Case study term paper

[...]
“Enjoying for decades a first mover's advantage, Xerox had a prominent beginning with the first xerographic copier. Recognized as the biggest selling industrial product of all time, the 914, with a 70% gross profit margin, became Xerox' Cash Cow for many years, and its profits covered whatever losses the company had in other unsuccessful business ventures. Spoiled by this success, Xerox harbored a bureaucracy within its administration (Burox) that did not allow for change and thwarted and hampered innovation. When Xerox' patents began to expire in the early 1970's competition from Japan became fierce as prices were cut down. The need for innovation became clear, and top management leadership was the key to success.”
[...]

[...]
“Obviously, good relations with suppliers are interconnected with arrangements that are also important for the transfer of technology and effective product development. Toshiba's strengths in these areas are critical to its manufacturing strategy and they are directly related to the Knowledge Works form. For the internal transfer of technology and effective product development processes, however, good relations with suppliers require Toshiba to span numerous organizational boundaries that separate it from its suppliers. In order to attract leading suppliers, forward-looking, strategic investment on the part of Toshiba is needed. Suppliers do not want to squander their limited resources and proprietary know-how on transactions with just any company. The opportunities to be associated with big projects incorporating cutting-edge technology are inducements to attract the best suppliers. In order to do so, since 1984, Toshiba has invested a steady 15 percent of the value of its manufacturing output in plant and capital equipment investment.”
[...]

[...]
“Successful projects at Banca di America e di Italia, Siemens Nixdorf Service, and AT&T demonstrate how companies can appropriately make their reengineering projects broader and deeper. Such efforts, however, if poorly managed, provoke organizational resistance. But such opposition can be overcome if committed managers approach reengineering as a painful but necessary disruption of the status quo. In all too many, reengineering has been simultaneously a great success and a great failure. After months, even years, of careful redesign, these companies achieve dramatic improvements in individual processes only to watch overall results decline. By now, paradoxical outcomes of this kind have become almost commonplace.”
[...]