c


Microenvironments

Economic Factors

Strength

The long-awaited U.S. rebound is the primary factor propelling the world economy to growth of 3.5 per
cent in 2004," said Kip Beckman, Principal Research Associate. Many Asian countries will gain a
boost from expanding demand for information technology products. North America will generate real
gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 4.3 per cent. On the other hand, the current interest rate is
under the low position and good for global economic growth. The U.S. consumer is showing a
willingness to spend and business investment has revived in response to rising profitability. We can
detect that the U.S. currency is depreciating. It is good news for American export and to stimulate the
growth of American economy. US dollar is at a inflation with a normal rate

The population of the world is keep growing at a certain rate, and the humanЎ¦s technology is very
advanced. There is no specific law or policy against pharmacy.

Competitive Environment:

Industry Factor:

Market Growth:

The increase rate of the medicine market in 2003 is about 5-6%, which is less than the interest rate of
2002. In 2003, American pharmacy spend 33.2 billion US dollars to study new product, it has a 7.1%
growth rate compare with the year before. The pharmacy market still has a positive growth rate.

Competitors

Strength

Over the next three years, the New York-based pharmaceutical titan will face patent expirations on five
blockbuster drugs. (Carl Seiden) Three of them rank among the top 10 biggest-selling pills on the planet.
In 2003, U.S. sales of these five pills accounted for $12.5 billion, or 28% of Pfizer's $45 billion in total
revenue. According to researchers at Tufts University in 2001, when failures are figured in, it costs an
average of $800 million to develop a single marketable medicine. The more capital a particular medicine
company has, the more invents it can support. Therefore, a bigger medicine company can invest many
researches and get higher successful opportunities than other smalls.

Weakness

After a drug will lose its patent protection, consumers will choose the low-priced generic versions
quickly. Thus, the drug maker can see sales fall off a cliff in the future. Therefore, other competitors can
also make the same medicine without invest cost.

Threat of Entry

Strength

In order to keep high profits continually, the better way is to invent new products immediately and to
get its patent to prevent other competitorsЎ¦ joint. For the medicine industry, a patent of the
particular is as import as its unique efficient effect. It is also a high risk for medicine industry to make a
new medicine because nobodies know when they can discover a new prescription and win their patent
earlier than others.

Strategic Alliances:

The American Pharmacy Alliance, it Ў§supplies prescription processing systems to more than 10,000
independent and small chain pharmacies throughout the United StatesЎР, and Ў§its projects helps
community pharmacies significantly expand their value to patients, and to the health care delivery
system, and at the same time help others in the industry achieve their pharmaceutical care and business
goals.ÐŽÐ (Technology Partnership of the American Pharmacy Alliance) There are also some
partnerships for a specific drug, such as Eli Lilly and Icos invent Cialis, Glaxo Smith Kline and Bayer
produce Lecitra.

Mergers & Acquisitions

Strength
Thought merging other small companies, some national medical corporations can own their patent of
prescription immediately. In the past, these corporations choose upfront payment and milestone
payment to invest some biological companies. If those biological companies can invent some new
efficient prescriptions, these national manufacturers can own the exclusive proxy.

Company Specific Factor:

Market Share:

The stock price of Pfizer has been exceeding far away from the average level of S&P 500. (Yahoo
Finance)

Financial Analysis:

The current asset of Pfizer has increased 20%, and its total asset has increased 152% in 2003. Its total
revenue has growth rate of 40 %.( Yahoo Finance)

Management

Strength

In order to create global supply chain for its pharmaceutical, Pfizer will implement Manugistics'
fulfillment management solution. Throughout its global supply network, more than 50 manufacturing
sites and many distribution centers, Pfizer's Order Entry Systems as well as its plant Material Resource
Planning (MRP) systems will be interfaced with the Manugistics solution. By enhancing supply visibility,
Pfizer expects to improve customer service, reduce finished goods inventory levels and logistics costs
and enhance manufacturing efficiency.

Marketing:

After the merger between Pfizer and Pharmacia, Pfizer will control 11% of the global market.(Merger
between Pfizer and Pharmacia)

Distribution:
The sale of prescription drugs of Pfizer in 2003 was 29.2 billions US dollars, has a increase rate of 9.7%,
and it is on the top of American pharmacy compare with other companies. The sale of
Lipitor(PfizerЎ¦s major product) in 2003 was 6.8 billions US dollars, has an increase rate of 10.8%, and
create the No.1 sale in the American compare with the congeneric drugs.(Analysis of Distribution of
Prescription Drugs in America)

Technology

Strength

Pfizer is taking the drug discovery process to a new level of efficiency. Pfizer also has made a strategic
commitment to the aggressive integration of advances in genomic and biological sciences, chemical
design and synthesis, engineering, and informatics. 1 Therefore, this manufactory can evolve new
paradigms and has an increased potential to survive the rigors of drug development.

Labor and human resource issues

Strength

Pfizer Inc recognizes that to compete in global markets, it needs world class Human Resource managers
who are active participants in strategic and operational decisions. Pfizer labors are reengineering the
pay and benefits of the company or implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) programs.

Works citied

Ў§Analysis of distribution of Prescription in AmericaЎР, http://www.cpha.org.cn/html/

content/add2/scts_yjyfz_2241.htm
Beijing Morning Post, Ў§Merger between Pfizer and PharmaciaЎР, Feb 3. 2003,
http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2003-02/09/content_719854.htm

Chinese Pharmacy Organization, Ў§Analysis of Major International Pharmacy Company in 2003ЎР,

Apr 2. 2004, http://www.3see.com/free-report/ reportview.php?fid=3855

The American Pharmacy Alliance, Ў§Technology Partnership of The American Pharmacy

AllianceÐŽÐ , Jun. 2002, http://www.ameripharm.com/apa_info.html

Yahoo Finance, Ў§Balance Sheet of PfizerЎР, Apr 11. 2004, http://finance.yahoo.com/q/

bs?s=PFE&annual

Yahoo Finance, Ў§Income Statement of PfizerЎР, Apr 11. 2004, http://finance.yahoo.com

/q/is?s=PFE&annual
Ensayo 2 Ô


 
 



The Functions of Management.

The four functions for management are planning, organizing, leading, and controlling, which all provide
a vital part in completing management vision. Each part is significant and one cannot function without
the other.

The first function of management is planning. Planning is the foundation of all the functions of
management. Planning is one of the functions leading the other three functions that are created.
According to Rane, planning requires managers to review the company current situation, and where it
would like to be in the future. Then the right course of action to reach the company's goals and
objectives is determined and implemented. The planning process is constant. Supervisor use this
development to plan for the future, an outline any anticipate problems, and decide on the actions to
avoid complex issues and to beat the competition (Bateman, Snell, 2007). Each company must live by its
philosophy that explains the business purpose and goals. Quality in the results that are achieved and
how the results are reached doing what is right, respect others, value those that direct and take pride in
all that they do, and the value of teamwork to reach common goals. Planning is selecting priorities and
results and how those results are accomplish. Planning includes identifying goals, objectives, methods,
and resources are all needed to carryout methods, to complete the tasks. Depending on the problem, a
company may adjust the course of action to accomplish the goal.

The second function of management is organizing. Organization is a matter of appointing individuals to

assignments or responsibilities that blend together to develop one purpose, to accomplish the same
goals. These goals are reached according to the company's standards and procedures. A manager must
know their subordinates and what they are good at to organize the most helpful resources a company
has, its employees (Bateman, Snell, 2007). The manager must then review the plans with the team,
break the assignments into sections that one person can complete, link related jobs together in a
reasonable well-organized manner, and assign the jobs to individuals (Allen, 1998). Organization is a
wide-ranging of activities and often considered one of the main functions of management.

The third function of management is leading and directing. Leadership is the authority of influencing
people's behavior through motivation, communication, group dynamics, leadership and discipline that
inspire actions toward achieving the company's goals. Leading and directing covers many functions and
have many names such as coaching, motivating, interpersonal relations, and human relations (Rane,
2007). Through directing it gives the manager an active rather than a passive part in employee
performance, conduct, and accomplishments. Managers achieve their objectives through people. In
addition through directing it gives managers a second responsibility by helping organization complete
their goals as planned. Allowing staff to have the potential to deal with situations is an important part of
leading (Allen, 1998).

