# data[].attributes.body
Why it made sense in the 1950s and 1970s

Strict Trade Barriers: High tariffs and protectionist policies forced companies to manufacture and adapt products locally within each country.

Localized Customer Needs: different broadcasting standards, unique power grids, and diverse consumer choices required strong, autonomous national teams.

Stable Growth: Slower technological shifts and predictable markets allowed Philips to easily bear the higher operating costs of this decentralized model. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Why it was a problem from 1980 onwards

Japanese Competitors: Rivals like Sony and Panasonic centralized highly efficient assembly lines to achieve greater economies of scale.

Shorter Product Lifecycles: technological advancements meant products became obsolete. The matrix structure led to duplicated manufacturing, cross-border conflicts, and agonizingly slow decision-making that delayed product rollouts.

Globalization of Markets: As the world shifted toward unified global standards, localized autonomy led to fractured branding and wasted resources. [1, 2, 3]

Ultimately, Philips struggled to adapt because its entrenched management, who had largely risen through the national organizations, resisted shifting power to the centralized product divisions required to reduce costs and innovate at scale. [1, 2, 3]

Why did Philips' organization structure make sense in ... - Brainly

31 Jul 2023 — Philips' functional organization structure worked well in the 1950s and 1970s for its clarity and specialization in a stable marke...

Brainly

The Organization of International Business Read the case on Philips ...

29 Sept 2015 — * Why did Philips' organizational structure make sense in the 1950s and 1970s? Why did this structure start to create problems for...

Transtutors

Chapter 14: The Organization of International Business Read the ...

1 Apr 2015 — ANSWER. ANS.1. * In the early years of the 1900s, Philips, which had first started out as a maker of bulbs, saw explosive grow...

Transtutors

# data[].attributes.body
What Philips Tried to Achieve

Economies of Scale: Lower manufacturing and development costs by prioritizing production rather than operating redundant facilities across different countries.

Global Integration & Speed: Eliminate isolated decision-making to create a cohesive global strategy and respond faster to emerging technologies.

Innovation Focus: Free the company from regional duplication, allowing product divisions to focus purely on product-wide innovation and market responsiveness. [1, 2, 3]

Why It Was Hard to Achieve

Entrenched Management: Many senior executives rose through and were deeply loyal to their local national organizations, often prioritizing local interests over global efficiency.

Decentralized Roots: Born out of wartime necessity, the highly autonomous national organizations were fiercely protective of their sovereignty, leading to resistance during centralization.

Cultural & Operational Gaps: Forcing disparate national units to share supply chains, logistics, and R&D strategies clashed with long-standing decentralized cultures

# data[].attributes.body
Boonstra implemented several specific, aggressive changes to achieve these goals:

Streamlined Divisions: He replaced Philips' overly complex and redundant network of 21 product divisions with just 7 global business divisions.

Centralized Authority: He shifted power away from the highly independent national sales organizations—which he famously likened to an inefficient "plate of spaghetti"—and gave global divisions control over worldwide production, product development, and marketing. Division heads were required to report directly to him.

Focus on Core Competencies: To increase profit margins and shareholder value, he divested roughly 40 unprofitable or non-core businesses.

Shift in Corporate Culture: He aimed to dismantle the traditional, consensus-heavy, engineering-centric culture at Philips, replacing it with a market-oriented approach that prioritized speed, accountability, and profitability.

# data[].attributes.body
Why Philips Reorganized

Intense Global Competition: Consumer electronics were facing steep pricing pressures from aggressive Asian competitors (such as Samsung and Sony), and Philips' decentralized structure made it too slow to adapt.

Decentralized Bureaucracy: Historically, Philips relied heavily on autonomous "national organizations" that acted independently. This led to massive duplication in manufacturing, a fragmented product strategy, and inefficiencies across borders.

The 2008 Financial Crisis: The rapid economic downturn forced a sudden need to cut costs and streamline global operations to maintain profitability. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

What the Company Was Trying to Achieve

Global Integration & Efficiency: By shifting power from local country managers to global product divisions, Philips wanted to standardize marketing, centralize product strategy, and relocate production to low-cost countries.

A Simplified, Focused Structure: Cutting down divisions (from up to 21 down to 3) helped the company narrow its focus on where it held actual comparative advantages: healthcare, lighting, and consumer lifestyle goods.

Direct Management of Retail: The new divisions were empowered to deal directly with emerging global retail chains, streamlining the sales process and cutting out bureaucratic middlemen

# data[].attributes.body
Q1. Why did Philips' structure make sense in the 1950s–1970s, and why did it create problems in the 1980s?

Why it made sense: During and after WWII, Holland was occupied by Germany, forcing Philips' national organisations in countries like Britain, Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the US to operate autonomously. Each national organisation became a self-contained entity handling its own manufacturing, marketing, and sales. This structure made strong sense because:

High trade barriers meant local production and customisation were necessary

It allowed Philips to tailor products and marketing to local market conditions

National managers could respond quickly to local consumer needs

# data[].attributes.body
Q2. What was Philips trying to achieve by shifting power to product divisions, and why was it hard?

