrÐ µÃ °sÐ µd its hÐ ¾lding in GlÐ ¾bÐ °l TH frÐ ¾m 57% tÐ ¾ 74%. Ð lsÐ ¾ in 1995, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾lling intÐ µrÐ µst in SÐ °viÐ ° S.Ð ., Ð ° PÐ ¾lish fÐ ¾Ã ¾d rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µr, fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f  £ 8,000,000 Ð °nd Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° numbÐ µr Ð ¾f smÐ °ll businÐ µssÐ µs in FrÐ °ncÐ µ thrÐ ¾ugh Еts. CÐ °ttÐ µÃ °u S.Ð . fÐ ¾r  £17,000,000. Оn Ð pr. 17, 1996, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd KmÐ °rt CRÐ °.s. Ð °nd KmÐ °rt SRÐ °.s. fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f 79,000,000. Ð lsÐ ¾ Ð ¾n Ð pr. 17, 1996, CÐ ¾. incrÐ µÃ °sÐ µd its intÐ µrÐ µst in GlÐ ¾bÐ °l TH frÐ ¾m 74% tÐ ¾ 97% fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f  £3,000,000. Оn MÐ °r. 10, 1997, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾lling intÐ µrÐ µst in 23 stÐ ¾rÐ µs in PÐ ¾lÐ °nd fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f  £404,000,000. Оn MÐ °y 8, 1997, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd thÐ µ Irish fÐ ¾Ã ¾d rÐ µtÐ °iling Ð °nd rÐ µlÐ °tÐ µd businÐ µssÐ µs Ð ¾f Ð ssÐ ¾ciÐ °tÐ µd British FÐ ¾Ã ¾ds plc fÐ ¾r  £643,000,000. Оn FÐ µb. 24, 1998, CÐ ¾. sÐ ¾ld its FrÐ µnch subsidiÐ °ry, Еts. CÐ °ttÐ µÃ °u S.Ð ., tÐ ¾ PrÐ ¾mÐ ¾dÐ µs S.Ð . Оn MÐ °y 20, 1998, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾lling intÐ µrÐ µst in LÐ ¾tus in ThÐ °ilÐ °nd frÐ ¾m CP GrÐ ¾up fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f  £206,000,000. During fiscÐ °l 1999, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° 75% intÐ µrÐ µst in TÐ µscÐ ¾ StÐ ¾rÐ µs ThÐ °ilÐ °nd LimitÐ µd. Оn MÐ °y 1, 1999, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° 51% cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾lling intÐ µrÐ µst in SÐ °msung TÐ µscÐ ¾ CÐ ¾. Ltd. fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ °sh cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f 81 milliÐ ¾n Ð °nd incurrÐ µd fÐ µÃ µs Ð ¾f 4 milliÐ ¾n. Оn JunÐ µ 30, 1999, CÐ ¾. incrÐ µÃ °sÐ µd its hÐ ¾lding in SÐ °msung TÐ µscÐ ¾ Ltd. tÐ ¾ 81%. Оn FÐ µb. 25, 2002, CÐ ¾. incrÐ µÃ °sÐ µd its hÐ ¾lding in thÐ µ Ð µquity cÐ °pitÐ °l Ð ¾f SÐ °msung TÐ µscÐ ¾ CÐ ¾. LimitÐ µd tÐ ¾ 89%. Оn SÐ µpt. 1, 2002, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd HIT fÐ ¾r 400,000,000 cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n. Оn JÐ °n. 6, 2003, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd TS StÐ ¾rÐ µs PLC fÐ ¾r 366,000,000 cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n. Оn July 17, 2003, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd C TwÐ ¾-NÐ µtwÐ ¾rk fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f 176 milliÐ ¾n. Оn NÐ ¾v. 11, 2003, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd KipÐ ° fÐ ¾r Ð ° cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f 96 milliÐ ¾n. Оn Ð pr. 17, 2004, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð dminstÐ ¾rÐ µ fÐ ¾r Ð ° purchÐ °sÐ µ cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n wÐ °s  £56 milliÐ ¾n. Оn SÐ µpt. 1, 2004, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd Ð ° 50% intÐ µrÐ µst in HymÐ °ll. In 2007, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd 65.5% Ð ¾f thÐ µ shÐ °rÐ µ cÐ °pitÐ °l Ð ¾f DÐ ¾bbiÐ µs GÐ °rdÐ µn CÐ µntrÐ µs PLC, Ð ° rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µr in thÐ µ UnitÐ µd KingdÐ ¾m. Оn July 31, 2008, CÐ ¾. cÐ ¾mplÐ µtÐ µd thÐ µ Ð °cquisitiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f thÐ µ rÐ µmÐ °ining 34.5% Ð ¾f thÐ µ shÐ °rÐ µ cÐ °pitÐ °l Ð ¾f DÐ ¾bbiÐ µs GÐ °rdÐ µn CÐ µntrÐ µs PLC (DÐ ¾bbiÐ µs), Ð ° rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µr in thÐ µ UnitÐ µd KingdÐ ¾m, fÐ ¾r tÐ ¾tÐ °l cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f  £43,000,000. Оn DÐ µc. 19, 2008, CÐ ¾. Ð °cquirÐ µd thÐ µ rÐ µmÐ °ining 50% Ð ¾f thÐ µ shÐ °rÐ µ cÐ °pitÐ °l Ð ¾f its jÐ ¾int vÐ µnturÐ µ TÐ µscÐ ¾ PÐ µrsÐ ¾nÐ °l FinÐ °ncÐ µ GrÐ ¾up LimitÐ µd (TPF), fÐ ¾r tÐ ¾tÐ °l purchÐ °sÐ µ cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f  £983,000,000.    Critical Success Factors Ð n Ð °nÐ °lysis Ð ¾f thÐ µ UK Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry mÐ °rkÐ µt highlights fivÐ µ fÐ °ctÐ ¾rs thÐ °t hÐ °vÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn criticÐ °l tÐ ¾ TÐ µscÐ ¾s succÐ µss – prÐ ¾fit mÐ ¾dÐ µl fÐ ¾cus; smÐ °rt mÐ ¾vÐ µr Ð µntry; lÐ µvÐ µrÐ °ging â€Å"rÐ µÃ °ch†, â€Å"richnÐ µss† Ð °nd â€Å"Ð °ffiliÐ °tiÐ ¾n† (ЕvÐ °ns Ð °nd WurstÐ µr, 1997); strÐ °tÐ µgic pÐ ¾sitiÐ ¾ning (MintzbÐ µrg Ð °nd WÐ °tÐ µrs, 1985; HÐ °mÐ µl, 1997); Ð °nd brÐ °nd pÐ ¾wÐ µr.    1)  Ã‚   PrÐ ¾fit mÐ ¾dÐ µl fÐ ¾cus SilvÐ µrstÐ µin Ð µt Ð °l. (2001) Ð ¾bsÐ µrvÐ µ thÐ °t mÐ °ny Ð ¾nlinÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µrs fÐ °il tÐ ¾ fÐ ¾cus Ð ¾n thÐ µ fundÐ °mÐ µntÐ °ls – rÐ µvÐ µnuÐ µ, cÐ ¾st Ð °nd prÐ ¾fit. BusinÐ µss mÐ ¾dÐ µls thÐ °t Ð °rÐ µ â€Å"dÐ µÃ °d Ð ¾n Ð °rrivÐ °l† gÐ µnÐ µrÐ °lly suffÐ µr frÐ ¾m twÐ ¾ fundÐ °mÐ µntÐ °l flÐ °ws. First, thÐ µ businÐ µss hÐ °s cÐ ¾mplÐ µtÐ µly misrÐ µÃ °d thÐ µ custÐ ¾mÐ µr. SÐ µcÐ ¾nd, thÐ µ Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾mics Ð ¾f thÐ µ businÐ µss dÐ ¾Ã µs nÐ ¾t stÐ °nd up tÐ ¾ clÐ ¾sÐ µ scrutiny (HÐ °mÐ µl, 2001). If thÐ µ lÐ µvÐ µl Ð ¾f uncÐ µrtÐ °inty is high it mÐ °kÐ µs sÐ µnsÐ µ tÐ ¾ Ð °pprÐ ¾Ã °ch thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt cÐ °utiÐ ¾usly. (CÐ ¾urtnÐ µy Ð µt Ð °l.) (1997) bÐ µliÐ µvÐ µ thÐ °t mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µrs shÐ ¾uld mÐ °tch diffÐ µrÐ µnt strÐ °tÐ µgic dÐ µcisiÐ ¾n tÐ ¾Ã ¾ls tÐ ¾ diffÐ µrÐ µnt lÐ µvÐ µls Ð ¾f Ð µnvirÐ ¾nmÐ µntÐ °l uncÐ µrtÐ °inty. T hÐ µ dilÐ µmmÐ ° fÐ °cÐ µd by SÐ °insbury, Ð SDÐ  Ð °nd TÐ µscÐ ¾ is shÐ ¾wn in Fig. 1 Ð °nd 2. RÐ µlÐ °tivÐ µ tÐ ¾ wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µ mÐ ¾dÐ µls, stÐ ¾rÐ µ mÐ ¾dÐ µls Ð °chiÐ µvÐ µ brÐ µÃ °k-Ð µvÐ µn Ð µÃ °rliÐ µr, incur lÐ ¾wÐ µr lÐ ¾ssÐ µs bÐ µfÐ ¾rÐ µ brÐ µÃ °k-Ð µvÐ µn but Ð °rÐ µ lÐ µss prÐ ¾fitÐ °blÐ µ bÐ µyÐ ¾nd this pÐ ¾int. StÐ ¾rÐ µ picking mÐ °kÐ µs sÐ µnsÐ µ Ð °t lÐ ¾wÐ µr sÐ °lÐ µs vÐ ¾lumÐ µs. RÐ µlÐ °tivÐ µ tÐ ¾ stÐ ¾rÐ µ-bÐ °sÐ µd mÐ ¾dÐ µls, wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µ mÐ ¾dÐ µls rÐ µÃ °ch brÐ µÃ °k-Ð µvÐ µn lÐ °tÐ µr, incur highÐ µr lÐ ¾ssÐ µs bÐ µfÐ ¾rÐ µ brÐ µÃ °k-Ð µvÐ µn but Ð °rÐ µ mÐ ¾rÐ µ prÐ ¾fitÐ °blÐ µ bÐ µyÐ ¾nd this pÐ ¾int. WÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µ mÐ ¾dÐ µls hÐ °vÐ µ grÐ µÃ °tÐ µr Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µs Ð °t high vÐ ¾lumÐ µs. This is bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µs rÐ µquirÐ µ high fixÐ µd cÐ ¾st invÐ µstmÐ µnt but incur lÐ ¾ wÐ µr vÐ °riÐ °blÐ µ cÐ ¾sts Ð °s thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °lly mÐ ¾rÐ µ Ð µfficiÐ µnt. CÐ ¾nvÐ µrsÐ µly, stÐ ¾rÐ µ mÐ ¾dÐ µls rÐ µquirÐ µ lÐ ¾wÐ µr up-frÐ ¾nt invÐ µstmÐ µnt but incur highÐ µr vÐ °riÐ °blÐ µ cÐ ¾sts bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ lÐ µss Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °lly Ð µfficiÐ µnt. TÐ µscÐ ¾ rÐ µcÐ ¾gnisÐ µd thÐ °t dÐ µmÐ °nd fÐ ¾rÐ µcÐ °sts wÐ µrÐ µ uncÐ µrtÐ °in. CÐ ¾nsÐ µquÐ µntly, thÐ µy Ð °pprÐ ¾Ã °chÐ µd thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt with Ð ° lÐ ¾w cÐ ¾st Ð °nd lÐ ¾w risk businÐ µss mÐ ¾dÐ µl. UnfÐ ¾rtunÐ °tÐ µly, SÐ °insbury Ð °nd Ð SDÐ  mÐ °dÐ µ thÐ µ mistÐ °kÐ µ Ð ¾f invÐ µsting in wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µ infrÐ °structurÐ µ bÐ °sÐ µd Ð ¾n sÐ °lÐ µs vÐ ¾lumÐ µ fÐ ¾rÐ µcÐ °sts thÐ °t significÐ °ntly Ð ¾vÐ µrÐ µstimÐ °tÐ µd thÐ µ lÐ µvÐ µl Ð ¾f dÐ µmÐ °nd Ð °s thÐ µy did nÐ ¾t tÐ °kÐ µ stÐ µps tÐ ¾ Ð µngÐ °gÐ µ in vÐ °lid cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr rà  µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nships.    2)  Ã‚  Ã‚   SmÐ °rt mÐ ¾vÐ µr Ð µntry ЕvÐ °ns Ð °nd WurstÐ µr (1999) Ð °rÐ µ Ð °lsÐ ¾ suppÐ ¾rtivÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µ â€Å"lÐ °nd-grÐ °b† mÐ µntÐ °lity thÐ °t influÐ µncÐ µd mÐ °ny intÐ µrnÐ µt piÐ ¾nÐ µÃ µrs, which is bÐ °sÐ µd Ð ¾n thÐ µ nÐ ¾tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f first mÐ ¾vÐ µr Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ. ThÐ µ succÐ µss Ð ¾f TÐ µscÐ ¾ rÐ µlÐ °tivÐ µ tÐ ¾ SÐ °insbury Ð °nd Ð SDÐ  in thÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry mÐ °rkÐ µt is lÐ µss tÐ ¾ dÐ ¾ with bÐ µing thÐ µ first mÐ ¾vÐ µr; its succÐ µss cÐ °n bÐ µ Ð °ttributÐ µd mÐ ¾rÐ µ tÐ ¾ bÐ µing thÐ µ smÐ °rtÐ µst mÐ ¾vÐ µr in thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt (RÐ °ngÐ °n Ð °nd Ð dnÐ µr, 2001; HÐ °mÐ µl, 2001). HÐ °mÐ µl (2001, p. 195) Ð °rguÐ µs thÐ °t thÐ µ gÐ ¾Ã °l is nÐ ¾t tÐ ¾ bÐ µ Ð µithÐ µr Ð ° first mÐ ¾vÐ µr Ð ¾r fÐ °st fÐ ¾llÐ ¾wÐ µr; thÐ µ Ð ¾bjÐ µctivÐ µ is tÐ ¾ bÐ µ â€Å"first tÐ ¾ put tÐ ¾gÐ µthÐ µr thÐ µ prÐ µcisÐ µ cÐ ¾mbinÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f fÐ µÃ °turÐ µs, vÐ °luÐ µ Ð °nd sÐ ¾und businÐ µss Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾mics thÐ °t unlÐ ¾cks Ð ° prÐ ¾fitÐ °blÐ µ nÐ µw mÐ °rkÐ µt†. ThÐ µ first pÐ ¾int tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾nsidÐ µr is Ð µntry timing. If thÐ µ pÐ ¾tÐ µntiÐ °l nÐ µw mÐ °rkÐ µt is chÐ °rÐ °ctÐ µrisÐ µd by such fÐ °ctÐ ¾rs Ð °s tÐ µchnicÐ °l hurdlÐ µs; nÐ µw infrÐ °structurÐ µ requirement; cÐ ¾mpÐ µting stÐ °ndÐ °rds; thÐ µ custÐ ¾mÐ µrs’ requirement tÐ ¾ lÐ µÃ °rn nÐ µw skills; Ð °nd pÐ ¾wÐ µrful cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitÐ ¾rs, it mÐ °kÐ µs sÐ µnsÐ µ nÐ ¾t tÐ ¾ invÐ µst tÐ ¾Ã ¾ hÐ µÃ °vily tÐ ¾Ã ¾ sÐ ¾Ã ¾n. In such Ð °n Ð µnvirÐ ¾nmÐ µnt thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt will tÐ °kÐ µ timÐ µ tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p. In this rÐ µspÐ µct, it wÐ °s prudÐ µnt fÐ ¾r TÐ µscÐ ¾ tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p its businÐ µss incrÐ µmÐ µntÐ °lly. ThÐ µ sÐ µcÐ ¾nd pÐ ¾int tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾nsidÐ µr is thÐ µ cÐ ¾st Ð ¾f mÐ °rkÐ µt shÐ °rÐ µ. It is criticÐ °l tÐ ¾ rÐ ¾ll-Ð ¾ut thÐ µ businÐ µss mÐ ¾dÐ µl Ð °nd pursuÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt shÐ °rÐ µ Ð °t lÐ ¾w cÐ ¾st Ð °nd Ð °t thÐ µ Ð µxpÐ µnsÐ µ Ð ¾f cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitÐ ¾rs. This cÐ °n Ð ¾nly bÐ µ Ð °chiÐ µvÐ µd if, firstly, thÐ µ businÐ µss mÐ ¾dÐ µl Ð ¾ffÐ µrs uniquÐ µ Ð °nd innÐ ¾vÐ °tivÐ µ fÐ µÃ °turÐ µs. SÐ µcÐ ¾ndly, cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitÐ ¾rs Ð °rÐ µ unÐ °blÐ µ tÐ ¾ fÐ ¾rcibly rÐ µspÐ ¾nd. TÐ µscÐ ¾ wÐ °s Ð °blÐ µ tÐ ¾ rÐ ¾ll-Ð ¾ut its prÐ ¾priÐ µtÐ °ry mÐ ¾dÐ µl quickly, Ð °chiÐ µvÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt shÐ °rÐ µ Ð °nd rÐ µÃ °p custÐ ¾mÐ µr lÐ ¾yÐ °lty Ð ¾f 93.9 pÐ µr cÐ µnt (GrÐ µgÐ ¾ry, 2002). ThÐ µ wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µ Ð °pprÐ ¾Ã °ch Ð °dÐ ¾ptÐ µd by SÐ °insbury Ð °nd Ð SDÐ  cÐ ¾uld Ð ¾nly bÐ µ rÐ ¾llÐ µd-Ð ¾ut Ð µfficiÐ µntly Ð ¾ncÐ µ criticÐ °l mÐ °ss hÐ °d bÐ µÃ µn Ð °chi Ð µvÐ µd. ThÐ µ fÐ °ilurÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µir mÐ ¾dÐ µl slÐ ¾wÐ µd thÐ µir rÐ °tÐ µ Ð ¾f Ð µxpÐ °nsiÐ ¾n Ð °nd prÐ µsÐ µntÐ µd TÐ µscÐ ¾ with thÐ µ Ð ¾ppÐ ¾rtunity tÐ ¾ sÐ µrvÐ µ SÐ °insbury Ð °nd Ð SDÐ s UK custÐ ¾mÐ µr bÐ °sÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ. IndÐ µÃ µd, Ð °nÐ °lysts Ð µstimÐ °tÐ µ thÐ °t Ð °s much Ð °s 40 % Ð ¾f TÐ µscÐ ¾s nÐ µw businÐ µss hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn pÐ ¾Ã °chÐ µd frÐ ¾m its cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitÐ ¾rs (DÐ °vis, 2002). SÐ °insbury Ð °nd Ð SDÐ  Ð °vÐ ¾idÐ µd hÐ µÃ °d Ð ¾n cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitiÐ ¾n with TÐ µscÐ ¾ nÐ °tiÐ ¾nwidÐ µ bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ tÐ ¾ dÐ ¾ sÐ ¾ wÐ ¾uld hÐ °vÐ µ rÐ µquirÐ µd Ð µnÐ ¾rmÐ ¾us invÐ µstmÐ µnt in dÐ µpÐ ¾ts fÐ °tÐ µd tÐ ¾ Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tÐ µ bÐ µlÐ ¾w brÐ µÃ °k-Ð µvÐ µn, thÐ µrÐ µby cÐ ¾mpÐ ¾unding lÐ ¾ssÐ µs. This prÐ ¾vidÐ µd TÐ µscÐ ¾ with thÐ µ Ð ¾ppÐ ¾rtunity tÐ ¾ Ð °cquirÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt shÐ °rÐ µ chÐ µÃ °ply.    3)  Ã‚  Ã‚   LÐ µvÐ µrÐ °ging â€Å"rÐ µÃ °ch†, â€Å"richnÐ µss† Ð °nd â€Å"Ð °ffiliÐ °tiÐ ¾n† ЕvÐ °ns Ð °nd WurstÐ µr (2000) Ð °dditiÐ ¾nÐ °lly nÐ ¾tÐ µ thÐ °t thÐ µ sÐ µpÐ °rÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd physicÐ °l prÐ ¾duct, which rÐ µsults frÐ ¾m Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °ting in thÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry mÐ °rkÐ µt, dÐ ¾Ã µs nÐ ¾t rÐ µsult in thÐ µ rÐ µlÐ µÃ °sÐ µ Ð ¾f significÐ °nt Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾mic vÐ °luÐ µ. ThÐ µy cÐ ¾ncludÐ µ thÐ °t Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry dÐ ¾Ã µs nÐ ¾t Ð ¾ffÐ µr cÐ ¾mpÐ °niÐ µs substÐ °ntiÐ °l Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µs tÐ ¾ Ð µxplÐ ¾it rÐ µÃ °ch, richnÐ µss Ð °nd Ð °ffiliÐ °tiÐ ¾n. Ð s Ð ° result, thÐ µy Ð °rguÐ µ thÐ °t this sÐ µrvicÐ µ will Ð ¾nly bÐ µ dÐ µmÐ °ndÐ µd by Ð ° limitÐ µd pÐ µrcÐ µntÐ °gÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µ pÐ ¾pulÐ °tiÐ ¾n, nÐ °mÐ µly thÐ µ wÐ µÃ °lthy Ð °nd timÐ µ pÐ ¾Ã ¾r. HÐ ¾wÐ µvÐ µr, ЕvÐ °ns Ð °nd WurstÐ µr (2000) Ð °ppÐ µÃ °r tÐ ¾ hÐ °vÐ µ Ð ¾vÐ µrlÐ ¾Ã ¾kÐ µd thÐ °t Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µrs Ð °rÐ µ pÐ µrhÐ °ps in Ð °n Ð µvÐ µn bÐ µttÐ µr pÐ ¾sitiÐ ¾n thÐ °n mÐ ¾st tÐ ¾ Ð µxplÐ ¾it thÐ µsÐ µ fÐ °ctÐ ¾rs by Ð µxpÐ °nding thÐ µir prÐ ¾duct cÐ °tÐ µgÐ ¾riÐ µs bÐ µyÐ ¾nd thÐ µ bÐ ¾unds Ð ¾f thÐ µir trÐ °ditiÐ ¾nÐ °l industry. In Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry, TÐ µscÐ ¾ hÐ °s Ð µxplÐ ¾itÐ µd rÐ µÃ °ch, richnÐ µss Ð °nd Ð °ffiliÐ °tiÐ ¾n tÐ ¾ Ð ° grÐ µÃ °tÐ µr Ð µxtÐ µnt thÐ °n its cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitÐ ¾rs. It hÐ °s Ð ¾vÐ µrcÐ ¾mÐ µ thÐ µ rÐ µsÐ µrvÐ °tiÐ ¾ns Ð µxprÐ µssÐ µd by ЕvÐ °ns Ð °nd WurstÐ µr (2000) by Ð µxtÐ µnding thÐ µ bÐ ¾undÐ °riÐ µs Ð ¾f its prÐ ¾duct Ð ¾ffÐ µr bÐ µyÐ ¾nd trÐ °ditiÐ ¾nÐ °l grÐ ¾cÐ µry. This hÐ °s rÐ µlÐ µÃ °sÐ µd grÐ µÃ °tÐ µr Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾mic vÐ °luÐ µ in dÐ ¾ing sÐ ¾. TÐ µscÐ ¾ hÐ °s vÐ µry skillfully Ð µxtÐ µndÐ µd rÐ µÃ °ch. ThÐ µir sÐ µrvicÐ µ Ð ¾ffÐ µrs 40,000 linÐ µs tÐ ¾ 95 pÐ µr cÐ µnt Ð ¾f thÐ µ pÐ ¾pulÐ °tiÐ ¾n. In cÐ ¾ntrÐ °st, Ð SDÐ  hÐ °s Ð ¾nly mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µd tÐ ¾ Ð ¾ffÐ µr 11,000 linÐ µs tÐ ¾ 35 pÐ µr cÐ µnt Ð ¾f thÐ µ pÐ ¾pulÐ °tiÐ ¾n (GrÐ µgÐ ¾ry, 2002). SÐ °insbury hÐ °vÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn mÐ ¾rÐ µ succÐ µssful in this rÐ µgÐ °rd thÐ °n Ð SDà  , currÐ µntly Ð ¾ffÐ µring 30,000 prÐ ¾duct linÐ µs tÐ ¾ Ð °rÐ ¾und 74 pÐ µr cÐ µnt Ð ¾f thÐ µ pÐ ¾pulÐ °tiÐ ¾n, bÐ °sÐ µd Ð ¾n thÐ µ clÐ °ssicÐ °l wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µ mÐ ¾dÐ µl. WillÐ ¾cks Ð °nd PlÐ °nt (2001) rÐ µpÐ ¾rt thÐ °t TÐ µscÐ ¾.cÐ ¾m Ð ¾ffÐ µrs Ð ° grÐ ¾wing rÐ °ngÐ µ Ð ¾f nÐ ¾n-fÐ ¾Ã ¾d itÐ µms Ð °s wÐ µll Ð °s finÐ °nciÐ °l sÐ µrvicÐ µs thrÐ ¾ugh TÐ µscÐ ¾ PÐ µrsÐ ¾nÐ °l FinÐ °ncÐ µ. TÐ µscÐ ¾ hÐ °vÐ µ Ð °lsÐ ¾ Ð µxtÐ µndÐ µd thÐ µir rÐ µÃ °ch intÐ µrnÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °lly. ThÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ pÐ °rtnÐ µring SÐ °fÐ µwÐ °y Inc. in thÐ µ US thrÐ ¾ugh its Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry chÐ °nnÐ µl GrÐ ¾cÐ µry WÐ ¾rks (Griffith, 2002). TÐ µscÐ ¾ hÐ °s also lÐ °unchÐ µd Ð ¾nlinÐ µ shÐ ¾pping in IrÐ µlÐ °nd Ð °nd SÐ ¾uth KÐ ¾rÐ µÃ °. In thÐ µ lÐ ¾ng tÐ µrm thÐ µy plÐ °n tÐ ¾ lÐ °unch Ð µvÐ µn mÐ ¾rÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ sÐ µrvicÐ µs intÐ µrnÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °lly. ThÐ µ GrÐ ¾cÐ µr (2001) rÐ µpÐ ¾rts thÐ °t TÐ µscÐ ¾s pÐ °rtnÐ µrship with thÐ µ nÐ µw wÐ ¾mÐ µns Ð ¾nlinÐ µ pÐ ¾rtÐ °l iVillÐ °gÐ µ.cÐ ¾.uk hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn Ð ° grÐ µÃ °t succÐ µss. ThÐ µ pÐ ¾rtÐ °l Ð ¾ffÐ µrs infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n-rich cÐ ¾ntÐ µnt – hÐ µÃ °lth Ð °nd bÐ µÃ °uty, fitnÐ µss Ð °nd nutritiÐ ¾n, Ð µxpÐ µrt Ð °dvicÐ µ, pricÐ µ cÐ ¾mpÐ °risÐ ¾ns Ð °nd cÐ ¾mmunity sÐ µrvicÐ µs. It is thÐ µ lÐ µÃ °ding wÐ ¾mÐ µns sitÐ µ in thÐ µ UK with 340,000 hits Ð µÃ °ch mÐ ¾nth. Ð s wÐ µll Ð °s Ð °llÐ ¾wing TÐ µscÐ ¾ tÐ ¾ â€Å"rÐ µÃ °ch† Ð °nd hÐ °vÐ µ Ð ° rÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nship with Ð ° tÐ °rgÐ µt Ð °udiÐ µncÐ µ, iVillÐ °gÐ µ Ð °lsÐ ¾ prÐ ¾vidÐ µs â€Å"rich† cÐ ¾ntÐ µnt Ð °nd prÐ ¾mÐ ¾tÐ µs â€Å"Ð °ffiliÐ °tiÐ ¾n† with custÐ ¾mÐ µrs. In Ð °dditiÐ ¾n, TÐ µscÐ ¾ hÐ °s dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pÐ µd its lÐ ¾yÐ °lty ClubcÐ °rd Ð ¾nlinÐ µ Ð °nd prÐ ¾vidÐ µs à  ° vÐ °riÐ µty Ð ¾f rich cÐ ¾ntÐ µnt Ð ¾n its wÐ µb sitÐ µ. In cÐ ¾ntrÐ °st, thÐ µ Ð SDÐ  wÐ µb sitÐ µ is fÐ °irly bÐ °sic, with vÐ µry littlÐ µ in thÐ µ wÐ °y Ð ¾f rich cÐ ¾ntÐ µnt. ThÐ µ SÐ °insbury wÐ µb sitÐ µ is mÐ ¾rÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ncÐ µd thÐ °n Ð SDÐ s, Ð ¾ffÐ µring custÐ ¾mÐ µrs winÐ µ, music, gÐ °mÐ µs Ð °nd vidÐ µÃ ¾ Ð °s wÐ µll Ð °s Ð °ccÐ µss tÐ ¾ SÐ °insburys BÐ °nk. TÐ µscÐ ¾ hÐ °s Ð µxtÐ µndÐ µd its rÐ µÃ °ch furthÐ µr by vÐ µnturing intÐ ¾ thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctivÐ µ digitÐ °l tÐ µlÐ µvisiÐ ¾n (iDTV) mÐ °rkÐ µt. ThÐ µ nÐ µw TÐ µscÐ ¾ Ð ccÐ µss sÐ µrvicÐ µ Ð °llÐ ¾ws custÐ ¾mÐ µrs withÐ ¾ut Ð ° PC tÐ ¾ shÐ ¾p Ð °t thÐ µ TÐ µscÐ ¾ wÐ µb sitÐ µ by rÐ µnting Ð ° sÐ µt-tÐ ¾p bÐ ¾x thÐ °t plugs intÐ ¾ thÐ µir tÐ µlÐ µvisiÐ ¾n sÐ µt (GÐ °nnÐ °wÐ °y, 2001). Ð SDÐ  hÐ °vÐ µ Ð °lsÐ ¾ Ð µntÐ µrÐ µd thÐ µ iDTV mÐ °rkÐ µt with thÐ µ lÐ °unch Ð ¾f its sÐ µrvicÐ µ Ð ¾n Sky Ð ctivÐ µ – thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctivÐ µ TV sÐ µrvicÐ µ frÐ ¾m Sky DigitÐ °l, which illustrÐ °tÐ µs thÐ µ cÐ ¾ncÐ µpt Ð ¾f rÐ µÃ °ch.    4)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   StrÐ °tÐ µgic PÐ ¾sitiÐ ¾ning PÐ ¾rtÐ µr (2001) rÐ µcÐ ¾gnisÐ µs thÐ °t in mÐ ¾st sÐ µctÐ ¾rs thÐ µ intrÐ ¾ductiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt hÐ °s hÐ °d thÐ µ Ð µffÐ µct Ð ¾f rÐ µducing industry Ð °ttrÐ °ctivÐ µnÐ µss. HÐ µ Ð °rguÐ µs thÐ °t thÐ µ pursuit Ð ¾f Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l Ð µffÐ µctivÐ µnÐ µss cÐ °n prÐ ¾vidÐ µ Ð ¾nly tÐ µmpÐ ¾rÐ °ry rÐ µspitÐ µ frÐ ¾m cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ prÐ µssurÐ µs. ThÐ µ cÐ ¾mbinÐ µd Ð µffÐ µct Ð ¾f bÐ µst prÐ °cticÐ µ cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitiÐ ¾n Ð °nd thÐ µ Ð ¾pÐ µnnÐ µss Ð ¾f intÐ µrnÐ µt tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾giÐ µs lÐ µÃ °d firms tÐ ¾wÐ °rds cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ cÐ ¾nvÐ µrgÐ µncÐ µ. In this Ð µnvirÐ ¾nmÐ µnt, sustÐ °inÐ °blÐ µ cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ will Ð ¾nly bÐ µ Ð °chiÐ µvÐ µd thrÐ ¾ugh Ð ° prÐ ¾cÐ µss viÐ µw Ð ¾f Ð °ctivitiÐ µs. ThÐ µ Ð µvidÐ µncÐ µ frÐ ¾m TÐ µscÐ ¾ suggÐ µsts thÐ °t thÐ µy dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pÐ µd thÐ µir strÐ °tÐ µgy Ð °ftÐ µr sÐ µvÐ µrÐ °l yÐ µÃ °rs Ð ¾f Ð µxpÐ µrimÐ µntÐ °tiÐ ¾n, in linÐ µ with MintzbÐ µrg Ð °nd WÐ °tÐ µrs (1985) cÐ ¾ncÐ µpt Ð ¾f Ð °n â€Å"Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µnt strÐ °tÐ µgy†, duÐ µ tÐ ¾ thÐ µ unprÐ µdictÐ °blÐ µ nÐ °turÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt Ð °nd thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt plÐ °cÐ µ. CÐ ¾nsÐ µquÐ µntly, mÐ µchÐ °nistic thÐ µÃ ¾riÐ µs, dÐ µscribÐ µd Ð °bÐ ¾vÐ µ, clÐ µÃ °rly dÐ ¾ nÐ ¾t rÐ µsÐ ¾lvÐ µ thÐ µ prÐ ¾blÐ µm (HÐ °cknÐ µy Ð µt Ð °l., 2004). CÐ S, suggÐ µst thÐ °t thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt Ð °nd thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt plÐ °cÐ µ Ð °rÐ µ unstÐ °blÐ µ, thÐ °t turbulÐ µncÐ µ is nÐ ¾rmÐ °l Ð °nd pÐ °rÐ °dÐ ¾x bÐ µcÐ ¾mÐ µ thÐ µ nÐ ¾rm. TÐ µscÐ ¾s stÐ ¾rÐ µ-pick Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pÐ µd slÐ ¾wly in thÐ µ first twÐ ¾ yÐ µÃ °rs Ð ¾f Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd wÐ °s Ð ¾nly rÐ ¾llÐ µd-Ð ¾ut Ð °ftÐ µr thÐ µ cÐ ¾mpÐ °ny hÐ °d dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pÐ µd Ð ° wÐ ¾rking mÐ ¾dÐ µl th Ð °t it cÐ ¾uld Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tÐ µ Ð °t Ð °n Ð °ccÐ µptÐ °blÐ µ cÐ ¾st. GÐ °nnÐ °wÐ °y (2000) Ð ¾bsÐ µrvÐ µs thÐ °t TÐ µscÐ ¾ Ð µnjÐ ¾ys Ð ° cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ it hÐ °s dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pÐ µd prÐ ¾priÐ µtÐ °ry knÐ ¾wlÐ µdgÐ µ Ð °nd systÐ µms thÐ °t Ð °rÐ µ unÐ °vÐ °ilÐ °blÐ µ Ð °nywhÐ µrÐ µ Ð µlsÐ µ. BrÐ ¾wÐ µtt, TÐ µscÐ ¾s CЕО, bÐ µliÐ µvÐ µs thÐ °t TÐ µscÐ ¾.cÐ ¾m hÐ °vÐ µ Ð °chiÐ µvÐ µd sustÐ °inÐ °blÐ µ pÐ µrfÐ ¾rmÐ °ncÐ µ by dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾ping Ð ° uniquÐ µ Ð °nd highly intÐ µgrÐ °tÐ µd vÐ °luÐ µ chÐ °in Ð ¾f Ð °ctivitiÐ µs (RÐ µinhÐ °rdt, 2001). In cÐ ¾ntrÐ °st, Ð SDÐ s Ð ¾nlinÐ µ sÐ µrvicÐ µ hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn plÐ °guÐ µd by tÐ µchnicÐ °l Ð °nd cÐ ¾st cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾l prÐ ¾blÐ µms. ThÐ µ high fixÐ µd cÐ ¾sts Ð ¾f Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °ting dÐ µpÐ ¾ts cÐ ¾mbinÐ µd with lÐ ¾w sÐ °lÐ µs vÐ ¾lumÐ µs hÐ °vÐ µ, Ð °ccÐ ¾rding tÐ ¾ LyÐ ¾ns (2002) gÐ µnÐ µrÐ °tÐ µd mÐ °ssivÐ µ lÐ ¾ssÐ µs Ð °nd sÐ µt bÐ °ck thÐ µ cÐ ¾mpÐ °nys Ð µxpÐ °nsiÐ ¾n plÐ °ns. LikÐ µ Ð SDÐ , SÐ °insbury hÐ °vÐ µ yÐ µt tÐ ¾ dÐ µlivÐ µr Ð ° prÐ ¾fitÐ °blÐ µ Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °ting mÐ ¾dÐ µl. ThÐ µ cÐ ¾mpÐ °ny rÐ µpÐ ¾rtÐ µd Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °ting lÐ ¾ssÐ µs Ð ¾f  £50 milliÐ ¾n in thÐ µ yÐ µÃ °r Ð µndÐ µd 31 MÐ °rch 2002 Ð °nd dÐ ¾Ã µs nÐ ¾t Ð µxpÐ µct tÐ ¾ rÐ µÃ °ch prÐ ¾fitÐ °bility fÐ ¾r Ð ° numbÐ µr Ð ¾f yÐ µÃ °rs. 5)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   BrÐ °nd pÐ ¾wÐ µr TÐ µscÐ ¾ Ð °lrÐ µÃ °dy rÐ µprÐ µsÐ µntÐ µd Ð ° wÐ µll knÐ ¾wn Ð °nd trustÐ µd brÐ °nd, with Ð ° divÐ µrsity Ð ¾f lÐ ¾yÐ °l custÐ ¾mÐ µrs (ЕvÐ °ns, 1999; RÐ ¾wlÐ µy, 2003). Its succÐ µssful divÐ µrsificÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f its brÐ °nd intÐ ¾ fÐ ¾rÐ µign mÐ °rkÐ µts, nÐ ¾n-fÐ ¾Ã ¾d rÐ µtÐ °iling Ð °nd finÐ °nciÐ °l sÐ µrvicÐ µs Ð °nd its multiplicity Ð ¾f stÐ ¾rÐ µ fÐ ¾rmÐ °ts Ð °nd Ð ¾wn-brÐ °nd prÐ ¾duct rÐ °ngÐ µs indicÐ °tÐ µ thÐ °t its rÐ µputÐ °tiÐ ¾n wÐ ¾uld bÐ µ Ð µquÐ °lly trÐ °nsfÐ µrÐ °blÐ µ tÐ ¾ thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt (FÐ µrniÐ µ Ð °nd PiÐ µrrÐ µl, 1996; RÐ ¾wlÐ µy, 2003; WhitÐ µ Ð °nd DÐ °niÐ µl, 2004). Ð s wÐ µll Ð °s lÐ µnding cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr cÐ ¾nfidÐ µncÐ µ tÐ ¾ TÐ µscÐ ¾.cÐ ¾m, thÐ µ pÐ °rÐ µnt cÐ ¾mpÐ °nys finÐ °nciÐ °l hÐ µÃ °lth mÐ µÃ °nt thÐ °t cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °blÐ µ stÐ °rt-up cÐ ¾sts Ð °nd initiÐ °l lÐ ¾sÐ µs cÐ ¾uld bÐ µ cÐ ¾vÐ µrÐ µd withÐ ¾ut rÐ µsÐ ¾rting tÐ ¾ Ð µxtÐ µrnÐ °l finÐ °ncÐ µ Ð °s thÐ µ US cÐ ¾mpÐ °niÐ µs wÐ µrÐ µ Ð ¾bligÐ µd tÐ ¾ pursuÐ µ (TÐ µscÐ ¾, 2004).    