The fourth function is controlling. During this method it guarantee plans are being put into action
properly this is the controlling process. According to Gemmy Allen the controlling is the last link in the
chain of management activities and bring all functions of management cycle to a full circle (Allen, G.
1998). It also involves evaluating and reporting of job performance, and with the comparison of the
performance they can correct and prevent actions before thing happen. Controlling allows simplicity of
delegating tasks to team members and was managers may be held accountable for the performance of
subordinates (Allen, 1998).

The four functions of management is planning, organizing, leading and controlling, takes up a huge value
in the success of any business every day (Bateman, Snell, 2007). In all organizations each employee
involvement in the success of the company is a huge importance at the company reaches their
goals, without out their cooperation the goals will not be reached. There is always room for
improvement within management with the appropriate function of management in position to be in
effect for a long-term success.

In my place of business, which is tax preparation, the planning start in November for the next four
months of the tax season. Management makes sure all the equipment is functioning properly and
postcards are sent out to current clients from the pervious years to ensure them that our service is still
available to them. Managers also make sure all staff has the proper training with the new software, and
placing staff member with the most experience in the right field for the business to keep the flow of the
business running smoothly. With controlling of the business, we pull all other function together to make
sure the plan will work to accomplish the same goal. Working together as a team to accomplish the
same goal will help make the tax season successful.

Reference

Rane, SanJay (2007). The four function of Management. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from
www.associatedcontent.com
Bateman, T.S. & Snell, S. (2007). Management: Leading and Collaborating in a Competitive world (7th
ed., pp 16-18). McGraw-Hill. Retrieved on March 25, 2010.
Allen, G (1998). In Supervision. Retrieved March 25, 2010 from
http:ollie.deeed.edu/mgmt1374/contents
Ensayo 3`  
  Ô


   