What they were trying to achieve: Philips wanted to shift from a locally responsive but costly structure to one that could compete globally on efficiency and scale. By empowering product divisions:

International production could be centralised and rationalised under product division direction

Duplication of manufacturing across nations would be eliminated, lowering costs

Products could be developed and sold more consistently across global markets

# data[].attributes.body
Q3. What was the point of Cor Boonstra's changes, and what was he trying to achieve?Boonstra, who became CEO in the mid-1990s, famously described the existing structure as a "plate of spaghetti" — 350 companies worldwide with massive duplication. His goals were:

Radical simplification: He replaced 21 product divisions with just 7 global business divisions, each responsible for global product development, production, and marketing

Breaking national organisation dominance: Division heads reported directly to Boonstra; national organisations now reported to the divisions — reversing the historic power dynamic

Eliminating redundancy: By consolidating into fewer, clearer divisions, he aimed to cut the duplication and cost inefficiencies that had plagued Philips for decades

National organisations retained responsibility only for local sales and local marketing, finally stripping them of their historic broader influence

In essence, Boonstra was trying to transform Philips from a loose federation of national fiefdoms into a coherent, globally managed company.

# data[].attributes.body
Q4. Why did Philips reorganise again in 2008, and what were they trying to achieve?

By 2008, under CEO Gerard Kleisterless (who succeeded Boonstra in 2001), Philips was still underperforming global rivals, suggesting Boonstra's 7-division structure hadn't gone far enough. The 2008 reorganisation reduced divisions further to just three: healthcare, lighting, and consumer lifestyle.

The likely rationale was:

Sharper strategic focus — fewer, larger divisions meant clearer priorities and stronger resource allocation toward high-growth areas

Greater global market orientation — divisions took on responsibility for global marketing, product strategy, and shifting production to low-cost locations or outsourcing, directly targeting the cost competitiveness that had long been a weakness

Engaging global retail giants — divisions took over sales dealings with major global chains like Walmart, Tesco, and Carrefour, reflecting the growing power of global retail

Portfolio rationalisation — this structure paved the way for Philips to eventually divest electronics (2010s) and lighting (2016) to focus on the fast-growing, profitable global healthcare market

The 2008 change represented Philips finally committing to being a globally integrated, strategically focused enterprise rather than a diversified multinational still managing national complexity.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, this statement is entirely correct. [1]

A multinational firm's strategic success relies on a strict cost-benefit analysis. It must weigh the value creation a strategy provides against the organizational costs and structural changes required to implement it. [1, 2]

This dynamic shapes the choice of international strategies: [1]

Localization Strategy: Focuses on maximizing local responsiveness by customizing products and services to distinct national markets. It is logical for firms where cultural differences and local tastes are high, but it can be costly due to the duplication of manufacturing and operational facilities.

Transnational Strategy: Balances high pressures for cost reductions with high pressures for local responsiveness. It creates value through global learning and multidirectional knowledge flows, but requires a highly complex, decentralized, and interdependent organizational architecture, making it the most expensive and difficult strategy to implement. [1, 2, 3, 4]

\

# data[].attributes.body
Yes this is correct, as some companies such as clothing strategy must adopt a localisation strategy because the weather, as well as religious and cultural practises may be different per each country, while others like soda companies like coco cola, an international strategy is enough as everyone despite different backgrounds can enjoy the drink. So the strategy differs per company and what they are offering to their consumers

# data[].attributes.body
1. Functions Focused on Local Responsiveness

These functions require autonomy and deep customization to fit the cultural, political, and economic nuances of the specific host country. [1, 2]

Marketing and Sales: Must be highly localized to resonate with indigenous consumer tastes, cultural preferences, and local media channels.

Product Development/R&D: Adapts core global products or services to meet local regulatory requirements, infrastructure standards, and regional market needs.

Human Resources (Local): Needs localized hiring, compensation benchmarking, and labor-law compliance to successfully recruit and retain host-country talent.

Customer Service & Public Relations: Geared toward building local relationships, trust, and a positive corporate reputation within the community. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

2. Functions Focused on Global Integration

These functions require centralized coordination to maximize economies of scale, ensure brand consistency, and transfer best practices across the global network. [1, 2, 3]

Supply Chain and Procurement: Centralized to secure bulk purchasing power, optimize manufacturing locations, and lower unit costs.

Information Technology (IT) and Data: Standardized globally to ensure seamless communication, cybersecurity, and cohesive enterprise software (e.g., ERP systems).

Finance and Corporate Governance: Centralized at headquarters for capital allocation, global tax optimization, and maintaining uniform financial reporting.

Core Corporate R&D: While local teams adapt existing products, fundamental, breakthrough research and technological innovation are best centralized for global leverage. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

# data[].attributes.body
Functions such as the marketing department of a company must focus on local responsiveness as the company must advertise their products based on consumer behaviour and local taste and preference

Functions such as the finance department of a company must focus on global intergration as all branches of the company must handle costs approprately, report on accurate data and make sure the company achieves profits

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1: It is logical as some firms faces differnt pressures balancing cost reduction and local responsiveness. These issues makes it that no single approach is applicable to all firms depending on their organizational architecture. Some may do a localization strategy to prioritize adaptation over efficiency and some prefers standardized products with a global strategy in mind and treats the whole global market in the same way.

Question 2: The company that I chose mainly are a confectionery company from Belgium and coming into singapore may have crossing ideals in terms of what products may thrive and what wont. I think in terms of flavours or price adjustments should follow based on the country's culture. In the assignment 2, we found that singapore tend to prefer luxury goods due to their culture and so the price and quality of the company's product could reflect that. However, the ingredients itself cant be compromised as the company's main goal was to use ethically sourced ingredients that are up to the company's premium chocolate standards which can drive up costs to be higher than competitors in Singapore. So in terms of what parts of the company should integrate certain strategies, I feel that it entirely depends on the companies structure and priorities.