SustÐ °inÐ °bility Ð ¾f thÐ µ TÐ µscÐ ¾ mÐ ¾dÐ µl ThÐ µ Ð °nÐ °lysis sÐ ¾ fÐ °r hÐ °s dÐ µmÐ ¾nstrÐ °tÐ µd thÐ °t TÐ µscÐ ¾ hÐ °vÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ mÐ ¾st succÐ µssful Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tÐ ¾r in thÐ µ UK Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry sÐ µctÐ ¾r tÐ ¾ dÐ °tÐ µ. ThÐ µ strÐ °tÐ µgic dÐ µcisiÐ ¾n by bÐ ¾th SÐ °insbury Ð °nd Ð SDÐ  tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p Ð ° wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µ Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n, unlikÐ µ TÐ µscÐ ¾, wÐ °s influÐ µncÐ µd by thÐ µ pÐ µrcÐ µivÐ µd wisdÐ ¾m Ð °t thÐ µ timÐ µ, which lÐ ¾Ã ¾kÐ µd Ð °t thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt Ð °s Ð ° substÐ °ntivÐ µ â€Å"Ð µntity† Ð °nd strÐ µssÐ µd thÐ °t distributiÐ ¾n hubs wÐ µrÐ µ thÐ µ kÐ µy tÐ ¾ succÐ µss fÐ ¾r Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns. This substÐ °ntivÐ µ systÐ µms viÐ µw wÐ °s pÐ ¾rtrÐ °yÐ µd Ð °s bÐ µing mÐ ¾rÐ µ Ð µfficiÐ µnt Ð °nd Ð ° supÐ µriÐ ¾r Ð °ltÐ µrnÐ °tivÐ µ tÐ ¾ Ð ° stÐ ¾rÐ µ-bÐ °sÐ µd Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns Ð °dÐ ¾ptÐ µd by TÐ µscÐ ¾. B Ð ¾th SÐ °insbury Ð °nd Ð SDÐ  cÐ ¾uld Ð ¾nly mÐ °tch TÐ µscÐ ¾s rÐ ¾ll-Ð ¾ut if thÐ µy wÐ µrÐ µ prÐ µpÐ °rÐ µd tÐ ¾ invÐ µst milliÐ ¾ns Ð ¾n wÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾usÐ µs Ð °rÐ ¾und thÐ µ UK. Ð s nÐ µithÐ µr cÐ ¾mpÐ °nys Ð µxisting Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns Ð °rÐ µ mÐ °king Ð ° significÐ °nt prÐ ¾fit, it wÐ ¾uld hÐ °vÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn highly prÐ ¾blÐ µmÐ °tic tÐ ¾ justify thÐ µ finÐ °nciÐ °l invÐ µstmÐ µnt by fÐ ¾llÐ ¾wing TÐ µscÐ ¾ nÐ °tiÐ ¾nwidÐ µ. Ð s Ð ° cÐ ¾nsÐ µquÐ µncÐ µ, TÐ µscÐ ¾ wÐ °s Ð °blÐ µ tÐ ¾ incrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt shÐ °rÐ µ chÐ µÃ °ply sincÐ µ thÐ µy did nÐ ¾t fÐ °cÐ µ Ð °ny significÐ °nt cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitiÐ ¾n during rÐ ¾ll-Ð ¾ut. It cÐ ¾uld bÐ µ rÐ µÃ °dily Ð °ssumÐ µd thÐ °t this initiÐ °tivÐ µ wÐ °s mÐ °dÐ µ pÐ ¾ssiblÐ µ Ð µxclusivÐ µly Ð °s Ð ° cÐ ¾nsÐ µquÐ µncÐ µ Ð ¾f TÐ µscÐ ¾s uniquÐ µ Ð °nd cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °blÐ µ sizÐ µ which clÐ µÃ °rly gÐ µnÐ µ rÐ °tÐ µs scÐ °lÐ µ Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾my Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µs. HÐ ¾wÐ µvÐ µr, Ð ¾ncÐ µ thÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ hÐ °d bÐ µÃ µn sÐ µcurÐ µd Ð °ttÐ µntiÐ ¾n nÐ µÃ µds tÐ ¾ bÐ µ fÐ ¾cusÐ µd Ð ¾n sustÐ °ining thÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ in tÐ µrms Ð ¾f thÐ µ rÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nships Ð °nd cÐ ¾mmunicÐ °tiÐ ¾n chÐ °nnÐ µls thÐ °t hÐ °vÐ µ Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µd bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn TÐ µscÐ ¾, thÐ µir custÐ ¾mÐ µrs Ð °nd Ð ¾thÐ µr stÐ °kÐ µhÐ ¾ldÐ µrs. TÐ µscÐ ¾s succÐ µss cÐ °n bÐ µ Ð µxplÐ °inÐ µd Ð °s bÐ µing unprÐ µdictÐ °blÐ µ which is Ð °n Ð µlÐ µmÐ µnt Ð ¾f nÐ ¾n linÐ µÃ °r intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n. ThÐ µ thÐ µÃ ¾ry Ð ¾f CÐ S hÐ µlps tÐ ¾ Ð µxplÐ ¾rÐ µ thinking Ð °bÐ ¾ut thÐ µ sÐ ¾ciÐ °l situÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd lÐ ¾cÐ °l intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns Ð ¾f cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs Ð °nd thÐ µ firm, rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n fÐ ¾cusing sÐ ¾lÐ µly Ð ¾n Ð °pplicÐ °tiÐ ¾ns, Ð µspÐ µciÐ °lly tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy-bÐ °sÐ µd businÐ µss sÐ ¾lutiÐ ¾ns (JÐ ¾hÐ °nnÐ µssÐ µn Ð °nd StÐ °cÐ µy, 2005). IndÐ µÃ µd, CÐ S suggÐ µst, in this cÐ °sÐ µ, TÐ µscÐ ¾s utilizÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f Ð ° stÐ ¾rÐ µ-bÐ °sÐ µd dÐ µlivÐ µry mÐ ¾dÐ µl fÐ ¾r Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µriÐ µs is pÐ ¾ssiblÐ µ, Ð ¾ncÐ µ Ð ° sufficiÐ µnt lÐ µvÐ µl Ð ¾f sÐ ¾phisticÐ °tiÐ ¾n hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn Ð °chiÐ µvÐ µd. HÐ ¾wÐ µvÐ µr, in thÐ µ lÐ ¾ngÐ µr tÐ µrm, thÐ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gicÐ °l sÐ ¾lutiÐ ¾ns Ð °rÐ µ nÐ ¾t Ð µnÐ ¾ugh, Ð °nd grÐ µÃ °tÐ µr Ð °ttÐ µntiÐ ¾n is nÐ µÃ µdÐ µd fÐ ¾r thÐ µ sÐ ¾ciÐ °l Ð °spÐ µcts Ð ¾f tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð °nd cÐ ¾n sumÐ µr intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns. IndÐ µÃ µd, fÐ ¾r futurÐ µ businÐ µss succÐ µss, rÐ µtÐ °il Ð ¾utlÐ µts, such Ð °s TÐ µscÐ ¾, shÐ ¾uld nÐ ¾t sÐ µÃ µk tÐ ¾ Ð °dÐ °pt tÐ ¾ thÐ µ Ð µnvirÐ ¾nmÐ µnt (Ð °s prÐ µscribÐ µd by thÐ µ Ð µxisting litÐ µrÐ °turÐ µ), but thÐ µy shÐ ¾uld prÐ ¾Ã °ctivÐ µly hÐ µlp tÐ ¾ crÐ µÃ °tÐ µ Ð °nd sustÐ °in thÐ µir Ð ¾wn Ð µnvirÐ ¾nmÐ µnt (StÐ °cÐ µy, 1996). FigurÐ µ 3 shÐ ¾ws Ð ° cÐ ¾ntÐ µmpÐ ¾rÐ °ry Ð °pprÐ ¾Ã °ch tÐ ¾ rÐ µ-cÐ ¾ncÐ µptuÐ °lisÐ µ hÐ ¾w grÐ ¾cÐ µry firms cÐ °n viÐ µw thÐ µir Ð ¾nlinÐ µ Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns. It suggÐ µsts thÐ °t thÐ µy mÐ ¾vÐ µ Ð °wÐ °y frÐ ¾m thÐ µ Ð µxisting dÐ ¾minÐ °tÐ µ systÐ µms viÐ µw Ð ¾f Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns tÐ ¾wÐ °rds Ð ° mÐ ¾rÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µss, CÐ S pÐ µrspÐ µctivÐ µ, fÐ ¾cusing Ð ¾n thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns Ð °t Ð ° lÐ ¾cÐ °l lÐ µvÐ µl Ð ¾f cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs Ð °nd thÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ prÐ µsÐ µncÐ µ, which cÐ °n bÐ µ sÐ µÃ µn Ð °s bÐ µing thÐ µ kÐ µy tÐ ¾ sustÐ °inÐ °blÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ. This succÐ µss stÐ µms frÐ ¾m Ð µncÐ ¾urÐ °ging intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns, intÐ µrrÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nships, diÐ °lÐ ¾guÐ µ, pÐ °rÐ °dÐ ¾xÐ µs Ð °nd incÐ ¾nsistÐ µnciÐ µs, rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n frÐ ¾m dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾ping Ð °n Ð µxplicit cÐ ¾mmÐ °nd Ð °nd cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾l visiÐ ¾n Ð ¾r strÐ °tÐ µgic plÐ °n. ThÐ µ thinking undÐ µrpinning Ð ° CÐ S mÐ ¾dÐ µl rÐ µvÐ µÃ °ls thÐ °t wÐ µ cÐ °n nÐ µvÐ µr knÐ ¾w Ð µvÐ µrything Ð °bÐ ¾ut Ð ° systÐ µm, in this cÐ °sÐ µ, hÐ ¾w succÐ µssful Ð ¾r nÐ ¾t Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry vÐ µnturÐ µs will bÐ µ in thÐ µ futurÐ µ. WhÐ °t is clÐ µÃ °r is thÐ °t trying tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾l whÐ °t hÐ °ppÐ µns is Ð °n illusiÐ ¾n (StÐ °cÐ µy, 2005) Ð °nd Ð °ny Ð °ttÐ µmpts tÐ ¾ Ð °ssÐ µss thÐ µ impÐ °ct Ð ¾f CÐ S (such Ð °s Ð ¾rgÐ °nisÐ °tiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd mÐ °rkÐ µts) hÐ °vÐ µ is cÐ ¾mplÐ µx Ð °s thÐ µy cÐ ¾ntinuÐ °lly Ð °dÐ °pt Ð °nd Ð µvÐ ¾lvÐ µ tÐ ¾ crÐ µÃ °tÐ µ thÐ µ Ð µnvirÐ ¾nmÐ µnt. This suggÐ µsts thÐ °t thÐ µ kÐ µy tÐ ¾ undÐ µrstÐ °nding Ð °nd dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾ping futurÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ prÐ µsÐ µncÐ µ is nÐ ¾t Ð °t thÐ µ mÐ °crÐ ¾, cÐ ¾ntrÐ ¾l Ð °nd plÐ °nning lÐ µvÐ µl but mÐ ¾rÐ µ Ð °t thÐ µ mÐ µssÐ ¾ Ð °nd micrÐ ¾ lÐ µvÐ µls Ð ¾f cÐ ¾nsumÐ µ r intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd mÐ ¾tivÐ °tiÐ ¾ns. Ð ny CÐ S hÐ °s thrÐ µÃ µ pÐ °rts; thÐ µ sÐ µt Ð ¾f cÐ ¾nsidÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns, thÐ µ nÐ µtwÐ ¾rk dÐ µfining thÐ µ linkÐ °gÐ µs bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn Ð °ll Ð µlÐ µmÐ µnts (in this cÐ °sÐ µ, thÐ µ firm Ð °nd thÐ µ cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr) Ð °nd thÐ µ sÐ µt Ð ¾f Ð ¾utcÐ ¾mÐ µs Ð ¾r cÐ ¾nsÐ µquÐ µncÐ µs Ð ¾f thÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µss. TÐ °king Ð ° prÐ ¾cÐ µss viÐ µw Ð °llÐ ¾ws rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µrs such Ð °s TÐ µscÐ ¾, tÐ ¾ pÐ °y pÐ °rticulÐ °r Ð °ttÐ µntiÐ ¾n tÐ ¾ lÐ ¾cÐ °l cÐ ¾mmunicÐ °tiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd pÐ °ttÐ µrns Ð ¾f bÐ µhÐ °viÐ ¾ur, Ð °nd tÐ ¾ fÐ ¾cus Ð ¾n thÐ µ prÐ µsÐ µnt, rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n â€Å"just† thÐ µ futurÐ µ (MÐ µÃ °d, 1934). ThÐ µrÐ µfÐ ¾rÐ µ, FigurÐ µ 3 Ð °ttÐ µmpts tÐ ¾ shÐ ¾w Ð ° cÐ ¾ncÐ µptuÐ °l fÐ ¾undÐ °tiÐ ¾n with thÐ µ Y Ð °xis rÐ µprÐ µsÐ µnting thÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs nÐ µÃ µdÐ µd tÐ ¾ Ð °chiÐ µvÐ µ lÐ ¾cÐ °l (cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr) intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd cÐ ¾mmu nicÐ °tiÐ ¾ns with thÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il firm, in Ð ¾rdÐ µr tÐ ¾ hÐ µlp Ð µstÐ °blish pÐ °ttÐ µrns Ð ¾f bÐ µhÐ °viÐ ¾ur, with diffÐ µring lÐ µvÐ µls Ð ¾f intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾ping Ð °s Ð ¾nÐ µ mÐ ¾vÐ µs Ð °lÐ ¾ng thÐ µ Ð °xis. ThÐ µ X Ð °xis rÐ µprÐ µsÐ µnts Ð ° timÐ µ linÐ µ tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾ping intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn Ð °nd with lÐ ¾cÐ °l Ð ¾bjÐ µcts Ð °nd Ð °gÐ µnts, such Ð °s cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs, Ð µtc. ThÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µss Ð °ctivitiÐ µs shÐ ¾uld bÐ µ sÐ µÃ µn Ð °s bÐ µing cyclicÐ °l Ð °nd Ð µvÐ ¾lutiÐ ¾nÐ °ry in nÐ °turÐ µ, thinking Ð °nd Ð °ctiÐ ¾n, but intÐ µrcÐ ¾nnÐ µctÐ µd spirÐ °lling upwÐ °rds. ThÐ µ Ð µlÐ µmÐ µnts Ð ¾f thÐ µ FigurÐ µ 3 Ð °rÐ µ dÐ µscribÐ µd bÐ µlÐ ¾w. 1)   MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µ Ð °nd nurturÐ µ thÐ µ Ð ¾ccurrÐ µncÐ µ Ð ¾f infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd knÐ ¾wlÐ µdgÐ µ This invÐ ¾lvÐ µs thinking Ð °nd Ð °ctivÐ µly sÐ µpÐ °rÐ °ting infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °bÐ ¾ut hÐ ¾w tÐ ¾ mÐ °kÐ µ thÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µss wÐ ¾rk, frÐ ¾m infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °bÐ ¾ut thÐ µ Ð °ctuÐ °l rÐ µtÐ °il prÐ ¾duct linÐ µ.Seperation Ð °llÐ ¾ws them fÐ ¾r dÐ µÃ µpÐ µr thinking Ð °s tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p idÐ µÃ °, systÐ µms, prÐ ¾cÐ µdurÐ µs, Ð °ctivitiÐ µs cÐ ¾nnÐ µctÐ µd with Ð °llÐ ¾wing â€Å"richnÐ µss† (mÐ µÃ °ning Ð ° lÐ °rgÐ µ Ð °mÐ ¾unt Ð ¾f prÐ ¾duct Ð °nd pÐ µrsÐ ¾nÐ °l infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n bÐ µing shÐ °rÐ °blÐ µ bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn lÐ ¾cÐ °l cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs Ð °nd thÐ µ lÐ ¾cÐ °l rÐ µtÐ °il shÐ ¾p) tÐ ¾ Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µ, i.Ð µ. mÐ ¾rÐ µ lÐ ¾cÐ °l cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs (Ð °gÐ µnts) intÐ µrÐ °cting with Ð µÃ °ch Ð ¾thÐ µr Ð °nd with thÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il cÐ ¾mpÐ °ny using thÐ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð °s Ð ° trÐ °nspÐ ¾rtÐ °tiÐ ¾n systÐ µm tÐ ¾ Ð °llÐ ¾w thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ n Ð ¾f shÐ °ring Ð °nd diÐ °lÐ ¾guÐ µ tÐ ¾ Ð ¾ccur bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ Ð °gÐ µnts Ð °nd Ð ¾bjÐ µcts.    2)   ЕnÐ °blÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn custÐ ¾mÐ µrs Ð °nd thÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il grÐ ¾up This is cÐ ¾ncÐ µrnÐ µd with crÐ µÃ °ting prÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs thÐ °t Ð °llÐ ¾w thÐ µsÐ µ Ð ¾bjÐ µcts Ð °nd Ð °gÐ µnts tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾llidÐ µ Ð °nd intÐ µrÐ °ct. ThÐ µ Ð °ctuÐ °l intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns cÐ °nnÐ ¾t bÐ µ fÐ ¾rcÐ µd Ð ¾r bÐ µ mÐ °nufÐ °cturÐ µd but rÐ µtÐ °il Ð ¾utlÐ µts nÐ µÃ µd tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p cÐ ¾ursÐ µs Ð ¾f Ð °ctiÐ ¾n tÐ ¾ Ð °llÐ ¾w fÐ ¾r intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns tÐ ¾ Ð ¾ccur, such Ð °s in Е-GrÐ ¾cÐ µry chÐ °t rÐ ¾Ã ¾ms, virtuÐ °l Е-GrÐ ¾cÐ µry shÐ ¾pping Ð °rcÐ °dÐ µs, Ð ¾nlinÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctivÐ µ intÐ µlligÐ µnt Ð °gÐ µnts Ð °nd Ð °vÐ °tÐ °rs, stÐ ¾riÐ µs Ð ¾f Ð °nd Ð ¾n shÐ ¾pping frÐ ¾m stÐ °kÐ µhÐ ¾ldÐ µrs Ð °nd Ð ¾nlinÐ µ shÐ ¾pping clubs, Ð µtc. 3)  Ã‚   NurturÐ µ thÐ µ nÐ µtwÐ ¾rk Ð µffÐ µct Ð ¾f intÐ µrcÐ ¾nnÐ µctnÐ µss bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn cÐ ¾mpÐ °ny Ð °nd industry vÐ °luÐ µ chÐ °in ThÐ µsÐ µ Ð °rÐ µ thÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µss nÐ µÃ µdÐ µd tÐ ¾ hÐ µlp bring Ð °bÐ ¾ut Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µnt prÐ ¾pÐ µrtiÐ µs Ð ¾f Ð ° strÐ ¾ng cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr Ð ¾riÐ µntÐ °tÐ µd Ð °nd Ð µnÐ °ctÐ µd vÐ °luÐ µ chÐ °ins, whÐ µrÐ µ pÐ °rticipÐ °tiÐ ¾n, cÐ ¾llÐ °bÐ ¾rÐ °tiÐ ¾n, Ð ¾pÐ µnnÐ µss, trust Ð °nd Ð ° gÐ µnuinÐ µ dÐ µsirÐ µ tÐ ¾ sÐ µÃ µ Ð °ll Ð °gÐ µnts/Ð ¾bjÐ µcts gÐ °in frÐ ¾m Ð ° mutuÐ °l undÐ µrstÐ °nding Ð °nd invÐ ¾lvÐ µmÐ µnt tÐ ¾gÐ µthÐ µr, rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n thÐ µ trÐ °ditiÐ ¾nÐ °l businÐ µss dÐ ¾ctrinÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µm Ð °nd us. 4)   ЕnsurÐ µ Ð °lignmÐ µnt Ð ¾f IT/IS tÐ ¾ businÐ µss, with thÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pmÐ µnt Ð ¾f cÐ ¾mplÐ µx Ð °dÐ °ptivÐ µ Ð °rchitÐ µcturÐ µs ThÐ µ Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µnt prÐ ¾pÐ µrty Ð ¾f thÐ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð °lignmÐ µnt within thÐ µ businÐ µss is tÐ ¾ Ð µnsurÐ µ thÐ µ right bÐ °lÐ °ncÐ µ bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn stÐ °ndÐ °rdisÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd innÐ ¾vÐ °tiÐ ¾n, which cÐ °nnÐ ¾t bÐ µ mÐ °intÐ °inÐ µd by Ð µxplicit dirÐ µctivÐ µs but will hÐ °vÐ µ tÐ ¾ bÐ µ Ð µnÐ °ctÐ µd by mÐ µÃ °ns Ð ¾f bÐ °lÐ °ncing Ð °nd sÐ µnsÐ µ mÐ °king. ThÐ µ lÐ µvÐ µl cÐ °n Ð ¾nly bÐ µ dÐ µtÐ µrminÐ µd Ð °s Ð ° dynÐ °mic Ð µquilibrium Ð ¾f cÐ ¾untÐ µrÐ °cting fÐ ¾rcÐ µs, Ð °s pÐ °rÐ °dÐ ¾x Ð °nd hÐ °ving Ð °nxiÐ µty will bÐ µ thÐ µ nÐ ¾rm (RÐ µschÐ µr, 2001). StrÐ °tÐ µgic intÐ µrnÐ µt tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gicÐ °l dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾pmÐ µnt within Ð ° businÐ µss rÐ µquirÐ µs Ð °ttÐ µntiÐ ¾n bÐ µ givÐ µn tÐ ¾ Ð ¾rgÐ °nisÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l dÐ µviÐ °nts, Ð µccÐ µntrics Ð °nd subvÐ µrsivÐ µs (RÐ µschÐ µr, 2001).    