Agility: The Key to Survival of the Fittest in the Software Market

Introduction
The software industry and IT departments are facing extreme pressures to provide new applications that add value in
today's competitive environment. Whereas in the 1990's companies concentrated on implementing systems that re-
automated functions to provide specific benefits (the ability to process transactions on January 1, 2000), today's market
demands new applications, and better integration within and between organizations. This has sparked the formation of
many software companies to solve new problems, and well-established application providers are looking for new
features and business models to improve their revenue streams.
Concurrently, there has been a significant increase in the number of small, interconnected organizations who are
working to provide emerging services and products to today's customers. These firms have different information needs
than large firms. They often provide a limited number of products or services so their information needs may be simpler.
However, they often work in concert with many other firms to complete projects, so they need the ability to
communicate seamlessly within this web of firms to share information about each project. In response to traditional and
emerging markets, software vendors are realizing they must satisfy the needs of a wide range of companies and to
develop applications tailored to each niche.
Facing these changes, those needing to evaluate applications are often faced with a daunting task of understanding key
differences among software packages and attempting to identify the major players within each market segment. To
facilitate such analysis, we have developed a framework that organizes software applications similarly to the
evolutionary categorization of animals. In this framework, analogous to the vertebrate/invertebrate classifications,
enterprise systems can be distinguished as those that have been created without an organizing principle while others
are either inwardly organized or outwardly organized. Figures 1 and 2 show the comparative evolutionary trees for
animals and enterprise systems.
Each category of enterprise system can be sub-divided, and each species of system can be studied to identify (1) the
characteristics that can lead to its continued existence and (2) the niches in which it can flourish. This structure can
provide several benefits. First, those interested in purchasing software can use this categorization to identify the key
differences among systems currently available. Second, software vendors and customers may use this framework to
highlight today's software market trends with an eye toward guiding organizations toward tomorrow's software choices.
Finally, we have successfully used this framework to design a graduate course to introduce students to a wide range of
software applications and prepare them to enter the market in which agility is the key to survival.
II. Developing the Framework: The Evolution Analogy
The ideas of Darwinian evolution can be used to describe the tumultuous IT environment in which enterprises compete.
As illustrated in Figure 1 for animals, a first pass at natural classification produces the three categories of (a)
invertebrates, (b) vertebrates, and (c) a speculative category of how animals interact as communities. In Figure 2 a
similar first pass categorizes enterprise systems into (a) systems with no overall organizing rationale (i.e., with no
backbone), (b) systems with inward organization (i.e., can be likened to vertebrates), and (c) systems with outward
organization (i.e., able to communicate and interact as communities). Each of three information system categories is
explained below and can be further subdivided, as shown in Figure 2.
Insert Figures 1 and 2 here
Systems with no organizing rationale: Invertebrate animals such as insects are not as advanced biologically as their
vertebrate counterparts, but they survive well in a multitude of environments. Similarly, single entry enterprise systems
can be successful in guiding a multitude of small organizations. However, these systems are not able to provide robust
classification principles to guide the recognition of transactions. QUICKEN âͣ¢ is an excellent example of such a system
that has found a niche and is flourishing within that narrow segmentâΦ͟ individual users and very small businesses in
which the owner is the key participant and decision maker. These systems work well when the owner or manager
participates in all of the key business events. However, they face survival problems if the organization has significant
transaction volumes, reporting requirements, or outside information users. For example, it is difficult to provide a
substantial amount of non-financial information using of these systems.
Systems with inward organization: More advanced enterprise systems incorporate an organizing principle to bolster
their organizing and processing capabilities. These systems adhere in some fashion to one of two major organizing
principles: (a) the classic double-entry accounting equation of assets = liabilities + owners equity (A=L+OE) from Pacioli's
1494 treatise [4], and (b) the enterprise value chain concept of Porter [8]. These two divisions and their hybrids are
explained below:
The first organizing principle, A=L+OE, has successfully guided enterprise information needs for over 500 years. With
these systems, information continues to be focused on the financial implications of economic events, much as it was
with single entry systems. However, users now are provided with a framework that can help to insure information
completeness and to enforce rules about how and when transactions should be recognized.
With advancing technology, managers recognized several weaknesses with systems that summarize data to fit the
categorization of general ledgers and charts of accounts. Therefore, other functional areas within organizations
independently developed software to meet their needs. For example, materials requirements planning (MRP) systems
were created to better support manufacturing processes and to assist with production schedules and materials lead-
time requirements. Additionally, activity-based costing (ABC) systems attempt to identify the activities that result in cost
expenditures, rather than relying allocations based on direct labor and materials usage. These MRP and ABC systems are
examples of "hybrids" which have evolved beyond traditional A=L+OE systems, but many products in this
category retain some fundamental bookkeeping flavor.
Rather than focusing on financial transactions, more recently-created systems are better understood using Porter's
