Industrial Management of Manchester - Coursework Example

Industrial Management work In order to effectively evaluate the potentials for development of the small and medium size companies operating in the area of Manchester, we should primarily present its most significant characteristics. More specifically, Manchester has been recognized as the UK’s second largest economic region (after London). The whole area is constructed from ten districts, the largest of which is the city itself with a population of around 430,000 [1]. Moreover, the region is under development in accordance with the rules of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This effort is expected to enhance the financial growth of Manchester and the subsequent development of the companies operating in the Area can be considered as certain. It should also be noticed that the vast majority of enterprises of Manchester are of small and medium size. Moreover, it seems that there are a few problems related with their operation which have been caused not because of their object of activities but mainly because of their structure and their strategy. It should also be noticed that the area is offered for rapid growth of all kind of business activities but mostly for the engineering. This fact can be explained by the existence of plans of development, restoration and conservation of historical buildings [2] that are currently in progress. The above mentioned businesses are vital for the financial and the cultural development of the whole area in which they operate. The importance of the small business existence and operation is also recognized by Fuller (2003, 314) who stated that ‘the small businesses are needed by the corporate organisations as suppliers to provide flexibility but also to create the greatest reach and depth in local markets as distributors and agents for products and services’. We should also take into account the view of Orser et al. (2000) according to which ‘growth in small businesses is rare’. More specifically they state that ‘growth is hypothesized to occur when a threshold of administrative or managerial acumen is attained by the management team’. Their findings are based on ‘a random survey of 1,004 small and medium-sized Canadian businesses’. The above research showed that:’ fewer than one quarter of the sampled businesses reported two consecutive years of revenue increases; growing firms tended to be younger companies while firms in decline were comparatively older; and the presence of a business plan was highly correlated with performance (yet only one-third of the firms formally planned)’ (Orser et al., 2000, 42). Davidsson et al. (2002, 32) conducted an ‘Empirical research on the US., German, Australian, and Scottish economies which has shown that age, size, location, legal form, and industry are related to business growth’. It should also mentioned that the above research ‘has focused on manufacturing firms, thus providing little information about the effect of industrial sector differences on these factors’. According to the findings of this research ‘business age, beginning size, ownership form, industrial sector and legal form are the most important factors related to growth’. Furthermore, it has been found that ‘although business growth differs among industrial sectors, youth, ownership independence, and small size are major factors that underlie growth across all industries’. The engineering workshops that are currently operating in Manchester and particularly in the specific area, have to cooperate with the standards and the developments that are characterized the specific industry. The introduction and the application of these standards will help the companies not only to survive in the modern competitive environment but also to achieve an important level of growth (Branch et al., 2003, Ghosh et al., 2005). As for the level of adaptation and the variables referring to the above strategy in the specific business type (this of the small firm) it has been found that ‘the necessity for working toward strategic behavior, even in the small or medium-sized firm, appears to depend on two criteria- size of firm and type of entrepreneur’ (Pleitner, 1989, 71). In order to choose the specific sector of the business entity (as for each one of the businesses involved) which needs this kind of ‘enhancement’ we should primarily proceed to a detailed recording of all the firm’s activities trying to locate any areas that would need improvement or that present signs of failure (Gilley et al., 2002). Having gathered all the above material, we should then search for any possible solution that could help confront the problem. Regarding specifically the particular engineering workshops, their observation led to the assumption that there are areas of the business structure and operation that need emergent handling. At a first level, the companies should relocate adjacent to each other onto the ground floor of the mill. Such a decision could have a series for positive effects to the operations and the development of each of the participated business. More specifically, the relocation of the companies in a ‘common place of operations’ could significantly reduce their operational costs. On the other hand, this could also enhance the sharing of technology which would be possibly necessary for a project and which would be acquired only by one of the businesses involved. Another important consequence could be the security of the machines and all the equipment used for the completion of the engineering projects. The existence of all the relevant material in one place could be offered for very effective measures of protection against both the disaster of natures as well as the human intervention. From the same point of view, the co-existence of the businesses could also