Motorola
The Motorola visit in Sao Paolo provided further insight into the mobile phone industry. The visit enabled us to see the sophisticated manufacturing process that the Jaguariuna factory employ and witness the company’s commitment to the six-sigma process. The key takeaway that I have from both Motorola and Nokia is both firms’ zealous commitment to continuous learning and strong customer relations. Given the accelerated development in the mobile phone industry and the importance of key constituencies like operators, it is no surprise that both companies place great value on these two tenets. – Myla Lopez
Considering
Nokia’s formidable market position and bullish growth, it is amazing to find
out that the firm is a relatively young mobile communications firm.
It must be inspiring to meet and talk to the leaders who saw this vision
and steered the company to where it is now.
Nokia seems
more market responsive and dynamic vs. Motorola.
Because the former is more in touch with the outside world, the firm has
achieved phenomenal growth, market share, and brand recognition in such a short
time. It also emphasizes
innovation, market intelligence, partnerships and collaboration with customers,
suppliers, and the academe.
Because of
the firm and industry’s growth stage, Nokia utilizes a more entrepreneurial,
incubator culture. While the
company is very agile at product development and marketing, its management
systems and value-added services may not necessarily be well- organized and
standardized yet, globally speaking. This impression is based on my experience
with Nokia and its customer service system in the Philippines. The firm experienced some problems in their China plant,
which affected the quality of a certain model of cellular phone (unfortunately,
mine). In short, they sold a
substantial number of “lemons,” which I verified through informal interviews
with other customers, Nokia’s customer service representatives, as well as
employees at the repair center. Getting
my 7-month old phone repaired was one of the most difficult and inconvenient
experiences I ever had in terms of customer service. The firm refused to acknowledge that there was a quality
problem and insisted that I pay for the repair and spare parts (since the local
office could not afford a recall or replacement program, according to the Nokia-Philippines Product Manager). Worse
yet, the phone got busted again only two months after the repair incident.
I never bothered to have it fixed again.
Although this experience may not necessarily be representative of
Nokia’s operations worldwide, it shows that the firm’s products and services
are still not supported by global, standardized systems as sophisticated and
structured as Motorola’s. - Diane Obias
Motorola, on
the other hand, is a more inward-looking firm.
However, too much emphasis on internal structures and systems has its
downside if it results in unnecessary management layers and bureaucracy.
This can make a firm slow to react to market changes, which is
characteristic of the very dynamic mobile communications industry.
Several signs of this difference in management style were already evident as early as 1994-1995, while I was working in the sales and marketing department of a telecoms service provider. As a supplier, Motorola focused on structured sales training programs, putting a lot of emphasis on its strict quality control systems (their stress tests and famous “Drop the phone!” challenge). However, I noticed that their products were not as fashionable, compact, nor user-friendly vs. the Nokia phones. Nokia was also more market responsive in terms of price. Nokia had several models for different types of consumers and budgets.
Given the Latin American market environment which calls for a more flexible, entrepreneurial and market-responsive management style, Nokia has a clear advantage over Motorola in terms of strategic and cultural-fit. - Diane Obias