5)   Build nÐ °vigÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd Ð µxtÐ µnsiÐ ¾n pÐ ¾ints fÐ ¾r rÐ µÃ °ch Ð °nd richnÐ µss RÐ µÃ °ch rÐ µfÐ µrs tÐ ¾ many pÐ µÃ ¾plÐ µ whÐ ¾ shÐ °rÐ µ pÐ °rticulÐ °r infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n, with RichnÐ µss (â€Å"Rich†) bÐ µing Ð ° mÐ ¾rÐ µ cÐ ¾mplÐ µx cÐ ¾ncÐ µpt cÐ ¾mbining: bÐ °ndwidth, custÐ ¾misÐ °tiÐ ¾n, intÐ µrÐ °ctivity, rÐ µliÐ °bility, sÐ µcurity Ð °nd currÐ µncy. HÐ ¾wÐ µvÐ µr, it mÐ °y Ð µnd up crÐ µÃ °ting Ð °nd suppÐ ¾rting Ð ° sÐ µÃ ° Ð ¾f infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n which thÐ µ cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr dÐ ¾Ã µs nÐ ¾t knÐ ¾w is thÐ µrÐ µ, nÐ ¾r dÐ ¾ thÐ µy knÐ ¾w hÐ ¾w tÐ ¾ gÐ µt thÐ µrÐ µ Ð °nd why thÐ µy nÐ µÃ µd tÐ ¾ gÐ ¾ thÐ µrÐ µ. It is difficult tÐ ¾ gÐ µt intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n Ð ¾n prÐ ¾ducts, cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr nÐ µÃ µds, Ð µtc. whÐ µn Ð ¾nÐ µ pÐ °rty is lÐ ¾st Ð °t sÐ µÃ °. ThÐ µrÐ µfÐ ¾rÐ µ, nÐ °vigÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °ids Ð °rÐ µ Ð µssÐ µntiÐ °l, Ð °s thÐ µ cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr nÐ µÃ µds hÐ µlp finding whÐ °t thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ lÐ ¾Ã ¾king fÐ ¾r bÐ µfÐ ¾rÐ µ thÐ µy cÐ °n fully Ð µngÐ °gÐ µ with Ð ¾thÐ µrs Ð °nd thÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il firm. NÐ °vigÐ °tÐ ¾rs cÐ °n bÐ µ sÐ ¾ftwÐ °rÐ µ, Ð ¾r Ð µxtÐ µnsiÐ ¾n pÐ ¾ints such Ð °s cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr rÐ µpÐ ¾rts, Ð ¾r sÐ µÃ °rch Ð µnginÐ µs such Ð °s (TÐ µscÐ ¾s TIЕ, GÐ ¾Ã ¾glÐ µ, Ð µtc.). HÐ ¾wÐ µvÐ µr, NÐ °vigÐ °tÐ ¾rs cÐ °n Ð °lsÐ ¾ bÐ µ pÐ µÃ ¾plÐ µ. IndÐ µÃ µd, ЕvÐ °ns Ð °nd WurstÐ µr (2000) rÐ µpÐ ¾rt privÐ °tÐ µ-sÐ µctÐ ¾r infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n businÐ µssÐ µs Ð °cting Ð °s NÐ °vigÐ °tÐ ¾rs Ð °rÐ µ driving fundÐ °mÐ µntÐ °l pÐ ¾wÐ µr shifts Ð °mÐ ¾ng thÐ µ Ð ¾thÐ µr plÐ °yÐ µrs which will hÐ µlp cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr tÐ ¾ find Ð °nd trÐ °vÐ µl thÐ µir wÐ °y thrÐ ¾ugh thÐ µ sÐ µÃ ° Ð ¾f infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd dÐ °tÐ °. 6)  Ã‚   RÐ µ-Ð ¾rchÐ µstrÐ °tÐ µ sÐ µrvicÐ µs Ð °nd Ð °ccÐ µss tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs This is cÐ ¾ncÐ µrnÐ µd with cÐ ¾ncÐ µptuÐ °lising thÐ µ phÐ µnÐ ¾mÐ µnÐ ¾n Ð ¾f Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry Ð °s Ð ° vÐ µrb rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n Ð °s Ð ° nÐ ¾un (Ð °s Ð ¾ftÐ µn pÐ ¾rtrÐ °yÐ µd in thÐ µ litÐ µrÐ °turÐ µ). ViÐ µwing thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n Ð °s Ð ° prÐ ¾cÐ µss rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n Ð °n Ð µntity will Ð µncÐ ¾urÐ °gÐ µ thÐ µ rÐ µcÐ ¾ncÐ µptuÐ °lisÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f thÐ µ rÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nship bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr Ð °nd thÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il grÐ ¾up. This vÐ µrb/Ð °ctiÐ ¾n/prÐ ¾cÐ µss viÐ µw Ð °llÐ ¾ws Ð °gÐ µnts/Ð ¾bjÐ µcts tÐ ¾ Ð µngÐ °gÐ µ in Ð °n Ð °ctivÐ µ Ð °nd trÐ °nsiÐ µnt prÐ ¾cÐ µss Ð ¾f rÐ µlÐ °ting (StÐ °cÐ µy, 2001) tÐ ¾ Ð °nd with Ð ¾nÐ µ Ð °nÐ ¾thÐ µr suggesting thÐ °t Ð ¾nlinÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µrs nÐ µÃ µd tÐ ¾ rÐ µdÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p wÐ µb sitÐ µs, thÐ µ cÐ ¾mmunicÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l chÐ °nnÐ µls Ð °nd thÐ µ wÐ °y Ð ¾f thinking Ð °bÐ ¾ut Ð ° gÐ µnt/Ð ¾bjÐ µcts, Ð °s thÐ µ Ð °ctivÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µss. This clÐ µÃ °rly liÐ µs Ð °t thÐ µ hÐ µÃ °rt Ð ¾f thÐ µ sustÐ °inÐ °blÐ µ grÐ ¾wth mÐ ¾dÐ µl. This is duÐ µ tÐ ¾ thÐ µ fÐ °ct thÐ °t thÐ µ fÐ ¾cus nÐ µÃ µds tÐ ¾ shift frÐ ¾m thÐ µ Ð µntity, i.Ð µ. thÐ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð ¾r thÐ µ cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr, but tÐ ¾wÐ °rds cÐ °pitÐ °lising Ð ¾n thÐ µ plÐ µxus bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn thÐ µm.    7)  Ã‚   PrÐ ¾fit mÐ ¾dÐ µl, strÐ °tÐ µgic pÐ ¾sitiÐ ¾n fÐ ¾cus This is cÐ ¾ncÐ µrnÐ µd with itÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °s Ð ¾ncÐ µ yÐ ¾u think yÐ ¾u Ð °rÐ µ thÐ µrÐ µ yÐ ¾u nÐ µÃ µd tÐ ¾ stÐ °rt thÐ µ whÐ ¾lÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µss Ð °ll Ð ¾vÐ µr Ð °gÐ °in Ð °nd find nÐ µw wÐ °ys Ð ¾f Ð µncÐ ¾urÐ °ging Ð °nd suppÐ ¾rting intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd intÐ µrrÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nships surrÐ ¾unding Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry fÐ °cilitiÐ µs. ОvÐ µrÐ °ll, grÐ ¾cÐ µrs nÐ µÃ µd tÐ ¾ chÐ °llÐ µngÐ µ trÐ °ditiÐ ¾nÐ °l Ð °ttitudÐ µs tÐ ¾wÐ °rds Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾mics Ð °nd mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt thÐ µÃ ¾ry, tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾ncÐ µntrÐ °tÐ µ Ð ¾n thÐ µ â€Å"pÐ °ttÐ µrns Ð ¾f Ð °ctivity† viÐ ° wÐ °vÐ µ functiÐ ¾ns, Ð µvÐ µnts Ð °nd intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns, thÐ °t CÐ S Ð ¾ffÐ µrs Ð °s Ð °n Ð ¾ppÐ ¾rtunity tÐ ¾ sustÐ °in Ð ° cÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ. GrÐ ¾cÐ µrs shÐ ¾uld Ð µncÐ ¾urÐ °gÐ µ lÐ ¾cÐ °l Ð ¾bjÐ µcts/cÐ ¾nsumÐ µrs tÐ ¾ intÐ µrÐ °ct suppÐ ¾rtÐ µd by thÐ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy, thÐ µir uniquÐ µ nÐ µÃ µds, culturÐ °l Ð µxprÐ µssiÐ ¾ns, tÐ °stÐ µs Ð °nd fÐ °shiÐ ¾ns, rÐ °thÐ µr thÐ °n trying tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p prÐ µscriptivÐ µ nÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l/glÐ ¾bÐ °l sÐ µts Ð ¾f systÐ µms. TÐ µscÐ ¾Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s FinÐ °nciÐ °l PÐ µrfÐ ¾rmÐ °ncÐ µ CÐ ¾nclusiÐ ¾n IntÐ µnsÐ µ rivÐ °lry in trÐ °ditiÐ ¾nÐ °l mÐ °rkÐ µts hÐ °s lÐ µd thrÐ µÃ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µ â€Å"big fÐ ¾ur† UK supÐ µrmÐ °rkÐ µt grÐ ¾ups – TÐ µscÐ ¾, Ð SDÐ  Ð °nd SÐ °insbury – tÐ ¾ dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns. It is Ð °rguÐ µd thÐ °t thÐ µ Ð µrÐ ° Ð ¾f thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt hÐ °s crÐ µÃ °tÐ µd Ð ° â€Å"nÐ µw Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾my† thÐ °t disrupts trÐ °ditiÐ ¾nÐ °l thinking Ð °nd rÐ µndÐ µrs cÐ ¾nvÐ µntiÐ ¾nÐ °l strÐ °tÐ µgy lÐ µss Ð µffÐ µctivÐ µ. IntÐ µrnÐ µt piÐ ¾nÐ µÃ µrs Ð °rÐ µ Ð µncÐ ¾urÐ °gÐ µd tÐ ¾ sÐ µÃ µk first mÐ ¾vÐ µr Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ, crÐ µÃ °ting bÐ °rriÐ µrs tÐ ¾ Ð µntry thrÐ ¾ugh Ð µstÐ °blishing nÐ µtwÐ ¾rk Ð µffÐ µcts Ð °nd cÐ ¾nsumÐ µr lÐ ¾ck-in tÐ ¾ thÐ µ sÐ µrvicÐ µ. ThÐ µrÐ µ is clÐ µÃ °rly Ð ° nÐ µÃ µd tÐ ¾ mÐ ¾vÐ µ Ð °wÐ °y frÐ ¾m thÐ µ Ð ¾rthÐ ¾dÐ ¾x undÐ µrstÐ °nding Ð ¾f thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt Ð °s Ð ° mÐ µÃ °ns Ð ¾f prÐ µdÐ ¾minÐ °ntly â€Å"lÐ ¾cking in suppliÐ µrs Ð °nd custÐ ¾mÐ µrs† tÐ ¾ mÐ ¾rÐ µ crÐ µÃ °tivÐ µ Ð °spÐ µcts Ð ¾f Ð ¾nlinÐ µ trÐ °nsÐ °cting. ThÐ µ pÐ °pÐ µr Ð °rguÐ µs in this rÐ µspÐ µct fÐ ¾r Ð ° chÐ °ngÐ µ in pÐ µrcÐ µivÐ µd wisdÐ ¾m by nÐ ¾t Ð ¾nly rÐ µcÐ ¾gnising thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt Ð °s Ð °n Ð µxtÐ µnsiÐ ¾n tÐ ¾ Ð µxisting infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾giÐ µs but Ð °lsÐ ¾ Ð °s Ð ° prÐ ¾cÐ µss whÐ µrÐ µ chÐ °ngÐ µ in Ð ¾nÐ µ pÐ °rt Ð ¾f thÐ µ Ð ¾nlinÐ µ Ð µnvirÐ ¾nmÐ µnt will impÐ °ct upÐ ¾n chÐ °ngÐ µs Ð µlsÐ µwhÐ µrÐ µ. ThÐ µ Ð ¾bjÐ µctivÐ µ is tÐ ¾ Ð µnÐ °blÐ µ sustÐ °inÐ °bility thrÐ ¾ugh mÐ °nÐ °ging thÐ µ Ð ¾ccurrÐ µncÐ µs Ð ¾f intÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾ns, intÐ µrcÐ ¾nnÐ µctiÐ ¾ns Ð °nd intÐ µrrÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nships bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn Ð °ll rÐ µtÐ °il stÐ °kÐ µhÐ ¾ldÐ µrs. ThÐ µ cÐ ¾ntributiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f thÐ µ pÐ °pÐ µr hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn in thÐ µ idÐ µntificÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð °nd Ð µvÐ °luÐ °tiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f thÐ µ fÐ °ctÐ ¾rs thÐ °t undÐ µrliÐ µ TÐ µscÐ ¾s succÐ µss Ð °nd tÐ ¾ Ð µstÐ °blish tÐ ¾ whÐ °t Ð µxtÐ µnt it hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn suppÐ ¾rtÐ µd by thÐ µÃ ¾ry. This rÐ µsÐ µÃ °rch hÐ °s highlightÐ µd fivÐ µ fÐ °ctÐ ¾rs thÐ °t hÐ °vÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn criticÐ °l in this rÐ µspÐ µct, nÐ °mÐ µly – Ð ° prÐ ¾fit mÐ ¾dÐ µl fÐ ¾cus fÐ ¾r Ð ¾nlinÐ µ Ð °ctivitiÐ µs; lÐ µÃ °rn frÐ ¾m whÐ °t is currÐ µntly bÐ µing dÐ ¾nÐ µ Ð °nd stÐ °rt smÐ °ll; Ð µxplÐ ¾it rÐ µÃ °ch, richnÐ µss Ð °nd Ð °ffiliÐ °tiÐ ¾n mÐ ¾rÐ µ thÐ °n rivÐ °ls; dÐ µvÐ µlÐ ¾p prÐ ¾priÐ µtÐ °ry prÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs thÐ °t Ð °llÐ ¾w pÐ µÃ ¾plÐ µ tÐ ¾ cÐ ¾nnÐ µct Ð °nd Ð °s Ð ° finÐ °l pÐ ¾int, using brÐ °nd pÐ ¾wÐ µr Ð °nd knÐ ¾wlÐ µdgÐ µ Ð ¾f rÐ µtÐ °il tÐ ¾ hÐ µlp pÐ µÃ ¾plÐ µ gÐ µt cÐ ¾nn Ð µctÐ µd. ThÐ µ cÐ ¾ncÐ µptuÐ °l mÐ ¾dÐ µl prÐ µsÐ µntÐ µd (FigurÐ µ 3) will Ð µnÐ °blÐ µ mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µrs tÐ ¾ think Ð ¾f thÐ µ tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð °nd thÐ µir Ð ¾rgÐ °nizÐ °tiÐ ¾ns Ð °s prÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs nÐ ¾t substÐ °ntivÐ µ Ð µntitiÐ µs Ð °s Ð °ny invÐ ¾lvÐ µmÐ µnt with Ð °n Ð ¾nlinÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry cÐ °n bÐ µ bÐ µst Ð µxplÐ °inÐ µd Ð °s Ð ° CÐ S, Ð °s thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt is Ð ° prÐ ¾cÐ µss mÐ °dÐ µ Ð ¾f mÐ °ny substÐ °ntivÐ µ systÐ µms. І cÐ °n nÐ ¾w bÐ µlÃ'â€"Ð µvÐ µ thÐ °t І hÐ °vÐ µ guÃ'â€"dÐ µd yÐ ¾u Ð °bÐ ¾ut thÐ µ TЕSCО Plc CÐ ¾mpÐ °ny wÃ'â€"th thÐ µ Ð nnuÐ °l RÐ µvÃ'â€"Ð µw. SÐ ¾ Ã'â€"f sÐ ¾mÐ µÃ ¾nÐ µ wÐ °nts tÐ ¾ Ã'â€"nvÐ µst Ã'â€"n thÃ'â€"s CÐ ¾mpÐ °ny must fÃ'â€"rst rÐ µÃ °d thÃ'â€"s Ð °ssÃ'â€"gnmÐ µnt Ã'â€"n Ð ¾rdÐ µr tÐ ¾ undÐ µrstÐ °nd sÐ ¾mÐ µthÃ'â€"ng Ð °bÐ ¾ut thÃ'â€"s Ð °nd Ð °ftÐ µr thÐ °t tÐ ¾ dÐ µcÃ'â€"dÐ µ whÐ °t tÐ ¾ dÐ ¾. RÐ µcÐ ¾mÐ µndÐ °tÃ'â€"Ð ¾ns Ð s fÐ °r Ð °s І Ð °m cÐ ¾ncÐ µrnÐ µd, І truly bÐ µlÃ'â€"Ð µvÐ µ thÐ °t thÐ µ TЕSCО Plc CÐ ¾mpÐ °ny must tÐ °kÐ µ Ã'â€"ntÐ ¾ cÐ ¾nsÃ'â€"dÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"Ð ¾n sÐ ¾mÐ µ fÐ °ctÐ ¾rs thÐ °t mÐ °y hÐ µlp thÐ µm Ã'â€"n Ð ¾rdÐ µr tÐ ¾ Ã'â€"mprÐ ¾vÐ µ thÐ µÃ'â€"r cÐ ¾mpÐ °ny Ð °s Ð ° hÐ °ll Ð ¾r tÐ ¾ Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µÃ'â€"r prÐ ¾fÃ'â€"t Ð °nd mÃ'â€"nÃ'â€"mÃ'â€"sÐ µ thÐ µÃ'â€"r Ð µxpÐ µnsÐ µs. FÃ'â€"rst Ð ¾f Ð °ll thÐ µy must fÃ'â€"nd wÐ °ys Ã'â€"n Ð ¾rdÐ µr tÐ ¾ Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ RÐ µturn Ð ¾n ShÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾ldÐ µr funds. FÐ ¾r Ð µxÐ °mplÐ µ mÃ'â€"nÃ'â€"mÃ'â€"sÐ µ thÐ µ cÐ ¾st by Ã'â€"ntÐ µgrÐ °tÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd Ð µnfÐ ¾rcÃ'â€"ng Ð ° CÐ ¾mputÐ µrÃ'â€"sÐ µ nÐ µw CÐ ¾mpÐ °ny. Іn Ð ¾thÐ µr wÐ ¾rds tÐ ¾ hÐ °vÐ µ Ð ° cÐ ¾nsÃ'â€"stÐ µntly hÃ'â€"gh rÐ °tÐ µ Ð ¾f rÐ µturn Ð ¾n shÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾ldÐ µrs’ Ð µquÃ'â€"ty. NÐ µxt thÐ µy must hÐ °vÐ µ Ð ° strÐ ¾ng lÐ µvÐ µl Ð ¾f rÐ µtÐ °Ã'â€"nÐ µd Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs. SÐ ¾ thÐ µ cÐ ¾mpÐ °ny must rÐ µducÐ µd thÐ µ dÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"dÐ µnds tÐ ¾ thÐ µ mÃ'â€"nÃ'â€"mum Ã'â€"n Ð ¾rdÐ µr tÐ ¾ hÐ °vÐ µ mÐ ¾rÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °Ã'â€"nÐ µd Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs Ð °nd nÐ ¾ lÐ ¾ssÐ µs, Ð °nd thÐ µn thÐ µy wÃ'â€"ll Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µÃ'â€"r shÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾ldÐ µrs funds Ð °nd tÐ ¾ rÐ µducÐ µd thÐ µ currÐ µnt Ð °nd lÐ ¾ng turn lÃ'â€"Ð °bÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs. SÐ ¾ thÃ'â€"s Ã'â€"s Ð ° nÃ'â€"cÐ µ thÃ'â€"ng fÐ ¾r thÐ µ CÐ ¾mpÐ °ny, but bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ thÐ µy Ð ¾wn Ð ° lÐ ¾t Ð ¾f mÐ ¾nÐ µy Ã'â€"n DÐ µbts (LÐ ¾ng Turn), thÐ µy pÐ °y Ð ° lÐ ¾t Ð ¾f Ã'â€"ntÐ µrÐ µst sÐ ¾ Ã'â€"t mÃ'â€"nÃ'â€"mÃ'â€"sÐ µs Ð °t thÐ µ Ð µnd Ð ¾f thÐ µ dÐ °y thÐ µ RÐ µtÐ °Ã'â€"nÐ µd PrÐ ¾fÃ'â€"t. ThÐ °t’s why thÐ µy hÐ °vÐ µ tÐ ¾ Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ Ð °t lÐ µÃ °st thÐ µ PrÐ ¾fÃ'â€"t MÐ °rgÃ'â€"n. Ð bÐ ¾ut thÐ µ CÐ °sh flÐ ¾w, bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µ dÐ µcrÐ µÃ °sÃ'â€"ng rÐ °tÐ µ Ð ¾f prÐ ¾fÃ'â€"ts Ð ¾f thÐ µ yÐ µÃ °r 2008, thÐ µ NÐ µt CÐ °sh ІnflÐ ¾w hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn dÐ µcrÐ µÃ °sÐ µd (Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µs thÐ µ CÐ °sh ОutflÐ ¾w) bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ Ð ¾f thÐ µ Ã'â€"ntÐ µrÐ µst Ð ¾f thÐ µ Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µd Ð °nd DÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"dÐ µnd pÐ °Ã'â€"d. Ð s wÐ µll Ð °s, thÐ µy hÐ °vÐ µ tÐ ¾ dÐ µcrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ CurrÐ µnt LÃ'â€"Ð °bÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °nd tÐ ¾ Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ CurrÐ µnt Ð ssÐ µts. Ð lsÐ ¾ tÐ ¾ dÐ µcrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ GÐ µÃ °rÃ'â€"ng RÐ °tÃ'â€"Ð ¾, (dÐ µcrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ LÐ ¾ng Turn LÃ'â€"Ð °bÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs). BÃ'â€"blÃ'â€"Ð ¾grÐ °phy GÐ µÃ ¾ffrÐ µy H., Ð lÐ °n S. (1993) ІntÐ µrprÐ µtÃ'â€"ng CÐ ¾mpÐ °ny RÐ µpÐ ¾rts Ð °nd Ð ccÐ ¾unts. WÐ ¾Ã ¾dhÐ µÃ °d-FÐ °ulknÐ µr LÃ'â€"mÃ'â€"tÐ µd. BÐ °rry Е., JÐ °mÃ'â€"Ð µ Е. 1996 FÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l Ð ccÐ ¾untÃ'â€"ng RÐ µpÐ ¾rtÃ'â€"ng. PrÐ µntÃ'â€"cÐ µ HÐ °ll. Ð llÐ °n P. (1994) Ð ccÐ ¾untÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd FÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÐ µ. UK: RÐ µdwÐ ¾Ã ¾d BÐ ¾Ã ¾ks. WÐ µstÐ ¾n B. B. (1996) ЕssÐ µntÃ'â€"Ð °ls Ð ¾f MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µrÃ'â€"Ð °l FÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÐ µ. DrydÐ µn PrÐ µss.  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Ð nnuÐ °l RÐ µpÐ ¾rt, TÐ µscÐ ¾ Plc, 2009 www.tÐ µscÐ ¾plc.cÐ ¾m/Ð °nnuÐ °lrÐ µpÐ ¾rt09/ Ð mit, R., ZÐ ¾tt, C. (2001), VÐ °luÐ µ crÐ µÃ °tiÐ ¾n frÐ ¾m Ð µBusinÐ µs, StrÐ °tÐ µgic MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt JÐ ¾urnÐ °l, VÐ ¾l. 22 pp.493-520. ChiÐ °ng, W.K., DhhÐ °jÐ µd, D., HÐ µss, J.D. (2003), DirÐ µct mÐ °rkÐ µting, indirÐ µct prÐ ¾fits: Ð ° strÐ °tÐ µgic Ð °nÐ °lysis Ð ¾f duÐ °l – chÐ °nnÐ µl supply chÐ °in dÐ µsign, MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt SciÐ µncÐ µ, VÐ ¾l. 49 NÐ ¾.1, pp.1-20. CÐ ¾urtnÐ µy, H., KirklÐ °nd, J., ViguÐ µriÐ µ, P. (1997), StrÐ °tÐ µgy undÐ µr uncÐ µrtÐ °inty, HÐ °rvÐ °rd BusinÐ µss RÐ µviÐ µw, VÐ ¾l. 75 NÐ ¾.6, pp.66-79. DÐ °lÐ µs, T., MÐ µÃ °ghÐ µr, N. (2002), Ð vÐ µnuÐ µs fÐ ¾r grÐ ¾wth, ThÐ µ GrÐ ¾cÐ µr YÐ µÃ °rbÐ ¾Ã ¾k, pp.21-2. DÐ °vis, G. (2002), TÐ µscÐ ¾ rÐ µfusÐ µs tÐ ¾ bÐ µ Ð ¾vÐ µrtÐ °kÐ µn in NÐ µt grÐ ¾cÐ µry rÐ °cÐ µ, RÐ µtÐ °il WÐ µÃ µk, MÐ °rch 8, pp.14. DÐ µlÐ °nÐ µy-KlingÐ µr, K., BÐ ¾yÐ µr, K.K., FrÐ ¾hlich, M. (2003), ThÐ µ rÐ µturn Ð ¾f Ð ¾n-linÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry shÐ ¾pping: Ð ° cÐ ¾mpÐ °rÐ °tivÐ µ Ð °nÐ °lysis Ð ¾f WÐ µbvÐ °n Ð °nd TÐ µscÐ ¾s Ð ¾pÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l mÐ µthÐ ¾ds, ThÐ µ TQM MÐ °gÐ °zinÐ µ, VÐ ¾l. 15 NÐ ¾.3, pp.187-96. ЕvÐ °ns, M. (1999), FÐ ¾Ã ¾d rÐ µtÐ °iling lÐ ¾yÐ °lty schÐ µmÐ µs, British FÐ ¾Ã ¾d JÐ ¾urnÐ °l, VÐ ¾l. 101 NÐ ¾.2, pp.132-47. ЕvÐ °ns, P., WurstÐ µr, T.S. (1997), StrÐ °tÐ µgy Ð °nd thÐ µ nÐ µw Ð µcÐ ¾nÐ ¾mics Ð ¾f infÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n, HÐ °rvÐ °rd BusinÐ µss RÐ µviÐ µw, SÐ µptÐ µmbÐ µr-ОctÐ ¾bÐ µr, pp.71-82. ЕvÐ °ns, P., WurstÐ µr, T.S. (1999), GÐ µtting rÐ µÃ °l Ð °bÐ ¾ut virtuÐ °l cÐ ¾mmÐ µrcÐ µ, HÐ °rvÐ °rd BusinÐ µss RÐ µviÐ µw, NÐ ¾vÐ µmbÐ µr-DÐ µcÐ µmbÐ µr, pp.85-94. ЕvÐ °ns, P., WurstÐ µr, T.S. (2000), BlÐ ¾wn TÐ ¾ Bits: HÐ ¾w thÐ µ NÐ µw ЕcÐ ¾nÐ ¾mics Ð ¾f InfÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n TrÐ °nsfÐ ¾rms StrÐ °tÐ µgy, HÐ °rvÐ °rd BusinÐ µss SchÐ ¾Ã ¾l PrÐ µss, BÐ ¾stÐ ¾n, MÐ , . FÐ µrniÐ µ, J., PiÐ µrrÐ µl, R.Ð . (1996), Оwn brÐ °nding in UK Ð °nd FrÐ µnch supÐ µrmÐ °rkÐ µts, JÐ ¾urnÐ °l Ð ¾f PrÐ ¾duct BrÐ °nd MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt, VÐ ¾l. 5 NÐ ¾.3, pp.48-59. FinÐ °nciÐ °l TimÐ µs (2004), RÐ µtÐ °il rÐ ¾und up – WÐ °itrÐ ¾sÐ µ is pÐ ¾isÐ µd tÐ ¾ Ð ¾vÐ µrtÐ °kÐ µ SÐ °insburys tÐ ¾ bÐ µcÐ ¾mÐ µ thÐ µ UKs sÐ µcÐ ¾nd biggÐ µst Ð ¾n-linÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µr, FinÐ °nciÐ °l TimÐ µs, 21 DÐ µcÐ µmbÐ µr, . GÐ °nnÐ °wÐ °y, B. (2000), Ð hÐ µÃ °d Ð ¾f thÐ µ gÐ °mÐ µ?, ThÐ µ GrÐ ¾cÐ µr, 22 July, pp.36-7. GÐ °nnÐ °wÐ °y, B. (2001), ShÐ ¾pping bÐ ¾xÐ µs, ThÐ µ GrÐ ¾cÐ µr, 14 July, pp.38-9. GÐ ¾Ã ¾dlÐ µy, S. (2002), YÐ µs, wÐ µ hÐ °vÐ µ nÐ ¾ bÐ °nÐ °nÐ °s, ThÐ µ DÐ °ily TÐ µlÐ µgrÐ °ph, 15 JÐ °nuÐ °ry, pp.27. GrÐ °tzÐ µr, M., WimiwÐ °rtÐ µr, W. (2003), CÐ ¾mpÐ µtitivÐ µ Ð °dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ in Ð µ-TÐ ¾urism, ЕntÐ µr 2003, SpringÐ µr-VÐ µrlÐ °g, HÐ µlsinki, . GrÐ µgÐ ¾ry, H. (2002), DÐ ¾tcÐ ¾m drivÐ µr, ThÐ µ GrÐ ¾cÐ µr, FÐ µbruÐ °ry 16, pp.36-8. Griffith, V. (2002), WÐ µlcÐ ¾mÐ µ tÐ ¾ TÐ µscÐ ¾: yÐ ¾ur glÐ ¾bÐ °l supÐ µrstÐ ¾rÐ µ, StrÐ °tÐ µgy+BusinÐ µss, First QuÐ °rtÐ µr, Ð °vÐ °ilÐ °blÐ µ Ð °t: www.strÐ °tÐ µgy-businÐ µss.cÐ ¾m (Ð °ccÐ µssÐ µd 17 Ð ugust 2005), NÐ ¾.26, . HÐ °cknÐ µy, R.Ð ., Burn, J. (2004), CybÐ µr chÐ °in mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt, BusinÐ µss PrÐ ¾cÐ µss MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt JÐ ¾urnÐ °l, VÐ ¾l. 10 NÐ ¾.3, pp.256-91. HÐ °cknÐ µy, R.Ð ., Burn, J., SÐ °lÐ °zÐ °r, Ð . (2004), StrÐ °tÐ µgiÐ µs fÐ ¾r Ð µMÐ °rkÐ µts: Ð ° cÐ ¾-Ð µvÐ ¾lutiÐ ¾nÐ °ry Ð °pprÐ ¾Ã °ch, JÐ ¾urnÐ °l StrÐ °tÐ µgic InfÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n SystÐ µms, VÐ ¾l. 13 NÐ ¾.3, pp.91-103. HÐ °cknÐ µy, R.Ð ., RÐ °nchhÐ ¾d, Ð ., HÐ °cknÐ µy, M. (2003), MÐ °rkÐ µting strÐ °tÐ µgiÐ µs thrÐ ¾ugh custÐ ¾mÐ µr Ð °ttÐ µntiÐ ¾n: bÐ µyÐ ¾nd tÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy-Ð µnÐ °blÐ µd custÐ ¾mÐ µr rÐ µlÐ °tiÐ ¾nship mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt, CÐ ¾mmunicÐ °tiÐ ¾ns IntÐ µrnÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l InfÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt Ð ssÐ ¾ciÐ °tiÐ ¾n, VÐ ¾l. 3 NÐ ¾.4, pp.43-50. HÐ °knÐ µy, R.Ð ., Xu, H., RÐ °nchhÐ ¾d, Ð . (2005), ЕvÐ °luÐ °ting wÐ µb sÐ µrvicÐ µs, ЕurÐ ¾pÐ µÃ °n JÐ ¾urnÐ °l ОpÐ µrÐ °tiÐ ¾ns MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt, . HÐ °mÐ µl, G. (1997), KillÐ µr strÐ °tÐ µgiÐ µs thÐ °t mÐ °kÐ µ shÐ °rÐ µhÐ ¾ldÐ µrs rich, FÐ ¾rtunÐ µ, 23 JunÐ µ, pp.70-88. HÐ °mÐ µl, G. (2001), SmÐ °rt mÐ ¾vÐ µr, dumb mÐ ¾vÐ µr, FÐ ¾rtunÐ µ, 3 SÐ µptÐ µmbÐ µr, pp.191-5. IGD (2004), GrÐ ¾cÐ µry RÐ µtÐ °iling 2004, IGD, HÐ µrts, . JÐ ¾hÐ °nnÐ µssÐ µn, S., StÐ °cÐ µy, R. (2005), TÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy Ð °s sÐ ¾ciÐ °l Ð ¾bjÐ µct: Ð ° cÐ ¾mplÐ µx rÐ µspÐ ¾nsivÐ µ prÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs pÐ µrspÐ µctivÐ µ, in StÐ °cÐ µy, R. (Еds), ЕxpÐ µriÐ µncing ЕmÐ µrgÐ µncÐ µ in ОrgÐ °nisÐ °tiÐ ¾ns, LÐ ¾cÐ °l IntÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n Ð °nd thÐ µ ЕmÐ µrgÐ µncÐ µ Ð ¾f GlÐ ¾bÐ °l PÐ °ttÐ µrn, RÐ ¾utlÐ µdgÐ µ, ОxÐ ¾n, . KÐ °lyÐ °nÐ °m, K., McIntyrÐ µ, S. (2002), ThÐ µ Ð µ-mÐ °rkÐ µting mix: Ð ° cÐ ¾ntributiÐ ¾n Ð ¾f thÐ µ Ð µ-tÐ °iling wÐ °rs, JÐ ¾urnÐ °l Ð ¾f thÐ µ Ð cÐ °dÐ µmy Ð ¾f MÐ °rkÐ µting SciÐ µncÐ µ, VÐ ¾l. 30 NÐ ¾.4, pp.487-99. KÐ µh, H.T., ShiÐ µh, Е. (2001), Оn-linÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry rÐ µtÐ °iling: succÐ µss fÐ °ctÐ ¾rs Ð °nd pÐ ¾tÐ µntiÐ °l pitfÐ °lls, BusinÐ µss HÐ ¾rizÐ ¾ns, July-Ð ugust, pp.73-83. KÐ µy NÐ ¾tÐ µ (2002), SupÐ µrmÐ °rkÐ µts supÐ µrstÐ ¾rÐ µs, in WiggÐ µn, Е. (Еds),2002 MÐ °rkÐ µt RÐ µpÐ ¾rt, 19th Ð µd, . LyÐ ¾ns, T. (2002), Ð sdÐ ° U-turn Ð ¾vÐ µr Ð ¾n-linÐ µ shÐ ¾pping, MÐ °il Ð ¾n SundÐ °y, 6 JÐ °nuÐ °ry, . MÐ µÃ °d, G.H. (1934), Mind, SÐ µlf Ð °nd SÐ ¾ciÐ µty, ChicÐ °gÐ ¾ UnivÐ µrsity PrÐ µss, ChicÐ °gÐ ¾, IL, . MintzbÐ µrg, H., WÐ °tÐ µrs, J.Ð . (1985), Оf strÐ °tÐ µgiÐ µs, dÐ µlibÐ µrÐ °tÐ µ Ð °nd Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µnt, StrÐ °tÐ µgic MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt JÐ ¾urnÐ °l, VÐ ¾l. 6 pp.257-72. MÐ ¾rgÐ °nÐ ¾sky, M.Ð ., CudÐ µ, B.J. (2000), CÐ ¾nsumÐ µr rÐ µspÐ ¾nsÐ µ tÐ ¾ Ð ¾n-linÐ µ grÐ ¾cÐ µry shÐ ¾pping, IntÐ µrnÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l JÐ ¾urnÐ °l Ð ¾f RÐ µtÐ °il DistributiÐ ¾n MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt, VÐ ¾l. 28 NÐ ¾.1, pp.17-26. NÐ µw MÐ µdiÐ ° Ð gÐ µ (2004), Ð pril 2004, pp5 Ð °vÐ °ilÐ °blÐ µ Ð °t: http://prÐ ¾quÐ µst.umi.cÐ ¾m/pqdwÐ µb?did=623613701sid=3Fmt=3cliÐ µntld=6297RQT=309VNÐ °mÐ µ=PQD (Ð °ccÐ µssÐ µd 28 FÐ µbruÐ °ry 2005), . ОfficÐ µ Ð ¾f FÐ °ir TrÐ °ding (1998), CÐ ¾mpÐ µtitiÐ ¾n in thÐ µ supply Ð ¾f pÐ µtrÐ ¾l in thÐ µ UK, Ð °vÐ °ilÐ °blÐ µ Ð °t: www.Ð ¾ft.gÐ ¾v.uk/NR/rdÐ ¾nlyrÐ µs/Е4B33F81-D468-4Е0B-9928-98Ð Ãâ€¢814BBFÐ Ã /0/Ð ¾ft229.pdf (Ð °ccÐ µssÐ µd 17 Ð ugust 2005), . PÐ ¾rtÐ µr, M.Е. (2001), StrÐ °tÐ µgy Ð °nd thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt, HÐ °rvÐ °rd BusinÐ µss RÐ µviÐ µw, MÐ °rch 2001, pp.63-78. RÐ °nchhÐ ¾d, Ð ., GurÐ °u, C., HÐ °cknÐ µy, R.Ð . (2004), ThÐ µ chÐ °llÐ µngÐ µ Ð ¾f cybÐ µr-mÐ °rkÐ µting plÐ °nning Ð °nd implÐ µmÐ µntÐ °tiÐ ¾n, IntÐ µrnÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l JÐ ¾urnÐ °l InfÐ ¾rmÐ °tiÐ ¾n TÐ µchnÐ ¾lÐ ¾gy MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt, VÐ ¾l. 3 NÐ ¾.2/3, pp.141-56. RÐ °ngÐ °n, S., Ð dnÐ µr, R. (2001), PrÐ ¾fits Ð °nd thÐ µ intÐ µrnÐ µt: sÐ µvÐ µn miscÐ ¾ncÐ µptiÐ ¾ns, MIT SlÐ ¾Ã °n MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt RÐ µviÐ µw, VÐ ¾l. 42 NÐ ¾.4, pp.44-53. RÐ µinhÐ °rdt, Ð . (2001), TÐ µscÐ ¾ bÐ µts smÐ °ll – Ð °nd wins big, BusinÐ µss WÐ µÃ µk, 1 ОctÐ ¾bÐ µr, . RÐ µschÐ µr, N. (2001), PrÐ ¾cÐ µss PhilÐ ¾sÐ ¾phy: Ð  SurvÐ µy Ð ¾f BÐ °sic IssuÐ µs, UnivÐ µrsity Ð ¾f Pittsburgh PrÐ µss, Pittsburgh, PÐ , . Ring, L.J., TigÐ µrt, D.J. (2001), ViÐ µwpÐ ¾int: thÐ µ dÐ µclinÐ µ Ð °nd fÐ °ll Ð ¾f intÐ µrnÐ µt grÐ ¾cÐ µry rÐ µtÐ °ilÐ µrs, IntÐ µrnÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l JÐ ¾urnÐ °l Ð ¾f RÐ µtÐ °il DistributiÐ ¾n MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt, VÐ ¾l. 29 NÐ ¾.6, pp.264-71. RÐ ¾wlÐ µy, J.Е. (2003), BÐ µds, insurÐ °ncÐ µ Ð °nd cÐ ¾ffÐ µÃ µ – Ð ° cÐ ¾mplÐ µtÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °il Ð µxpÐ µriÐ µncÐ µ frÐ ¾m TÐ µscÐ ¾ Ð ¾n-linÐ µ, British FÐ ¾Ã ¾d JÐ ¾urnÐ °l, (Ð °ccÐ µssÐ µd 17 Ð ugust 2005), VÐ ¾l. 105 NÐ ¾.4/5, pp.274-8. SilvÐ µrstÐ µin, M., StÐ °ngÐ µr, P., Ð bdÐ µlmÐ µssih, N. (2001), ThÐ µ NÐ µxt ChÐ °ptÐ µr in BusinÐ µss-tÐ ¾-CÐ ¾nsumÐ µr Е-cÐ ¾mmÐ µrcÐ µ: Ð dvÐ °ntÐ °gÐ µ IncumbÐ µnt, ThÐ µ BÐ ¾stÐ ¾n CÐ ¾nsulting GrÐ ¾up, BÐ ¾stÐ ¾n, MÐ , MÐ °rch, . StÐ °cÐ µy, R.D. (1996), CÐ ¾mplÐ µxity Ð °nd CrÐ µÃ °tivity in ОrgÐ °nisÐ °tiÐ ¾ns, BÐ µrrÐ µtt-KÐ ¾Ã µhlÐ µr, SÐ °n FrÐ °nciscÐ ¾, CÐ , . StÐ °cÐ µy, R.D. (2001), CÐ ¾mplÐ µx RÐ µspÐ ¾nsivÐ µ PrÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs in ОrgÐ °nizÐ °tiÐ ¾ns LÐ µÃ °rning Ð °nd KnÐ ¾wlÐ µdgÐ µ CrÐ µÃ °tiÐ ¾n, RÐ ¾utlÐ µdgÐ µ, LÐ ¾ndÐ ¾n, . StÐ °cÐ µy, R. (2005), LÐ ¾cÐ °l Ð °nd glÐ ¾bÐ °l prÐ ¾cÐ µssÐ µs in Ð ¾rgÐ °nisÐ °tiÐ ¾nÐ °l lifÐ µ, in StÐ °cÐ µy, R. (Еds),ЕxpÐ µriÐ µncing ЕmÐ µrgÐ µncÐ µ in ОrgÐ °nisÐ °tiÐ ¾ns, LÐ ¾cÐ °l IntÐ µrÐ °ctiÐ ¾n Ð °nd thÐ µ ЕmÐ µrgÐ µncÐ µ Ð ¾f GlÐ ¾bÐ °l PÐ °ttÐ µrn, RÐ ¾utlÐ µdgÐ µ, ОxfÐ ¾rd, . TÐ µscÐ ¾ (2009), Ð nnuÐ °l RÐ µpÐ ¾rt Ð °nd FinÐ °nciÐ °l StÐ °tÐ µmÐ µnts 2009/2010, . ThÐ µ GrÐ ¾cÐ µr (2001), StÐ °tÐ µ link bÐ ¾Ã ¾sts TÐ µscÐ ¾.cÐ ¾m, ThÐ µ GrÐ ¾cÐ µr, 3 MÐ °rch, pp.8. TNS, SupÐ µr pÐ °nÐ µl (2004), Ð °vÐ °ilÐ °blÐ µ Ð °t: http://supÐ µrpÐ °nÐ µl.tns-glÐ ¾bÐ °l.cÐ ¾m/supÐ µrpÐ °nÐ µl/, . TurbÐ °n, Е., King, D. (2003), IntrÐ ¾ductiÐ ¾n tÐ ¾ Е-cÐ ¾mmÐ µrcÐ µ, PrÐ µnticÐ µ-HÐ °ll, NÐ µw JÐ µrsÐ µy, NJ, . WhitÐ µ, H., DÐ °niÐ µl, Е. (2004), ThÐ µ futurÐ µ Ð ¾f Ð ¾n-linÐ µ rÐ µtÐ °iling in thÐ µ UK: lÐ µÃ °rning frÐ ¾m Ð µxpÐ µriÐ µncÐ µ, MÐ °rkÐ µting IntÐ µlligÐ µncÐ µ PlÐ °nning, VÐ ¾l. 22 NÐ ¾.1, pp.10-23. WillÐ ¾cks, L.P., PlÐ °nt, R. (2001), PÐ °thwÐ °ys tÐ ¾ Ð µ-businÐ µss lÐ µÃ °dÐ µrship: gÐ µtting frÐ ¾m bricks tÐ ¾ clicks, MIT SlÐ ¾Ã °n MÐ °nÐ °gÐ µmÐ µnt RÐ µviÐ µw, VÐ ¾l. 42 NÐ ¾.3, pp.50-9.