enterprise-wide value chains concepts as their foundation. Their goal is to capture a wide range of information about all
key business events. These systems recognize that customer demands pull resources into the organization to be
consumed in pursuit of providing customer value. While these enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are able to
generate financial statements and to work in an integrated fashion with general ledgers, these are no longer their
preemptory goals.
When implemented correctly, ERP systems provide firms with many advantages. They help standardize procedures
across divisions and nations, they are able to consolidate detailed transaction data from different functions, and they
provide methods to access data throughout the entire range of organizational activities. Thus, by reducing internal
processing costs and enhancing communication within the organization, these systems have facilitated the growth of
large, multi-national firms. However, while providing these benefits, they also impose many constraints on adopting
organizations. Many of these packages are inflexible, and firms implementing them often must adapt their business
rules to meet software specifications rather than the other way around. As a result, some organizations are struggling to
implement best of breed solutions. Although this solution may provide better a functional fit, integration is very difficult
and costly.
Systems with outward organization: Outwardly organized software systems, such as customer relationship management
(CRM) and supply chain execution (SCE) systems, support not only a single enterprise's set of business processes, but
work among organizations to provide data to other participants in predictable formats. For example, e-Procurement
software can enhance interorganizational communication by focusing on a standard set of document definitions (such as
those based on EDI or XML) that allows uniform integration of data elements.
Future systems solutions may go further by utilizing common and independently-viewed definitions. For example, with a
system that captures shipping information, the originating company could use the data for sales calculations, while the
destination company could use the same data as their receiving records. These integration systems provide trade
facilitation advantages because they increase efficiency with consistent and non-redundant storage. However, the
standards for supporting this type of processing are in their infancy. Some firms (such as those in countries that dictate
adherence to account standardization) may choose to standardize their interorganizational data transfers at the
bookkeeping level (that is, use A=L+OE as the transfer protocol) with the result that the common data will be reduced to
account entries. However, we believe it is much more likely that these common systems will evolve from ones that
capture more detailed semantics about business resources and events such as envisioned in the Semantic Web [2].
These higher order systems will allow users to store, access, and format their information in a manner suited to their
own goals. Additionally, these systems may enable new organizational structures. By reducing the cost of
interorganizational coordination, small, nimble firms that focus on one activity in the value chain can flourish, relying on
communication capabilities with other firms that provide complementary services.
III. Using the Framework
This framework has several uses, and perhaps the most obvious one is to explain the range of software available. Having
shared this with a wide range of international business people and students, we have seen that it can minimize the
complexity of today's market (especially for software non-experts). However, we believe that it also has value to those
who purchase software and those in the software industry. The following sections share several insights that become
apparent when you extend the framework by applying other evolutionary concepts. Similar to the organization of
individual animal species, we grouped several of today's software packages into categories that would streamline a
software selection project. Second, we describe how software categories are adapting to better survive in nearby niches.
Finally, we identify recent mutations that provide insights into possible business models that may influence tomorrow's
software market.
A. Species Classification: "the systematic categorization of organisms. One aim of modern classification, or
systematics, is to show the evolutionary relationships among organisms." [3]
One of the main ways that evolutionary structures have been helpful in biology is to categorize individual species,
helping to understand their similarities and differences. Similarly, organizations that need to purchase software are
often overwhelmed with the range of application solutions and amount of information available about them. If
corporate managers understand the enterprise evolution structure, they can quickly narrow their search to a category
that supports their business needs. Thus, an important first use of our framework is categorizing software applications.
B. Adaptation: "the adjustment of living matter to environmental conditions, including other living things."
[3]
In the animal world, species able to adapt to different environments survive. This concept can be applied to the software
market to see that flexible software vendors are able to successfully adapt their applications to a range of market niches
are more likely to flourish in today's economy. With this in mind, one obvious route to increased revenues is to identify
market niches that are closely related to their core customer group and to modify their existing system to move into this
new market. In terms of the software hierarchy, this means that vendors may attempt to expand to their left or right,
especially within an organizational family. For example, within the Inwardly Organized categories, we see several of the
smaller ERP systems adapting to move toward the larger markets (move toward the right on the evolutionary tree), such
as JD Edwards' successful move from the Hybrid category to become a Single-Source ERP vendor. Additionally, the larger
systems have nearly saturated the Fortune 500 market, so they have begun to streamline their offerings and make them
available to smaller firms. For example, SAP states that their product, R/3, can work in companies of "all
sizes." While vendors have these aggressive goals, we believe that moving slowly and methodically to nearby
categories can prove more successful than attempting to simultaneously adapt to every environment.
Vendors are also adapting their applications by reaching across organizational categories to integrate new functionalities
