Cisco Systems : An analysis on Organizational Structure for Competitive Advantage

Cisco Systems a company that has reinvented itself time and again has proved that the key to corporate success lies in an organizational structure that is both responsive and in tune with the changing industry and market requirements browse this site.

Phase-1: The Emergence of a Giant

In April-1997 Cisco structured its products and solutions into three customer segments: Enterprise, Small/Medium business, and Service Provider. The organizational structure was crafted to address two major new market opportunities at that time: the service provider migration to IP services and the adoption of IP products by small and medium-sized businesses through channel distribution. The change was a marked departure from a product-focused structure, which had been Cisco’s hallmark since inception back in1987, to a customer-oriented, solutions-based structure.

CISCOSystems-OrganizationStructure-1

All of Cisco’s research-and-development and solutions marketing would be organized under the three Lines of Business. The Line of Business teams defined and implemented both market and operational strategies that enabled them to deliver end-to-end solutions to their target customers. The new organizational alignment meant increased focus on specific customer segments to provide complete end-to-end solutions, including integrated software, hardware and network management. The different market segments at the time had nothing in common. The fact that Cisco was riding high on the imploding growth in the networking industry meant Cisco did not have to worry so much on costs since margins very high.

An analysis on the effectiveness of “Product Based” organizational structure reveals the following attributes.

Product Centric Organization

Effectiveness

Knowledge Sharing

Low

Ability to reduce Costs

Low

Fostering Innovation

High

Control and Coordination

Medium

Addressing Customer / Market requirements

High

Efficiency in Resource Utilization

Low

Phase-2: The Dot-Com Meltdown

In August-2001, Cisco Systems realigned the company’s focus around changing industry and customer requirements and to reinforce the company as a dominant force in the networking industry. Customer segments and product requirements that were distinct in the past had become blurred. The downturn in the networking industry that followed the broad meltdown across the technology industry in early 2000 meant Cisco had to act quickly to minimize costs and reduce overhead. To respond to these changes Cisco zeroed in on a centralized engineering and functionally driven organizational structure.

CISCOSystems-OrganizationStructure-2

The centralized structure was developed to bring Cisco closer to its customers, to encourage teamwork and to eliminate product and resource overlaps and more importantly to provide the industry’s broadest family of products united under a consistent architecture designed to help Cisco’s customers improve productivity and profitability. The rationale behind a centralized organizational structure was to design all equipments using a baseline standard and architecture, which lowered the cost of product development and manufacture. A centralized organizational structure fostered deeper sharing of knowledge and components across Cisco product groups while promoting more consistent manufacturing and testing to realize economies of scale.

A centralized organization structure enabled Cisco to respond successfully to changing market conditions. The company’s focus was on reigning in costs and respond to revenue shortfalls from declining growth prospects within the industry. The emphasis shifted from delivering new product launches or innovation to survival. An analysis on the effectiveness of “Centralized” organizational structure reveals the following attributes.

Centralized Organization

Effectiveness

Knowledge Sharing

High

Ability to reduce Costs

High

Fostering Innovation

Low-Medium

Control and Coordination

High

Addressing Customer / Market requirements

Low

Efficiency in Resource Utilization

High

Phase-3: Convergence

In December-2007 Cisco announced a new “Technology Organization” structure to address the challenges imposed by the next phase of Internet growth and productivity centered on the demands of tremendous growth in video, the revolution in the data center, collaborative and networked Web 2.0 technologies, where the network emerged as a platform for all forms of communications and data management. The new organizational structure enabled Cisco to position itself for growth in new markets and cater to new and emerging markets in China, Brazil and India.

“The Technology Organization”:

CISCOSystems-OrganizationStructure-3

The changes were designed to enhance Cisco’s effectiveness and efficiency globally in delivering integrated products and solutions, as well as to provide greater synergies in its development process. The need for innovation and ability to cater to different market segments that had different product requirements necessitated a move toward a product-technology based organizational structure. With the industry evolving towards a services based Pay-As You Go” revenue model Cisco had to develop products with scalability, reliability and adaptability in mind. The emphasis on software and centralized nature of the Software Group allowed Cisco to access resources globally while driving integration and interoperability across all of Cisco product lines.

An analysis on the effectiveness of the “Technology Organization” structure reveals the following attributes.

Technology Centric Organization

Effectiveness

Knowledge Sharing (Across Divisions)

Medium

Ability to reduce Costs

Low

Fostering Innovation

High

Control and Coordination

Medium – High

Addressing Customer / Market requirements

High

Efficiency in Resource Utilization

Medium

References:

1. Cisco’s Technology Vision for the evolutions of Networking.
2. Cisco Systems Corporate Timeline

Ideal Product Features: Emotional or Rational ?

From my observations and analysis I have found that any decision by a buyer (consumer) to buy a product or service is based upon either of the two choices:

1. A Rational process of elimination:

Where in the buyer will compare products based on price, features, benefits…. and then make a decision on whether to buy the product or the service. Bottom line is it is harder to sell when there is intense competition as products have to meet or beat the nearest rival on a lot of fronts.

2. An Emotional appeal.

When a product or service strikes an emotional appeal with a buyer, be it because of the look & feel, appearance, brand name, or pride of ownership, the products are easy to sell . However it is also much more difficult to create an emotional connection with the buyer. Quite often products in this category sell even though they may lack the features or benefits that other rivals can offer.