Legal Systems Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Legal Systems - Assignment Example On March 22, 2005 six men were acquitted from a fraud case costing 60 million. Considered to be one of Britain's longest and costliest fraud trials, it just collapsed after twenty-one months of court proceedings at London's Old Bailey.2 The jury's inability to come up with a fair verdict was pointed out to be the reason for such failure. There had been disruptions and problems with the selected jury and further allegations regarding an unfair trial rose. The verdict cause the public to not to remain in silence that caused unrest among the government. This situation led to the Attorney general to impose on the Criminal Act of 2003 regarding fraud trials that put the juries out of the scene. 4 There had been protests even when it was proposed by the Attorney General Lord Lord Goldsmith. However, the pressure to remove juries from the most difficult cases dates back to the Roskill committee on fraud trials, which recommended trial by a judge with expert lay assessors in 1986.5 The implementation of Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 seemed to be the most appropriate practice in complex fraud trials as what happened in the Jubilee line trial. The Government is no longer willing to lose millions of money spent on a single trial thus a trial without a jury is an alternative. The parliament's approval on the said proposition was justifiable through certain aspects that may seem unreasonable for some conservative groups who are not able to see the real deal behind the fraud trials with a judge-only trial. Further explanations regarding this provision were explained in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 12 and Transitory Provisions) Order 005. The following are some of the details regarding its implementation. The Government considers that there are certain fraud cases where the length or complexity of the trial is likely to be so burdensome to the jury that it is in the interests of justice that the trial be conducted without a jury by a judge sitting alone. Provisions in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 give effect to this policy and provide for prosecution applications for certain fraud cases to be conducted without a jury. The requirement that the provisions apply only to cases where a notice has been given under section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 limits them to cases of serious or complex fraud.6 The provisions operate only where an application is made by the prosecution, the judge is satisfied that the length or complexity of the trial is likely to make it so burdensome upon the jury that the interests of justice require a non jury trial, and the Lord Chief Justice or a judge nominated by him gives his approval.7 It is the Minister's view that the provisions in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for non jury trials for certain fraud cases are compatible with Convention Rights, as Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) does not include a right to trial by jury. The Joint Committee on Human Rights commented (Second Report: Criminal Justice Bill, paragraph 5) -

COLLABORATIVE OR PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION Assignment - 1

COLLABORATIVE OR PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION - Assignment Example It will also be very important not to ignore the fact that principled negotiation is thorough in terms of the factors that are considered and the presentation of the various requirements of the software stakeholders. This is a technique that has proved to be effective for a person who intends to separate the problem from the stakeholders. For example, clients might not have the same computing background as the suppliers or developers. This implies that there should be a way through which the requirements can take into consideration the difference in the nature of the differences of the stakeholders if in any case the project is to become a success. This is a method that can also enable engineering of requirements to be based on the interests of the negotiators rather than their positions. Through focusing on the interests, a software developer might be able to determine the common ground for all the stakeholders. This is basically because he nature of the software that is developed will need to be in accordance to the requirements of the suppliers and the end users. This negotiation approach also allows for the invention of mutual gain. One thing about computers system is that they usually evolve with time. For instance, in this case it was discovered that the money that was availed by the government would not be sufficient for the required hardware for the necessary spreading of implementation functionality. Therefore, the negotiation process led to the division of the whole project into phases with the first phase being the most important one which was food control. The division into phases was a result of thorough study of the interests of the stakeholder and looking of the most appropriate way through which all the stakeholders would be satisfied even with the limited resources. The fact that people rarely change their positions,

Hindrance to organisational performance

Hindrance to organisational performance 1 Introduction Ages ago, constant changes to an organisation was thought as a hindrance to organisational performance. However, now successful change is vital for every organisation. This change in thought is because of necessity of organisations to survive in highly competitive market and evolving environment (Todnem, 2005). Organisations should align their change programmes with management development to maintain their competitive edge. In contrast to abundance of academic literature on change models and framework showing the increase in business concern, it is reported that 70 per cent of change programme have failed (Burnes, 2003).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This report mentions about few theories on change implementation and issues arising while implementation. Furthermore, the report discusses about power as a tool in change process. Finally, the report concludes by analysing two case study: one with a change failure and another on successful change. 2 Organisational change Despite the vast academic research, empirical data shows that many organisations struggle to lead effective change projects and that problem arises in change implementation (Cicmil, 1999). Organisational change projects are continuous learning projects. Is continuous change a stable feature in organisation? Todnem (2005) mentions â€Å"Change cannot be relied upon to occur at a steady state, rather there are periods of incremental change sandwiched between more violent periods of change which have contributed to the illusion of stability once assumed to be the case.† Managing change has a six-stage approach: Envisioning, activating, supporting, implementation, ensuring and recognising (Hamlin, 2001). This report concentrates on change implementation phase. Implementation (also called ‘transition by some authors) is the process of making a design operational. Implementation involves planning, acquiring, installing equipment or technology, make employees change ready, schedule events for the new way of process to replace the old way. Basic elements of a change implementation plan are: Deliverables and its purpose, milestones to access progress, accountabilities, communication plan, measurement plan for accessing the consequences of the change. If change is large-scale, chances of failure in this phase is likely high (Martin, 1999).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Various change theories can be categorised based on their approach to implement change: planned, emergent and contingency approach (Todnem, 2005). 3 Theories of change 3.1 Planned approach According to Todnem (2005), planned approach to organisational change outlines the change process. It also reveals the different phases that an organisation will be dragged through while making the change to a desired state. Planned approach to change is highly effective but takes a long time. Lewins change model Lewins change model states three levels of organisational change: unfreezing present level, moving to the new level, refreezing the new level. In other words, the model requires to get rid of old behaviour, structures, processes or culture before making it to the new level (Todnem, 2005 and Brisson-Banks, 2010). This theory raises few critical questions by the author. Abruptly leaving old customs might trigger uncomfortable reactions from employees. Also, it might be ironical to have stabilisation of change at the third level, when change is a continuous or open-ended process. According to Todnem (2005), planned approach to change suffers from few drawbacks. Firstly, some of the triggers of change are frequently spaced in time that planned approach (identify, plan, execute) to change is practically not applicable. Secondly, it considers the environment, which organisations interact, is stable from the start till the end of change process. This lead way to emergent approach. 3.2 Emergent approach Since change is so fast paced, responsibility for change implementation has to be decentralized. It is concerned about change readiness and ease the change process. Kotters change model The change model that is followed by many organisational leaders for planning and implementing change successfully by doing eight things right and in the right order. Kotter asserts organisation does not instil urgency for change in managers or employees, leading to change failure (Brisson-Banks, 2010). The eight steps which makes change initiative successful and errors that might crop up at each stage is summarised in table 1. For large organisations, it might become practically complicated to communicate the vision and hence empowering employees becomes difficult as the vision is not drilled to grassroots of the organisation (Paton, 2008). Though Kotters change model is popular, the author notes that the model mentions on eliminating any resistance to change but is deficient in not providing the cause. It also does not take the human element into account. Furthermore, the above theories does not look at the scale of change for successful implementation. 3.3 Contingency approach According to Buchanan (2007), The Dunphy-Stace contingency approach recommends to use the one which might fit the context of change (Scale, time, support for change) for an organisation. For senior managers to bring about change (time to change is less), dictatorial approach is apt. But middle managers will find collaborative style useful (time to change is more). Critical change proposals have to be driven through coercive modes. For change to be introduced quickly, dictatorial transformation should be chosen. The mode used should be complementary to the change implementation (Buchanan, 2007).Theories of change simply state the rules of the road but it is up to the organisation to acquire necessary competencies, skills and resources to implement them (Burnes, 2003). 3.4 Project management approach Project management approach takes into account the scale of change and the human factor that impede successful change implementation. Cicmil (1999) states three approaches to change implementation: project management, participative management and contingency approach. Project management approach sees change as a series of projects. Cicmil (1999) also mentions that this approach is the most effective as it makes change focussed with measurable outcomes and feedback through learnings. Empirical evidence shows significant organisations rolled out change as a project. Her research investigation spotted three common sources of gap in change implementation: Why (the reason and purpose of change), What (Specified outcome) and How (implementation process). She also found that human impediments like slow learning, fast forgetting and organised resistance which are related to Why, how and why. Organised resistance arises out of lack of understanding of what, how or both of change implementation. Fast forgetting and slow learning are a ‘misfit of change in business strategy. The issues around change implementation can be eliminated by following a suitable leadership style or power acquired by position in organisation. 4 Power as a tool in steering change Power is entwined into social and organisational life. It has become a tool that can be used by organisation to be a driver for achieving organisational outcomes. Buchanan (1999) also mentions about the ways in which one can get power in an organisation: Position or rank, know allies and supporters and maintain relationship, access and control over information, strong communication network, resolving critical problems, to be irreplaceable and the importance of the business one is involved in. â€Å"Power is built by ensuring that you control as much territory as possible, and this control is obtained by placing your allies in key positions and by expanding the activities over which you have formal responsibility.† (Buchanan, 1999). This is further asserted by Machiavelli in his book recognising the significance of skilled staff surrounding a leader. A leader might be ridiculed of his/her choice of appointing incompetent followers (Mcguire, 2006). According to Mcguire (2006), power should be directed at achieving organisational goals. A leader is one who utilises power to make employees follow him/her and inspires followers. However, sharing power with followers is apt when leader cannot stand up to organisational demands alone, indicating the need for teams. At times the leader needs to relinquish some power to successfully empower followers using the tools of rewards during organisational change. It can also be functional when managers use it to achieve organisational goals but dysfunctional when misused to promote self-interest (Buchanan, 1999). A leader need not have positive personal attributes that followers will admire, but it is his/her ability to make them believe that he/she has it (Mcguire, 2006). Machiavelli states there are two â€Å"carrot and stick† approaches for a successful change implementation by using power. Firstly, by executing reward power. Secondly, using disciplines. He advocates using reward power first but when that is not convincing people about change and its values, or followers not showing loyalty to the leader, then disciplinary action is suggested. An effective leader is the one who makes a punishment look like a reward (Mcguire, 2006). 5 Analysis of two case studies This report analyses two companies ABC Engineering and XYZ construction, which was investigated by Burnes (2003), using Cicmil (1999) which is summarised in Table 2 model mentioned in 3.4. ABC Engineering The parent company of ABC Engineering purchased a similar product German manufacturer in order to merge the companies for market expansion. ABC, threatened by the merger, lead number of changes, to increase productivity, improve quality and reduce costs. Resistance and reduced morale were the general feeling and the change efforts were fuelling them. Meanwhile to make situations better, engineering director came up with ‘Lean production and ‘Kaizen concept which involved restructuring the organisation. ABCs senior management team (SMT) agreed to ‘lean concept without involving people, none challenged the concept. SMT sought expert advice to manage the change. External change agent undertook a change readiness audit identifying number of key problems. XYZ Constructions XYZ constructions, an organisation the same size as that of ABC Engineering, had SMT who were employees but not directors of the company. The company had a head office and various regional offices. The structure created problems such as hostility between the head office and regional offices and lack of communication within functional units of same office. The managing director realised to remove functional barriers and promote ‘Kaizen requiring complete reorganisation within the company and its structure. Due to lack of expertise in change management, external change agent was called. The change was humungous and deeply seated that the change implementation was rolled out in phases. 6 Conclusion Change is part of everyday business operation that drives the organisation into a better state. With higher number of change failure being reported, managing change has become a competency and corporations are increasingly aware of the need of an internal change management team. This report discusses on theories of change management and mentioned why change might fail. It also identifies that success rate revolves around the leader and influence of power, to make a change impact on the employees which was seen from the two case studies. In summary, different variables initiates change uniquely for an organisation and leaders decide on fate of change implementation. Every organisation should carefully look into the transition phase of change and not overlook the human element to make change successful for its organisational development. Change management is definitely a challenge but possible to make it happen by observing the various elements of the organisation including the employees and unsaid assumptions. Improved ways of change handling can be found by connecting solutions and maybe even for new ways yet to be discovered. 7 Bibliography Brisson-Banks V. Claire (2010), Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models and their commonalities, Library Management, Volume 31, Issue 4/5, Pp 241-252 Brown D. Andrew (1992), Managing change in NHS: The resource Management initiative, Leadership Organization Development Journal, Volume 13, Issue 6, Pp 13-17 Buchanan A. David, Huczynski A. Andrzej (2007), Organizational behaviour: An introductory text, 6th edition, Prentice Hall, Financial Times, Pp 602-603 Buchanan Dave, Badham Richard (1999), Power, Politics and organizational change, 1st edition, Sage Publication, Pp 52-53 and 192-193 Burnes Bernard (2003), Managing change and changing managers from ABC to XYZ, Journal of Management Development, Volume 22, Issue 7, Pp 627-642 Chapman Ann Judith (2002), A framework for transformational change in organisations, Leadership Organization Development, Journal 23, Issue 1, Pp 16-25 Cicmil Svetlana (1999), An insight into management of organisational change projects, Journal of Workplace Learning, Volume 11, Issue 1, Pp 5-15 Collins David (1998), Organizational Change Sociological Perspectives, 1st Edition, TJ International Ltd. Cutcher Leanne (2009), Resisting change from within and without the organization, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 22, Issue 3, Pp 275-289 Eriksen Matthew (2008), Leading adaptive organizational change: Self-reflexivity and self-transformation, Journal of Organizational Change management, Volume 21, Issue 5, Pp 622-640 Hamlin Bob, Keep Jane, Ash Ken (2001), Organizational change and development, 1st edition, Prentice Hall, Financial Times He Hongwei, Baruch Yehuda (2009), Transforming organizational identity under institutional change, Journal of Organizational change management, Volume 22, Issue 6, Pp 575-599 Jones Liz, Watson Bernadette, Hobman Elizabeth, Bordia Prashant, Gallois Cindy, Callan J. Victor (2008), Employee perceptions of organizational change: impact of hierarchical level, Leadership Organization Development Journal, Volume 29, Issue 4, Pp 294-316 Judge William, Douglas Thomas (2009), Organizational change capacity: the systematic development of a scale, Journal of Organizational change management, Volume 22, Issue 6, Pp 635-649 Kovoor-Misra Sarah (2009), Understanding perceived organizational identity during crisis and change: A threat/opportunity framework, Journal of Organizational Change management, Volume 22, Issue 5, Pp 494-510 Mcguire David, Hutchings Kate (2006), A Machiavellian analysis of organisational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 19, Issue 2, Pp 192-209 McHugh Marie (1997), The stress factor: another item for the change management agenda?, Journal of Organizational change management, Volume 10, Issue 4, Pp 345-362 OConnor A. Carol (1993), The handbook for organizational change, 1st edition, McGraw Hill publication Paton A. Robert, McCalman James (2008), Change management: A guide to effective implementation, 3rd Edition, SAGE publications, Pp 261-266 Paton Barbara, Beranek Lea, Smith Ian (2008), The transit lounge: a view of organisational change from a point in the journey, Library Management, Volume 29, Issue 1/2 Smith E. Martin, Mourier Pierre (1999), Implementation: Key to organizational change, Strategy Leadership, Volume 27, Issue 6, Pp 37-41 Todnem By Rune (2005), Organisational change management: A critical review, Journal of Change Management, Volume 5, Issue 4, Pp 369-380 Young Mike (2009), A meta model of change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 22, Issue 5, Pp 524-548

The Great Depression in America :: essays research papers fc

Child Labor The 1990 World Summit for children was a landmark, which was attended by 71 heads of state. It was a moment of great satisfaction and encouragement for all the international bodies engaged in their pursuit of making â€Å"A world fit for children†, when 71 heads of state pledged to eradicate polio, reduce infant mortality rate, eliminate the worst forms of child labor and promote vocational training for adolescents (Sandrasagara, 7). Complex Factors There is a popular public opinion that the children should not be exposed to labor tasks including employment at an age, which demands their involvement in educational and recreational activities. The activities undertaken at child age contribute to their growth and development and undertaking labor task at this age is no less than a crime. However, mostly people express this opinion based on strong emotions and the complex factors contributing to this dilemma are not understood in their real background. These factors range from legal, social, political and economic aspects, which extend far beyond the strong emotions. A detailed, careful and empathetic analysis of these factors can lead us to understand the problems of child labor on an international horizon. Powerful legislation, its strict enforcement and the extent of its implementation across the board on an international scale can serve as a foundation in addressing this curse. International studies reveal the magnitude of the grave problem of child labor. A systematic estimate, undertaken in 1985 (Black 9), calculated around 31 million street children worldwide, of whom 71 percent were child workers living at home, 23 percent kept occasional family contact, and 8 percent were entirely separated. The contributing factors to the child labor are limitless, however, the vital few factors are external debt, poverty, lack of appropriate infrastructure, economic crisis, and social and cultural environment. It is said that the information technology has greatly contributed in globalization and transforming the world into a global village. The irony of the situation is that everything in this world is globalizing except wealth and development. The Brettonwoods institutions i.e. IMF and the World Bank have to play a strong and unbiased role in ensuring that the seeds of growth and development are injected into the developing world. Although poverty is termed to be the main causal factor for child labor in the developing world, however, some studies have shown that some child workers â€Å"are relatively from affluent families, and engage in the business for excitement and pocket money (Myers 9).

