Years of Poems and Spirits

Case study: Lucent/Supply Chain/Joint Venture

Question 1. Hub-and-Spoke the right model for new environ?
Answer:
No
* Parts shortage
* End of product life cycle
* Why not license out/contract out manufacturing altogether (K. D.)

Issues:
* I.P. if R&D (even Manufacturing) is sourced out.
* The “network” model

Question 2. How to take maturing internal/external resources?
Answer:
1. What maturing resources?
* HR
* Techno. know-how
* 1st mover or early mover
* Manufacturing ability
* Support and training
2. How to take adv.?
* Identify/expand on the “portables”
* Support/training
* ?

Question 3. What could Lucent do about material shortages without high inventory?
Answer:
1. Demand: increase prices, better intelligence/forecast
2. Supply: additional investment, squeeze even more out of current capacity
3. The wacky one: futures market

Question 4. Today’s leading edge procurement helpful for tomorrow?
Answer:
YES.

Question 5: Further internal breakthrough vs. Outsourcing?
Answer:
Outsourcing!

Related discussion: How to ensure quality (bigger picture: customer experience) when outsourcing (or networked supply chain)?
Example: Microsoft, outsourced dev. and cust. services., through:
* Standard procedure
* Training
* Brand management (?)
* Automated testing (i.e. certification)
* Improve internal procedure to discover errors
* Backup plans

Additional research:
* Supply chain malfunction causes 9% stock drop or 20% loss over 6 month by reseracher (see here)
* Observation: Joint advanture like local opium distribution network in the first case of class. Benefits: political/regulartory/connections

NYT coined the term “Spitzerism” in its Sunday magazine article (by Noam Scheiber, a senior editor at The New Republic).

Spitzer has “practiced a brand of prosecutorial politics that is less about securing indictments of evildoers than about shining a light on structural defects in corporate institutions.” (i.e. new brand of Ralph Nader-ism through law enforcement)

A hint to the rest of the Demos: “is Spitzerism useful only in the narrow context of Democratic law-enforcement officials running for higher office? Or is there, lurking somewhere in Spitzer’s experience, an approach that Democrats around the country could mine for political success?”

“Spitzer has so far resisted indicting a single company despite exposing case after case of corruption” NYT’s spin: so he does not “appear as if they’re punishing success”. (Or not to burn a bridge?)

“One question … asked respondents who they wanted to see take a larger role in solving the nation’s problems - government or business and individuals. … middle-class voters who owned stock in some form were 5 percentage points more likely to favor a larger role for government than middle-class voters who didn’t.”

Cowan of Third Way is less coy. “At the heart of our economic issues …, as we continue to globalize, risk is going to be the defining concept,” he says. “I think that if Spitzer is able to translate the particular work he did around risk associated with investment in the stock market. . .into a larger narrative for Democrats about … risk associated with pensions, health care, employment - that “could help forge the bond with the middle class that we’ve lost.”