into their products. For example, advanced planning and scheduling (APS) systems and CRM systems have moved
beyond novel, stand-alone applications to become important in today's market. Because they provide significant value
to potentially any organization, the market is attempting to determine the best way to integrate these features into
other systems, and several approaches have emerged. Consider the ERP market. Some vendors have entered into
partnerships and then to built seamless integration between their systems. For example, J.D. Edwards initially partnered
with Siebel Systems to provide CRM functionality. Another approach to adding functionality is for firms to purchase
stand-alone products to more tightly integrate into their systems, such as the J.D. Edwards acquisition of Numetrix (an
advanced planning system) in 1999 and YOUcentric (a CRM system) in 2001. Finally, some vendors have chosen to create
their own application modules. For example, SAP has released its own supply chain modules to be sold with its R/3
product. The advantage of this approach is that integration concerns are eliminated as the products have been designed
to work together. The difficulty, however, is that stand alone vendors often have a long history of successful
implementations and years of refining their systems. Therefore, such ERP vendors have largely (and, perhaps
unsuccessfully) found themselves in a "catch up" mode, trying to develop a system that matches the
functionality of the older products [6].
C. Mutation: "a sudden change in a gene, or unit of hereditary material, that results in a new inheritable
characteristic." [3]
The software market is also being changed as a result of mutations introduced by new vendors. For example, an
important mutation is radically different business models for the software industry (see Figure 3). In the traditional
model, companies buy both software and hardware, accepting responsibilities for ownership and operation of these
systems. Mutations to this basic model have occurred recently, and their impact on the software market may be
dramatic.
Insert Figure 3 here
As the economy has become more competitive, many companies have recognized that systems operations is not their
core competency, and that there are significant inefficiencies in maintaining internal IT departments. In response, a new
threat to software vendors has arisen: Application Service Providers (ASP's) who host an organization's systems on
centralized hardware and, in many cases, also process the organization's transactions. Additionally, the ASP's may be
responsible for integrating modules and customizing code if needed. This poses two threats to software vendors. First, if
ASP's are able to consolidate processing resources more efficiently than individual companies, then software sales will
shrink. Additionally, if the ASP's provide value-added services such as consulting and customization, the software
vendors will lose these additional revenues. The impact of these threats can be significant. For example, GM outsourced
all of its human resources processing to Arthur Andersen for a 10-year contract of $250 million [7]. In response to this
change in the software market, hardware vendors, software vendors, consulting firms, and public accounting firms are
each vying to become prominent ASP's [5]. The key to their success will likely be their ability to offer very high levels of
reliable service and to efficiently integrate separate software products.
The Internet is further confounding this phenomenon. Whereas the ASP's have largely hosted client-server applications,
portal sites challenge our traditional notions of how software should be delivered. By creating web-based software and
operating it through their portals, software vendors are operating similarly to ASP's. However, they are also able to
provide additional services at the site such as coordinating relationships among related sites and organizations. Taken to
the extreme, this model would result in componetized web-based applications for all functions, and a community of
users who work together, streamlining the supply chain.
Portal providers can earn revenues from individual users, from advertising, and from transactions that occur between its
community members. Simultaneously, this mutation offers software customers several key advantages. First, the
advantages that ASP's provide to their customers would also apply with this business model. Additionally, software
implementation costs are likely to be reduced further because the software runs over the web, and any employee who is
familiar with browser software is likely to need minimal additional training. Finally, by providing firms with the ability to
interact seamlessly with their customers and suppliers, overall efficiencies should be improved, thus helping all
organizations in the supply chain remain competitive.
These types of environments are new, and there is still considerable uncertainty about how they will evolve. For
example, similar to the Single Source ERP versus the Best of Breed tension in the ERP market, we are curious to see if
software-providing portals will develop complete information solutions, or whether they will focus on core
competencies. If the latter occurs, the need for inter-portal communication standards will be critical to the success of
these niches.
Portal providers could also develop radically different data structures for their systems -- as different as the break
between systems with no organizing rationale and those that are inwardly organized. If the portals focus on streamlining
interorganizational communication, they will need to capture detailed information about each customer-supplier
interaction, similar to today's CRM products. The difference, however, will be that the data could be stored once and
then made available to both parties in the transaction. In this environment, the records could be used by the customers
to perform vendor analysis and supply chain execution, while the suppliers could use the records to perform customer
analysis and demand planning.
IV. Conclusions
We have developed an evolutionary framework to categorize today's enterprise software market. The value of this
framework lies in its ability to explain today's market and to help identify potential evolutionary changes. Today's
market is complex, and the changes business firms face are dramatic. Our framework highlights that any application's
ability to survive in such an environment relies on its producer's ability to remain flexible. They must be able to identify
important market mutations that challenge the status quo and to adapt to those changes with either incremental or
wholesale changes in product components.