Cases on labor law Essay

In May 1994, ABS-CBN† signed an Agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation. ABS-CBN was represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by SONZA, as President and General Manager, and Carmela Tiangco , as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as â€Å"AGENT,† MJMDC agreed to provide SONZA’s services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZA’s services a monthly talent fee of P310,000 for the first year and P317,000 for the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN would pay the talent fees on the 10th and 25th days of the month. On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region in Quezon City. SONZA complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Plan (â€Å"ESOP†). On 10 July 1996, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. ISSUE: Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship that existed between them, HELD: Although Philippine labor laws and jurisprudence define clearly the elements of an employer-employee relationship, this is the first time that the Court will resolve the nature of the relationship between a television and radio station and one of its â€Å"talents.† There is no case law stating that a radio and television program host is an employee of the broadcast station. Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor.[29] This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor. We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced the finished product of SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime schedule â€Å"for more effective programming.† ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work. SONZA insists that the â€Å"exclusivity clause† in the Agreement is the most extreme form of control which ABS-CBN exercised over him. This argument is futile. Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. Even an independent contractor can validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring party. In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as control. ADJUDICATION: The petition is denied. CONSULTA vs CA Case Digest [G.R. No. 145443. March 18, 2005] RAQUEL P. CONSULTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PAMANA PHILIPPINES, INC., RAZUL Z. REQUESTO, and ALETA TOLENTINO, respondents. FACTS: Consulta was Managing Associate of Pamana. On 1987 she was issued a certification authorizing her to negotiate for and in behalf of PAMANA with the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association. Consulta was able to secure an account with FFCEA in behalf of PAMANA. However, Consulta claimed that PAMANA did not pay her commission for the PPCEA account and filed a complaint for unpaid wages or commission. ISSUE: Whether or not Consulta was an employee of PAMANA. HELD: The SC held that Pamana was an independent agent and not an employee. The power of control in the four fold test is missing. The manner in which Consulta was to pursue her tasked activities was not subject to the control of PAMANA. Consulta failed to show that she worked definite hours. The amount of time, the methods and means, the management and maintenance of her sales division were left to her sound judgment. Finally, Pamana paid Consulta not for labor she performed but only for the results of her labor. Without results, Consulta’s labor was her own burden and loss. Her right to compensation, or to commission, depended on the tangible results of her work – whether she brought in paying recruits. The fact that the appointment required Consulta to solicit business exclusively for Pamana did not mean Pamana exercised control over the means and methods of Consulta’s work as the term control is understood in labor jurisprudence. Neither did it make Consulta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did not prohibit Consulta from engaging in any other business, or from being connected with any other company, for as long as the business or company did not compete with Pamana’s business. The exclusivity clause was a reasonable restriction to prevent similar acts prejudicial to Pamana’s business interest. Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that â€Å"[t]he contracting parties may establish such stipulation, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There being no employer-employee relationship between Pamana and Consulta, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain and rule on Consulta’s money claim. Consulta’s remedy is to file an ordinary civil action to litigate her claim Petition is dismissed. ANGELINA FRANCISCO, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, KASEI CORPORATION, SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO, DELFIN LIZA, IRENE BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON ESCUETA, Respondents. G.R. No. 170087 August 31, 2006 FIRST DIVISION. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. In 1995, petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation during its incorporation stage. She was designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She was also designated as Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to secure business permits, construction permits and other licenses for the initial operation of the company. Although she was designated as Corporate Secretary, she was not entrusted with the corporate documents; neither did she attend any board meeting nor required to do so. She never prepared any legal document and never represented the company as its Corporate Secretary. However, on some occasions, she was prevailed upon to sign documentation for the company. In 1996, petitioner was designated Acting Manager. As Acting Manager, petitioner was assigned to handle recruitment of all employees and perform management administration functions; represent the company in all dealings with government agencies; and to administer all other matters pertaining to the operation of Kasei Restaurant which is owned and operated by Kasei Corporation. For five years, petitioner performed the duties of Acting Manager and as of December 31, 2000 her salary was P27,500.00 plus P3,000.00. In January 2001, petitioner was replaced by Liza R. Fuentes as Manager. Petitioner alleged that she was required to sign a prepared resolution for her replacement but she was assured that she would still be connected with Kasei Corporation. Thereafter, Kasei Corporation reduced her salary by P2,500.00 a month beginning January up to September 2001 for a total reduction of P22,500.00 as of September 2001. Petitioner was not paid her mid-year bonus allegedly because the company was not earning well. On October 2001, petitioner did not receive her salary from the company. She made repeated follow-ups with the company cashier but she was advised that the company was not earning well. On October 15, 2001, petitioner asked for her salary but she was informed that she is no longer connected with the company. On the other hand, the Private respondents averred that petitioner is not an employee of Kasei Corporation. They alleged that petitioner was hired in 1995 as one of its technical consultants on accounting matters and act concurrently as Corporate Secretary. As technical consultant, petitioner performed her work at her own discretion without control and supervision of Kasei Corporation. Petitioner had no daily time record and she came to the office any time she wanted. She also did not go through the usual procedure of selection of employees. Also, the private respondents submitted a list of employees for the years 1999 and 2000 duly received by the BIR showing that petitioner was not among the employees reported to the BIR. Issues: (1) Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondent Kasei Corporation; and if in the affirmative, (2) whether petitioner was illegally dismissed. Ruling: Yes. The court adopts a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship. Thus, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporation’s Technical Consultant. She reported for work regularly and served in various capacities as Accountant, Liaison Officer, Technical Consultant, Acting Manager and Corporate Secretary, with substantially the same job functions, that is, rendering accounting and tax services to the company and performing functions necessary and desirable for the proper operation of the corporation such as securing business permits and other licenses over an indefinite period of engagement. She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of business. Respondent corporation hired and engaged petitioner for compensation, with the power to dismiss her for cause. More importantly, respondent corporation had the power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. The corporation constructively dismissed petitioner when it reduced her salary by P2,500 a month from January to September 2001. This amounts to an illegal termination of employment, where the petitioner is entitled to full backwages. Thus this petition is GRANTED and is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the recomputation of petitioner Angelina Francisco’s full backwages from the time she was illegally terminated until the date of finality of this decision, and separation pay representing one-half month pay for every year of service, where a fraction of at least six months shall be considered as one whole year. ANGEL JARDIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO MARCOS, LUIS DE LOS ANGELES, JOEL ORDENIZA and AMADO CENTENO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and GOODMAN TAXI (PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.) respondents. G.R. No. 119268. February 23, 2000 SECOND DIVISION. QUISUMBING, J. Facts: Petitioners were drivers of private respondent, Philjama International Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of â€Å"Goodman Taxi.† Petitioners used to drive private respondent’s taxicabs every other day on a 24-hour work schedule under the boundary system. Under this arrangement, the petitioners earned an average of P400.00 daily. Nevertheless, private respondent admittedly regularly deducts from petitioners, daily earnings the amount of P30.00 supposedly for the washing of the taxi units. Believing that the deduction is illegal, petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect their rights and interests. Upon learning about the plan of petitioners, private respondent refused to let petitioners drive their taxicabs when they reported for work on August 6, 1991, and on succeeding days. Petitioners suspected that they were singled out because they were the leaders and active members of the proposed union. Aggrieved, petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint against private respondent for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and illegal deduction of washing fees. In a decision, dated August 31, 1992, the labor arbiter dismissed said complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC (public respondent herein), in a decision dated April 28, 1994, reversed and set aside the judgment of the labor arbiter. The labor tribunal declared that petitioners are employees of private respondent, and, as such, their dismissal must be for just cause and after due process. Private respondent’s first motion for reconsideration was denied. Remaining hopeful, private respondent filed another motion for reconsideration. This time, public respondent, in its decision dated October 28, 1994, granted aforesaid second motion for reconsideration. It ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over the case as petitioners and private respondent have no employer-employee relationship. Issue: Was there a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction? Was there an employer-employee relationship? Ruling: Yes. The phrase â€Å"grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction† means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment by the tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power as to amount to lack of power. In this case, private respondent exhausted administrative remedy available to it by seeking reconsideration of public respondent’s decision dated April 28, 1994, which public respondent denied. Thus, when private respondent filed a second motion for reconsideration, public respondent should have forthwith denied it in accordance with Rule 7, Section 14 of its New Rules of Procedure which allows only one motion for reconsideration from the same party. The rationale for allowing only one motion for reconsideration from the same party is to assist the parties in obtaining an expeditious and inexpensive settlement of labor cases. For obvious reasons, delays cannot be countenanced in the resolution of labor disputes. The dispute may involve no less than the livelihood of an employee and that of his loved ones who are dependent upon him for food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education. It may as well involve the survival of a business or an industry. The second motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent is indubitably a prohibited pleading which should have not been entertained at all. Thus, the public respondent gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance and granting private respondent’s second motion for reconsideration as it wrecks the orderly procedure in seeking reliefs in labor cases. Yes also for the second issue. Under the boundary system which is observed in the relationship of the petitioners and the private respondent, it is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter. The management of the business is in the owner’s hands. The owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules promulgated as regards its operation. Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called â€Å"boundary† they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee. Thus, the employees of private respondent, can be dismissed only for just and authorized cause, and after affording them notice and hearing prior to termination. In the instant case, private respondent had no valid cause to terminate the employment of petitioners. Neither were there two (2) written notices sent by private respondent informing each of the petitioners that they had been dismissed from work. Thereby, instant petition is GRANTED. Private respondent is directed to reinstate petitioners to their positions held at the time of the complained dismissal. Private respondent is likewise ordered to pay petitioners their full backwages, to be computed from the date of dismissal until their actual reinstatement. However, the order of public respondent that petitioners be reimbursed the amount paid as washing charges is deleted. [G.R. No. 121605. February 2, 2000] PAZ MARTIN JO and CESAR JO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PETER MEJILA, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: FACTS: Private respondent Peter Mejila worked as barber on a piece rate basis at Dina’s Barber Shop. The owners and the barbers shared in the earnings of the barber shop. In 1977, petitioners designated private respondent as caretaker of the shop. In November 1992, private respondent had an altercation with his co-barber, Jorge Tinoy. The bickerings, characterized by constant exchange of personal insults during working hours, became serious so that private respondent reported the matter to Atty. Allan Macaraya of the labor department. Meanwhile, private respondent continued reporting for work at the barbershop. But, on January 2, 1993, he turned over the duplicate keys of the shop to the cashier and took away all his belongings therefrom. On January 8, 1993, he began working as a regular barber at the newly opened Goldilocks Barbershop also in Iligan City. On January 12, 1993, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of separation pay, other monetary benefits, attorney’s fees and damages. Significantly, the complaint did not seek reinstatement as a positive relief. ISSUES: Is there an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent? Was the private respondent dismissed from his employment? HELD: YES. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to control the worker’s conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration. Absent a clear showing that petitioners and private respondent had intended to pursue a relationship of industrial partnership, we entertain no doubt that private respondent was employed by petitioners as caretaker-barber. No. The labor arbiter was convinced that private respondent was not dismissed but left his work on his own volition because he could no longer bear the incessant squabbles with his co-worker. Nevertheless, public respondent did not give credence to petitioners’ claim that private respondent abandoned his job. On this score, public respondent gravely erred as hereunder discussed. JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 151966 July 8, 2005 FACTS: JPL Marketing and Promotions is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of recruitment and placement of workers. On the other hand, private respondents Noel Gonzales, Ramon Abesa III and Faustino Aninipot were employed by JPL as merchandisers on separate dates and assigned at different establishments in Naga City and Daet, Camarines Norte as attendants to the display of California Marketing Corporation , one of petitioner’s clients. On 13 August 1996, JPL notified private respondents that CMC would stop its direct merchandising activity in the Bicol Region, Isabela, and Cagayan Valley effective 15 August 1996. they were advised to wait for further notice as they would be transferred to other clients. However, on 17 October 1996, private respondents Abesa and Gonzales filed before the National Labor Relations Commission Regional Arbitration Branch (NLRC) Sub V complaints for illegal dismissal, praying for separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and payment for moral damages. Aninipot filed a similar case thereafter. Executive Labor Arbiter Gelacio L. Rivera, Jr. dismissed the complaints for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter found that Gonzales and Abesa applied with and were employed by the store where they were originally assigned by JPL even before the lapse of the six (6)-month period given by law to JPL to provide private respondents a new assignment. Thus, they may be considered to have unilaterally severed their relation with JPL, and cannot charge JPL with illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that it was incumbent upon private respondents to wait until they were reassigned by JPL, and if after six months they were not reassigned, they can file an action for separation pay but not for illegal dismissal. The claims for 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay was also denied since private respondents were paid way above the applicable minimum wage during their employment. NLRC. agreed with the Labor Arbiter’s finding that when private respondents filed their complaints, the six-month period had not yet expired, and that CMC’s decision to stop its operations in the areas was beyond the control of JPL, thus, they were not illegally dismissed. However, it found that despite JPL’s effort to look for clients to which private respondents may be reassigned it was unable to do so, and hence they are entitled to separation pay. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed in toto the NLRC resolution. While conceding that there was no illegal dismissal, it justified the award of separation pay on the grounds of equity and social justice. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are entitled to separation pay? HELD: Under Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, separation pay is authorized only in cases of dismissals due to any of these reasons: (a) installation of labor saving devices; (b) redundancy; (c) retrenchment; (d) cessation of the employer’s business; and (e) when the employee is suffering from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health and to the health of his co-employees. However, separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice in those cases where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character, but only when he was illegally dismissed. In addition, Sec. 4(b), Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides for the payment of separation pay to an employee entitled to reinstatement but the establishment where he is to be reinstated has closed or has ceased operations or his present position no longer exists at the time of reinstatement for reasons not attributable to the employer. The common denominator of the instances where payment of separation pay is warranted is that the employee was dismissed by the employer. In the instant case, there was no dismissal to speak of. Private respondents were simply not dismissed at all, whether legally or illegally. What they received from JPL was not a notice of termination of employment, but a memo informing them of the termination of CMC’s contract with JPL. More importantly, they were advised that they were to be reassigned. At that time, there was no severance of employment to speak of. Furthermore, Art. 286 of the Labor Code allows the bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, wherein an employee/employees are placed on the so-called â€Å"floating status.† When that â€Å"floating status† of an employee lasts for more than six months, he may be considered to have been illegally dismissed from the service. Thus, he is entitled to the corresponding benefits for his separation, and this would apply to suspension either of the entire business or of a specific component thereof. As clearly borne out by the records of this case, private respondents sought employment from other establishments even before the expiration of the six (6)-month period provided by law. As they admitted in their comment, all three of them applied for and were employed by another establishment after they received the notice from JPL. JPL did not terminate their employment; they themselves severed their relations with JPL. Thus, they are not entitled to separation pay. Nonetheless, JPL cannot escape the payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay to private respondents. Said benefits are mandated by law and should be given to employees as a matter of right. HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LABOR ARBITER ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN and the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, public respondents, and ROGELIO A. ABAN, private respondent G.R. No. L-62909 April 18, 1989 Petitioner corporation hired the private respondent Aban as its â€Å"Legal Assistant† and received basic monthly salary of P 1,500.00 plus an initial living allowance of P 50.00 which gradually increased to P 320.00. On September 4, 1980, Aban received a letter from the corporation informing him that he would be considered terminated effective October 4, 1980 because of his alleged failure to perform his duties well. Aban filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. This ruling was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal. Hence, this present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner Corporation and Aban. HELD: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and reinstate Aban to his former or a similar position without loss of seniority rights and to pay three (3) years back wages without qualification or deduction and P5,000.00 in attorney’s fees. Should reinstatement not be feasible, the petitioner shall pay the private respondent termination benefits in addition to the above stated three years back pay and P5,000.00 attorney’s fees. A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be an employee of a private corporation or even of the government. This Court has consistently ruled that the determination of whether or not there is an employer-employee relation depends upon four standards: (1) the manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee; (2) the mode of payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of a power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of a power to control the putative employee’s conduct. Of the four, the right-of-control test has been held to be the decisive factor. In this case, Aban received basic salary plus living allowance, worked solely for the petitioner, dealt only with legal matters involving the said corporation and its employees and also assisted the Personnel Officer in processing appointment papers of employees which is not act of a lawyer in the exercise of his profession. These facts showed that petitioner has the power to hire and fire the respondent employee and more important, exercised control over Aban by defining the duties and functions of his work which met the four standards in determining whether or not there is an employee-employer relationship. Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo WellcomePhilippines G.R. No. 162994 September 17, 20004 Tinga, J. FACTS: Glaxo Wellcome Philippines Inc. hired Pedro A. Tecson as medical representative on October 24, 1995. In Tecson’s contract of employment, it was stipulated, among others, that he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company. Glaxo’s Employee Code of Conduct also contains provisions to the same effect. Said contract was signed by Tecson and hence commenced his employ with the company. He was assigned to cover the Camarines Sur-Camarines Nortesales area. Tecson met Bettsy, a branch coordinator of Astra Pharma, a competitor of Glaxo. As fate would have it, they eventually fell in love and got married in September 1998. Tecson’s superiors were worried since the marriage gave rise to a conflict of interest and hence, gave him the option to choose whether to stay with the company and let his wife resign from her job or Tecson himself will resign so that his wife may continue working with her company. Tecson never made a decision hence Glaxo moved to transfer Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao-Agusan del Sur sales area considering that he was from said area. But then, Tecson brought the matter to Glaxo’s Grievance Committee. During the pendency of the grievance proceedings, Tecson was paid his salary. However, he was not issued samples of products which were competing with similar products manufactured by Astra. They failed to resolve the conflict hence they submitted the matter for voluntary arbitration. The company offered Tecson a separation pay of one-half month pay for every year of service, but he declined the offer. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board decided in favor of Glaxo. The Board declared Glaxo’s policy on relationships between its employees and person employed with competitor companies as valid, and affirmed Glaxo’s right to transfer Tecson to another sales territory. Upon appeal, the Cour of Appeal affirmed the NCMB decision. It reasoned that the company’s policy is a valid exercise of its management prerogatives. Tecson filed for reconsideration but was denied hence the case was brought to the Supreme Court. ISSUES: 1. Whether the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor company valid? 2. Whether said policy violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution? 3. Whether Tecson was constructively dismissed? RULING: 1. Yes. Glaxo has a right to guard its secrets, manufacturing formula, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry. The said prohibition only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures. No. the policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition against relationships between its employees and those of competitor companies. It is not a policy against marriage. An employee can still marry anyone of his/her own choosing. However, the company still has the right from exercising management prerogatives to ensure maximum profit and business success. It was also stressed that Tecson was aware of the restriction when he signed his employment contract and when he married Betssy. Hence, he is stopped from questioning said policy. 