enhance the co-operation between the professional specialists working in each particular firm. This could furthermore, lead to a very important sharing of knowledge necessary for the completion of a required task. Such a co-operation could also enhance both the quality as well as the time of delivery of each project involved in the area (Sauner, 2004). The sharing of knowledge could also have a positive effect to the financial growth of the participated businesses. This could be achieved through the achievement of delivery in shorter time limits that could subsequently result the allocation of more projects to each business that could operate under such a scheme. In the above context, each firm that would follow a strategy of such a kind could also be helped to an important level through the sharing of technology used. The acquisition of all the equipment required for a specific project is a task that can be characterized as unachievable. More specifically, while working on an engineering workshop, it’s a common problem to discover that there are issues that require specific technology which had not been predicted while planning the whole task. The co-existence of the companies in the above described area could resolve this problem as all the possibly necessary technology would be available and in very short frame of time. In order for the above proposals to lead to the design of an effective and complete strategy, they should also be followed by the proper distribution of roles between the employers and the employees of each particular company (Arino, 2003). If this ‘separation’ of roles is not applied, then the initiatives that were presented before could not function normally and would remain just guidelines without any influence and practical participation in each firm’s operation. Angelucci et al. (2003, 173) conducted a survey in Russia trying to ‘explore the impact of competition on the performance of firms’. The results of their study showed that ‘the transition process at the enterprise level entailed two major policy initiatives--the creation of a private sector via privatisation as well as de novo private enterprise entry and growth; and the establishment through price and trade liberalisation of markets as the main mechanism for resource allocation’. This study can be useful to the level that it refers to the connection between the ownership (and any possible changes related with it) to the whole business performance. The results of this work could be valuable in order for the employers of the firms involved in this case to understand the need and the scope of the separation and the distribution of roles across the firm (in order to avoid the issue of transfer of the business’ ownership as a ‘tool’ for the survival of the company). We could refer here to the work of Gilley et al. (2002, 95) who examined ‘the influence of top management team (TMT) risk taking propensities on firm performance as well as other performance outcomes of risk taking, such as innovativeness and stakeholder satisfaction’. According to their findings ‘risk taking has a strong positive influence on firm performance’. It is also noticed that ‘risk taking-performance relationship is moderated by the dynamism of the firms industry in a way that that the benefits of TMT risk taking are reduced in more dynamic environments’. The influence of the above views combined with a thorough examination of the above presented proposals could lead to the assumption that the application of specific and integrate measures as well as a multi-basis co-operation is necessary in order for the companies involved to survive in the industry as from a long-term point of view. References Angelucci, M., Estrin, S. 2003. Ownership, Competition and Enterprise Performance. Comparative Economic Studies, 45(2): 173-187 Arino, A. 2003. Measures of Strategic Alliance Performance: An Analysis of Construct Validity. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1): 66-183 Badger, B., Chaston, I., Hampson, Y., Sadler-Smith, E. 2003. Managerial Behavior, Entrepreneurial Style and Small Firm Performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1): 47-163 Branch, B., Yang, T. 2003. Predicting Successful Takeovers and Risk Arbitrage. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, 42(1-2): 3-16 Davidsson, P., Gustavsson, H., Hatemi, A., Kirchhoff, B. 2002. Empirical Analysis of Business Growth Factors Using Swedish Data. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(4): 332-348 Fischer, E., Reuber, A.R. 2003. Support for Rapid-Growth Firms: A Comparison of the Views of Founders, Government Policymakers, and Private Sector Resource Providers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(4): 346-363 Fuller, T. 2003. If You Wanted to Know the Future of Small Business What Questions Would You Ask? Futures, 35(4): 305-317 Ghosh, S., Prater, E. 2005. Current Operational Practices of U.S. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Europe. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(2): 155-169 Gilley, K.M., Olson, B.J., Walters, B.A. 2002. Top Management Team Risk Taking Propensities and Firm Performance: Direct and Moderating Effects. Journal of Business Strategies, 19(2): 95-109 Orser, B.J., Hogarth-Scott, S., Riding, A.L. 2000. Performance, Firm Size and Management Problem Solving. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(4): 42-52 Pleitner, H.J. 1989. Strategic Behavior in Small and Medium-Sized Firms: Preliminary Considerations. Journal of Small Business Management, 27(4): 70-73 Sauner, J.B. 2004. Managers and Productive Investment Decisions: The Impact of Uncertainty and Risk Aversion. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(1): 1-15 www.manchester.gov.uk [1] www.manchestercvb.com/history/mill-history.php?area=80 [2] Read More