Managing Organisational Change-A2(1) Essay Example
The paper critically examines the response of Charlie Coaches, in relation to changing market conditions. The most favourable alternate actions are presented.
The failure of Charlie’s Coaches was caused or accelerated by diverse reasons, based on failure to dynamically adapt to the changing environment. The strategies adopted may have also been inappropriate, since it only considered inflation induced prices, excluding other external factors.
A significant cause of failure is the lack of pursuing expansion strategies, hence dependence on a single business line. It failed to expand, diversify and evolve the business both in terms of geographical area served and the number of services offered. Charlie failed to plan for, or anticipate future growth, therefore kept the coaches, drivers and the tours, without expanding either.
Internally, Charlie Coaches failed to respond to growth pressures. The existing systems and processes in terms of human resource, processes and equipment may have been unsuitable for growth hence creating a mismatch which resulted to failure, Fuat (2010).
There are several environmental forces, contributing to the failure. Apart from inflation, the organization failed to appreciate and consider other external pressures such as fashion pressures. With emergence of fashion, maintaining the traditional fleet may have caused the failure. Moreover, the destinations that the company’s vehicles operated, may no longer be favourable tourist destinations, new destinations may have emerged. This highlights failure to respond to market decline pressures.
Failure to respond to hyper competition pressures is also a factor. In limiting response to inflation by increasing prices, the coaches exposed it to open competition, in terms of pricing instead of reducing operations costs, Noel (2009), higher than market prices may have caused failure. Charlie was risk averse, and was not ready to try out new business ideas, stagnation and failure to try may have contributed to the failure of the business as argued by Ferrell & Michael (2008).
To ensure that the business prospers, Charlie could have taken several actions depending on the dynamics and the prevailing market conditions. Responding to the internal pressures and implementing changes, could ensure that the processes, systems and human resource is abreast with the market changes, Fifield (2007), hence enabling the company to have efficiency and coherence, leading to organizational performance and gaining strategic advantage. Moreover, Charlie could have adopted a multifaceted approach to the changing environment to get competitive edge. In differentiation strategy, Charlie could select one fundamental criterion used by the customers in the market, then positioning Charlie Coaches, uniquely to meet those criteria. Using cost leadership strategy, Charlie Coaches could strive to become the lowest-cost producer in the industry, without affecting the quality of service to the customers. Furthermore, Charlie could have pursued expansion strategies to other routes, targeting a different niche of customers, or expanding the number of coach services offered.
Charlie Coaches closed due to failure to dynamically respond to the changing market dynamics. It could have taken a strategic response approach in order to survive.
Ferrell O. C., & Michael D. H. (2008). Marketing Strategy. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Fifield, Paul. (2007). Marketing strategy: the difference between marketing and markets. London: Butterworth-Heinemann
Fuat,Beyazitoglu. (2010). Business Marketing — the Case of Microsoft. Berlin :GRIN Verlag.
Noel, Capon. (2009). Capon’s marketing framework. Wessex: Wessex Publishing
More Important Things