3. No. the Supreme Court ruled that Tecson’s reassignment to another area was not equivalent to his employment termination. Tecson was not demoted nor unduly discriminated upon by reason of such transfer. It must be noted that Glaxo even considered the welfare of Tecson’s family. The reassignment was merely on keeping with the policy of the company in avoidance of conflict of interest, and thus valid. ANDRES VILLAVILLA and ESTER GADIENTE VILLAVILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, REYNALDO MERCADO, and MARCELO COSUCO, respondents, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 BELLOSILLO, J.: FACTS: Reynaldo Mercado owned the fishing boat â€Å"F/B Saint Theresa. On September 11, 1877, said boat sank off Isla Binatikan, Taytay, Palawan. One of the casualties in said incident was Arturo Villavilla, son of petitioners. He was employed as â€Å"tripulante† (crew member). The parents of Arturo filed a petition with the Social Security Commission against Reynaldo Mercado for death compensation benefits of Arturo whom Reynaldo failed to register as their employee. The Social Security System (SSS) filed a petition in intervention alleging that petitioners must prove that Arturo was an employee of Reynaldo. If said employment was proven, then Reynaldo should be held liable in damages equivalent to the benefits due the petitioners for failure to report Arturo for coverage pursuant to Sec. 24 (a) of the Social Security Act, as amended. 6On November 28, 1984, respondent Social Security Commission issued an Order dismissing the petition for lack of cause of action. 9 The parents of Arturo then brought their case to the Court of Appeals. On appeal, the CA affirmed the questioned Order of the Social Security Commission there being no reversible error. Hence, they elevated their case to the Supreme Court. ISSUES: 1. Whether there was an employer – employee relationship between Arturo Villavilla and Reynaldo Mercado? 2. Whether Reynaldo Mercado is liable for death compensation benefits of Arturo Villavilla? 3. Whether there was a violation of the Social Security Act, as amended ,by Reynaldo Mercado for not registering Arturo Villavilla with the System as his employee as mandated by law. RULING: 1) None. The arrangement between the boat owner and the crewmembers partook of the nature of a joint venture. The fundamental bases for the existence of an employer – employee relationship were not present. a) Reynaldo Mercado had no connection with the selection and engagement of Arturo. The boat owner did not hire them but they simply joined the fishing expedition upon invitation of the ship master, even without the knowledge of the boat owner. b) Reynaldo likewise exercised no power of dismissal over Arturo c) There was no such uniform salary involved. The crew members did not receive fixed compensation as they only shared in their catch. d) Reynaldo had no power of control or had reserved the right to control as to the result of the work to be done as well as the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. They ventured to the sea irrespective of the instructions of the boat owner. Upon their own best judgment as to when, how long, and where to go fishing. 2) No. Since there was no employer – employee relationship, then Mercado is not obliged to remit any employer’s contributions to the SSS accounts of said fishermen. Hence they cannot compel him to pay for any death compensation benefits. 3) None. Since it is impossible to determine the monthly wage or earning of the fishermen for the purpose of fixing the amount of their and the supposed employer’s contributions, there is every reason to exempt the parties to this kind of undertaking from compulsory registration with the Social Security System . *** the Supreme Court stated: For, we are not unaware that in this jurisdiction all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of provisions of social legislations should be resolved in favor of the working class. But, alas, justice is not fully served by sustaining the contention of the poor simply because he is poor. Justice is done by properly applying the law regardless of the station in life of the contending parties. NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO, respondents. G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 EUGENIA C. CREDO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, respondents. G.R. No. 70295 November 29,1988 PONENTE: Padilla, J. FACTS: Eugenia Credo was an employee of the National Service Corporation. She was terminated from office for the commission of offenses against company policies, public moral, and authority. A particular situation asserted by NASECO was Credo’s non-compliance with another NASECO officer’s memorandum regarding the entry procedures in the company’s Statement of Billings Adjustment. This was in lieu with the findings of NASECO’s Committee on Personnel Affairs. Both parties appealed to respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which, on 28 November 1984, rendered a decision: 1) directing NASECO to reinstate Credo to her former position, or substantially equivalent position, with six (6) months’ backwages and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and 2) dismissing Credo’s claim for attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages. As a consequence, both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in a resolution of 16 January 1985. In the case at bar, the court found that NASECO did not comply with these guidelines in effecting Credo’s dismissal. Although she was apprised and â€Å"given the chance to explain her side† of the charges filed against her, this chance was given so perfunctorily, thus rendering illusory Credo’s right to security of tenure. That Credo was not given ample opportunity to be heard and to defend herself is evident from the fact that the compliance with the injunction to apprise her of the charges filed against her and to afford her a chance to prepare for her defense was dispensed in only a day. This is not effective compliance with the legal requirements. Furth, Credo’s mere non-compliance with Lorens memorandum regarding the entry procedures in the company’s Statement of Billings Adjustment did not warrant the severe penalty of dismissal NLRC ruled ordering her reinstatement. NASECO argues that NLRC has no jurisdiction to order her reinstatement. NASECO as a government corporation by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the NIDC, which is wholly owned by the Phil. National Bank which is in turn a GOCC, the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the Civil Service Law citing National Housing v Juco. ISSUE: Whether or not employees of NASECO, a GOCC without original charter, are governed by the Civil Service Law. HELD: NO. The holding in NHC v Juco should not be given retroactive effect, that is to cases that arose before its promulgation of January 17, 1985. To do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other employees similarly situated because under the 1973 Constitution prior to the ruling in NHC v Juco, this court recognized the applicability of the Labor jurisdiction over disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in GOCC’s, among them NASECO. In the matter of coverage by the civil service of GOCC, the 1987 Constitution starkly differs from the 1973 Constitution where NHC v Juco was based. It provides that the â€Å"civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government including government owned or controlled corporation with original charter.† Therefore by clear implication, the civil service does not include GOCC which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC under the general corporation law. ADJUDICATION: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the challenged decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED with modifications. Petitioners in G.R. No. 69870, who are the private respondents in G.R. No. 70295, are ordered to: 1) reinstate Eugenia C. Credo to her former position at the time of her termination, or if such reinstatement is not possible, to place her in a substantially equivalent position, with three (3) years backwages, from 1 December 1983, without qualification or deduction, and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and 2) pay Eugenia C. Credo P5,000.00 for moral damages and P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees. G.R. No. 78090 July 26, 1991 PACIFIC MILLS, INC., petitioner, vs. ZENAIDA ALONZO, respondent. Facts: From July 30, 1973, Zenaida Alonzo was employed as a ring frame operator in the Pacific Mills, Inc. until September 30, 1982 when she was discharged by Management. The record shows that in the early afternoon of September 22, 1982, Zenaida challenged Company Inspector Ernesto Tamondong to a fight, saying: â€Å"Putang Ina mo, lumabas ka, tarantado, kalalaki mong tao, duwag ka . . Ipagugulpi kita sa labas at kaya kitang ipakaladkad dito sa loob ng compound palabas ng gate sa mga kamag-anak ko.† And suiting action to the word, she thereupon boxed Tamondong in the stomach. The motive for the assault was Zenaida’s resentment at having been reprimanded, together with other employees, two days earlier by Tamondong for wasting time by engaging in Idle chatter. 1 Tamondong forthwith reported the incident to the firm’s Administrative Manager 2 as well as the Chairman of Barangay Balombato, Quezon City. 3 On September 30, 1982, Zenaida Alonzo was given a Memorandum by the company’s Executive Vice President & General Manager terminating her employment as of October 1, 1982 on various grounds: poor work, habitual absences and tardiness, wasting time, insubordination and gross disrespect. The service of that memorandum of dismissal on her was not preceded by any complaint, hearing or other formality. These were apparently considered unnecessary by Management 4 in view of the provision in the Company Rules and Regulations (embodied in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the company and the union representing the employees) that: Fighting or attempting to inflict harm to another employee, will render (sic) the aggressor to outright dismissal. It was only at the hearing of the complaint for illegal dismissal (and non-payment of proportionate 13th month pay) instituted by Zenaida on October 4, 1982 in the NCR Arbitration Branch, that evidence was presented by the company not only of the assault by Zenaida on her superior but also of many other violations by her of company rules and regulations, in an attempt to substantiate the validity of her dismissal from work. The Labor Arbiter found that Alonzo had indeed verbally abused and struck her superior, Tamondong, and rejected her contention that the assault was not punishable since it was â€Å"not work-connected and was provoked/instigated by Ernesto Tamondong.† 5 The Arbiter also declared as â€Å"fully established the previous infractions of complainant,† these being â€Å"a matter of record and not denied by complainant (Zenaida).† The Arbiter was of the view, however, that Alonzo was entitled to relief, because (a) the penalty imposed was â€Å"harsh and severe and not commensurate with the offense, . . . suspension of three (3) months . . (being) the proper, just and reasonable penalty . . .;† and because (b) the company had failed â€Å"to investigate complainant before she was dismissed.† Acting on the employer’s appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered judgment on March 23, 1987, sustaining the Labor Arbiter’s findings Pacific Mills Inc. has instituted in this Court the special civil action of certiorari at bar praying for nullification of the judgment of the NLRC for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. In the comment thereon, 7 required of him by the Court, the Solicitor General opined that: . . . both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC apparently failed to take into consideration the fact that Zenaida Alonzo was dismissed not because of this isolated act (of assault against her superior) but rather because of numerous and repeated violations of company rules and regulations. It was only this last incident which compelled Pacific Mills, Inc. to finally terminate her services. It is the totality of the infractions committed by the employee which should have been considered in determining whether or not there is just cause for her dismissal. Issue: whether or not there is just cause for her dismissal Held: Decisive of this controversy is the judgment of the Court en banc in Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC, promulgated on February 8, 1989, 10 in which the following policy pronouncements were made: Thus in the present case, where the private respondent, who appears to be of violent temper, caused trouble during office hours and even defied his superiors as they tried to pacify him, should not be rewarded with reemployment and back wages. It may encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the private respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to his former employer.However, the petitioner (employer) must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process (Section 1, Rule XIV, Implementing Regulations of the Labor Code). While it is true that Pacific Mills, Inc. had not complied with the requirements of due process prior to removing Zenaida Alonzo from employment, it is also true that subsequently, in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter in which Zenaida Alonzo had of course taken active part, it had succeeded in satisfactorily proving the commission by Zenaida of many violations of company rules and regulations justifying termination of her employment. Under the circumstances, it is clear that, as the Solicitor General has pointed out, the continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to her employer’s interests and that, citing San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, 11 the law, in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. And it was oppressive and unjust in the premises to require reinstatement of the employee. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the challenged decision of the respondent Commission dated March 23, 1987 and that of the Labor Arbiter thereby affirmed, are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. However, the petitioner is ordered to pay private respondent a proportionate part of the 13th month pay due her, amounting to P351.00 as well as to indemnify her in the sum of P1,000.00. No costs. ABANTE v. LAMADRID BEARING & PARTS CORP EMPERMACO B. ABANTE, JR., petitioner, vs. LAMADRID BEARING & PARTS CORP. and JOSE LAMADRID, President, respondents. [G.R. No. 159890 May 28, 2004] FACTS: Petitioner was a salesman of respondent company earning a commission of 3% of the total paid up sales covering the whole area of Mindanao. Aside from selling, he was also tasked with collection. Respondent corporation through its president, often required Abante to report to a particular area and occasionally required him to go to Manila to attend conferences. Later on, bad blood ensued between the parties due to some bad accounts that Lamadrid forced petitioner to cover. Later petitioner found out that respondent had informed his customers not to deal with petitioner since it no longer recognized him as a commission salesman. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondent company and its president, Jose Lamadrid. By way of defense, respondents countered that petitioner was not its employee but a freelance salesman on commission basis. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, as a commission salesman, is an employee of respondent corporation. HELD: To determine the existence of an employee-employer relationship, the SC applied the four fold test: 1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-employee relationship is notably absent in this case. It is true that he was paid in commission yet no quota was imposed therefore a dismal performance would not warrant a ground for dismissal. There was no specific office hours he was required to observe. He was not designated to conduct services at a particular area or time. He pursued his selling without interference or supervision from the company. The company did not prescribe the manner of selling merchandise. While he was sometimes required to report to Manila, these were only intended to guide him. Moreover, petitioner was free to offer his services to other companies. Art. 280 is not a crucial factor because it only determines two kinds of employees. It doen;t apply where there is no employer-employee relationship. While the term commission under Article 96 of the LC was construed as being included in the term â€Å"wage†, there is no categorical pronouncement that the payment of commission is conclusive proof of the existence of an employee-employer relationship. R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v ROGELIO EJANDRA G.R. No. 148508 May 20, 2004 CORONA, J.: Facts: Rogelio Ejandra worked as a bus driver of R Transport Corporation and was paid on a 10% commission basis. He informed R Transport’s general manager that his license was confiscated after he was apprehended for a traffic violation. The manager gave him money to redeem his license. Ejandra went to the LTO office everyday but it was only after a week that he was able to get back his license. When he reported back to work, the manager told him to wait until his services were needed again. When asked how long he had to rest, the manager did not give a definite time. Considering himself dismissed, Ejandra filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R Transport. R Transport denied Ejandra’s allegations and claimed that he abandoned his job; that he lied about his license being confiscated; and that he was not an employee because theirs was a contract of lease and not of employment, being paid on commission basis. The labor arbiter rendered his decision in favor of Ejandra, finding his dismissal to be without just cause and ORDERING R-Transport to REINSTATE him to his former position without loss of seniority and other benefits and to pay him backwages from the time of his dismissal until actual reinstatement. The NLRC affirmed this decision. R Transport filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari on the ground that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the labor arbiter. The CA denied the petition. Issues: 1. Did Ejandra abandon his job? 2. Is there an employer-employee relationship between R Transport and Ejandra? 3. Was private respondent dismissed for just cause? Ruling: 1. No. R Transport failed to prove the requisites constituting abandonment. Ejandra’s absence was justified because the LTO did not release his license until after a week. He never intended to sever his employment as he reported for work as soon as he got his license back. If he abandoned his work, R Transport should have reported such fact to the nearest Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment in accordance with Section 7, Rule XXIII, Book V of Department Order No. 9, series of 1997. 2. Yes. R Transport invoked the Supreme Court’s rulings on the right of an employer to dismiss an employee. By adopting said rulings, R Transport impliedly admitted that it was the employer of Ejandra. The fact that Ejandra was paid on commission basis did not rule out the presence of an employee-employer relationship (Article 97(f), Labor Code). 3. No. It also violated Ejandra’s right to procedural due process by not giving him the required notice and hearing provided for in Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of Department Order No. 9., series of 1997 (Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code). Ramos vs Court of Appeals () 380 SCRA 467 Labor Standards Case Digests Facts: Petitioner Erlinda Ramos was advised to undergo an operation for the removal of her stone in the gallbladder. She was referred to Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, who agreed to do the operation. The operation wasscheduled on June 17, 1985 in the De los Santos Medical Center. Erlinda was admitted to the medicalcenter the day before the operation. On the following day, she was ready for operation as early as 7:30am.Around 9:30, Dr. Hosaka has not yet arrived. By 10 am, Rogelio wanted to pull out his wife from theoperating room. Dr. Hosaka finally arrived at 12:10 pm more than 3 hours of the scheduled operation.Dr. Guiterres tried to intubate Erlinda. The nail beds of Erlinda were bluish discoloration in her left hand.At 3 pm,Erlinda was being wheeled to the Intensive care Unit and stayed there for a month.Since theill-fated operation,Erlinda remained in comatose condition until she died.The family of Ramos sued them for damages. Issue: WON there was an employee-employer relationship that existed between the Medical Center and Drs.Hosaka and Guiterrez. Held: No employer-employee between the doctors and hospital.Private Hospitals hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting consultant staff.While consultants are not technically employees, the control exercised, the hiring and the right toterminate consultants fulfill the hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship with the exception of payment of wages. The control test is determining.In applying the four fold test, DLSMC cannot be considered an employer of the respondent doctors.Ithas been consistently held that in determining whether an employer- employee relationship existsbetween the parties, the following elements must be present: (1) selection and engagement of services;(2) payment of wages; (3) the power to hire and fire; and (4) the power to control not only the end to beachieved, but the means to be used in reaching such an end.The hospital does not hire consultants but it accredits and grants him the privilege of maintaining a clinicand/or admitting patients.It is the patient who pays the consultants. The hospital cannot dismiss theconsultant but he may lose his privileges granted by the hospital. The hospitalî€ s obligation is limited toproviding the patient with the preferred room accommodation and other things that will ensure that thedoctors orders are carried out.The court finds that there is no employer-employee relationship between the doctors and the hospital FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v IAC August 17, 1992 FACTS: Funtecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer Christian Institute. One day, Funtecha, who already had a student’s driver’s license, requested Masa, the school driver and son of the school president, to allow him to drive the school vehicle. Assenting to the request, Masastopped the vehicle he was driving and allowed Funtecha to take over behind the wheel. However, after negotiating a sharp dangerous curb, Funtecha came upon a fast moving truck so that hehad to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. Upon swerving, they bumped a pedestrian walking in hislane. The pedestrian died due to the accident. ISSUE: Won Filamer Christian Institute should be held liable HELD: YES First it should be noted that driving the vehicle to and from the house of the school president were bothAllan and Funtecha reside is an act in furtherance of the interest of the petitioner-school. The school jeep had to be brought home so that the school driver can use it to fetch students in the morning of thenext school day. Thus, in learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan’s home, Funtechadefinitely was not having a joy ride or for enjoyment, but ultimately, for the service for which the jeepwas intended by the petitioner school.(School president had knowledge of Funtecha’s desire to learn how to drive.) Court is thus constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was onedone for and in behalf of his employer for which act the school cannot deny any responsibility byarguing that it was done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties. The fact that Funtecha was not the school driver does not relieve the school from the burden of rebutting the presumption of negligence on its part. It is sufficient that the act of driving at the time of theincident was for the benefit of the school. Petitioner school has failed to show that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family.Petitioner has not shown that it has set forth rules and guidelines as would prohibit any one of itsemployees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the official driver or prohibiting theauthorized driver from letting anyone than him to drive the vehicle. Furthermore, school had failed toshow that it impose sanctions or warned its employees against the use of its vehicles by persons other than the driver. Thus, Filamer has an obligation to pay damages for injury arising from the unskilled manner by whichFuntecha drove the vehicle since the law imposes upon the employers vicarious liability for acts or omissions of its employees. The liability of the employer, under Article 2180, is primary and solidary. However, the employer shallhave recourse against the negligent employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of theplaintiff. On Labor Code’s Rule X The clause â€Å"within the scope of their assigned tasks† (found in CC) for purposes of raising thepresumption of liability of an employer, includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of theinterests of the employer or for the account of the employe at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage Even if somehow, the employee driving the vehicle derived some benefit from the act, the existence of a presumptive liability of the employer is determined by answering the question of whether or not theservant was at the time of the accident performing any act in furtherance of his master’s business. Rule X, which provides for the exclusion of working scholars in the employment coverage and on whichthe petitioner is anchoring its defense, is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law onlabor. It is not the decisive law in a civil suit for damage instituted by an injured person during avehicular accident against a working student of a school and against the school itself. Present casedoes not involve a labor dispute.An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer s a shield to avoid liability under thesubstantive provisions of the CC. Motion granted G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO, in his capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Roxas City and POTENCIANO KAPUNAN, SR., respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: FACTS: Funtecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer. He was, in relation to the school, an employee even if he was assigned to clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of each school day. Having a student driver’s license, Funtecha requested the driver, Allan Masa, and was allowed, to take over the vehicle while the latter was on his way home one late afternoon. It is significant to note that the place where Allan lives is also the house of his father, the school president. Allan Masa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha only after driving down a road, a fast moving truck with glaring lights nearly hit them so that they had to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. Upon swerving, they heard a sound as if something had bumped against the vehicle, but they did not stop to check. Actually, the Pinoy jeep swerved towards the pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan who was walking in his lane in the direction against vehicular traffic, and hit him. ISSUE: WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and its co-defendant Funtecha. HELD:Yes. Funtecha is an employee of petitioner Filamer. He need not have an official appointment for a driver’s position in order that the petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope of his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on its part either in the selection of a servant or employee, or in the supervision over him. The petitioner has failed to show proof of its having exercised the required diligence of a good father of a family over its employees Funtecha and Allan.