ConsumerDecision-RationalvsEmotional-2

Applying this concept, we can evaluate various products available today in the marketplace in terms of their appeal (Rational or Emotional) to prospective buyers.

An example of an exercise with different products picked at will shows the following attributes as judged by me. The same may yield different results depending on the perceived benefits by others.

Product Attributes
(Emotional / Rational )
Volvo iPhone Tiffany’s Safeway Bread
Brand
Elusiveness × × ×
Safety × ×
Luxury / High End ×
Pride of Ownership ×
Social Group / Class
Pricing × × ×
Features × × ×
Availability
Service & Support ×
Ease of Use × × ×
Warranty × ×
Quality
Reliability × ×
Reputation
Cost of Ownership × ×

What then is an “IDEAL PRODUCT” that can appeal to both categories of buyers ?

An “IDEAL PRODUCT” has features that strike a balance by appealing to both the emotional and rational minded buyers.

IdealProduct

This may help explain why products such as an iPhone, or a BMW command such a premium and enjoy a loyal customer base even though the competition (Nokia N95, Audi/Lexus) can offer much more for the same or better price.

iPhone Launch: Navigating Powerful Intermediaries

In most consumer oriented markets powerful intermediaries such as retailers, distributors or powerful stakeholders yield significant clout in deciding what products or services reaches the end buyer/user.

In the cell phone market we have two important stakeholders whose participation is a must for any product to succeed – Cell-Phone Subscribers and Wireless Service Providers. Between the two Wireless service providers holds enormous leverage over handset manufacturers on account of their stranglehold on cell phone subscribers.

In 2007 Apple an established name in the PC and consumer electronics world decided to enter the cell phone market. To successfully launch a product such as the iPhone you need to get two important stakeholders on board – wireless carriers and end-users; application developers constitute the invisible third front.

Specifically which of the 4P’s and 1C’s: Product, Promotion, Price and Place and Complementors were strategically more important than the others.

When dealing with powerful buyers (end-users or intermediaries) the strategic options that can be successfully employed depends on whether strong buyers / intermediaries :

A) Can be neutralized – In this case, the strategic choices that one can employ are:

    • Product Differentiation
    • Leap Frog
    • Create Switching Costs
    • Co-opt key influencers or decision makers

    B) Cannot be neutralized – In this case the strategic choices that one can employ are:

      • Integrate-Forward (Eliminate Intermediaries)
      • Adopt a “Low-Cost” Model ( Drive out weak competitors, industry consolidation)
      • Go after Niche Markets ( Focus on Segments that are not powerful)

      Strategies to neutralize powerful intermediaries:

      1. Product Differentiation:

      With a Product Differentiation strategy the idea is to offer and position a product that no one else comes close to matching on all product attributes. In the process you ensure low price elasticity.

      Apple developed a product that is far superior and ahead of competition on all fronts and then complemented the same by providing an ecosystem (applications) around it. In doing so Apple neutralized the power of wireless carriers to negotiate better terms or to even refuse carrying the product.

      2. Leap Frog over intermediaries:

      Apple had built a strong brand awareness and reputation with its iPod product line. By leveraging its brand name and effective use of ‘Pull-Marketing’- (advertisements) directly targeting consumers-end-users, Apple managed to create strong demand for the iPhone ahead of its launch.

      By going after the end user Apple, to a certain extent, managed to tilt the balance of power during negotiations with wireless carriers in its favor.

      3. Co-opt key Influencers and Decision makers:

      A wireless carrier is more concerned about ARPU (Average Revenue per User) rather than which handset to carry. But handsets are the primary draw to lure in subscribers. Apple positioned the iPhone in the sweet spot for AT&T by signing an exclusive contract and allowing AT&T to set its own terms for end users. Subscribers were forced to carry a pricier data plan with a 2-yr contract.

      Breakdown of Costs & Revenue for Carrier* 2007 2008 2009
      Average Handset Subsidy per User -$200    
      Average Annual Revenue per User $345 $828 $345
      Lifetime Value of a Subscriber $828    

      * Note: Based on a data plan with a monthly fee of $69.00 and a 2 year contract starting July-1st 2007 and terminating on July 1st 2009.

      Even with $200 subsidy for each iPhone sold, the carrier (AT&T) stands to make money over the 2-yrs lifetime of the customer (see table above). It is a “Win-Win” situation for both Apple and the carrier.

      4. Switching Costs – The use of Complementors:

      Apple launched the iPhone Applications platform allowing handset users to customize and harness the full potential of their handsets using third party applications. Here again Apple allowed application developers full control on what apps to develop, how to price them and whom to target.

      In the process Apple managed to create switching costs for both carriers and end-users.

      Appendix: Why did Apple choose AT&T as an exclusive carrier over others ?

      An exclusive contract with AT&T allows Apple to sell the handset at a higher price and register higher revenues even at the expense of losing some market from the other carriers. The strategy makes sense when you have a superior product, weak competition and skimming prices.

      iphoneLuanch

      Assumptions:

        1. With an exclusive contract, Apple can capture 5% of the subscriber base at AT&T and sell the handset at $299 (8GB) to the carriers.
        2. With an non-exclusive contract Apple can capture 2% of the subscriber base at each of the carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) and 1% with T-Mobile. Handsets will be sold to each of the carriers at $149

            References:

              • FierceWireless – The wireless industry daily monitor
              • SEC Filings for AT&T, Verizon, Sprint