Need for Organizational Change Management at Kmart - Assignment Example

Need for Organizational Change Management at Kmart Table of Contents 1.Problems Faced By Kmart 3 2.Organizational Change Management 9 3.Concluding Remarks 15 4.Recommendations 16 References 18 List of Figures Figure 1: Kmart's CFROI Returns (1960-2005) 4 Figure 2: Kmart's Real Asset Growth Rate (1960-2005) 4 Figure 3: Market Shares of Discount Stores and Supercenters (1990-2000) 7 Figure 4: Roles Played by the Top Management 8 Figure 5: Five Basic Organizational Components 11 Figure 6: Contextual vs. Structural Dimensions 12 Figure 7: Stakeholder Groups and their Expectations 14 Introduction Having started its journey in 1962 Kmart is a contemporary of discount retailing giants Wal-Mart as well as Target. The notable player that enjoys its position among America’s legendary business icons was born more than a century ago, in 1899, when Sebastian Spering Kresge started his “modest five-and-dime store in downtown Detroit” (Sears Holdings Corporation-a, 2010), only to change the retailing landscape in the near future. The strikingly low pricing strategy of Kmart was hugely successful in attracting shoppers and as a result Kresge expanded his single shop operation into a network of 85 stores within a period of 13 years. The annual sales thus achieved were in excess of $10 million. Even during periods of financial depressions and wars this chain of retail stores stood out as a successful player by virtue of its ability to offer products at affordable prices. What is more, unlike other organizations it helped people sustain their families by offering them jobs. Despite the fact that prices have undergone numerous changes with the passing years, Kmart’s business philosophy remained the same – the company strongly believed that the best way to retain customers is by offering them “products they need at prices they can afford” (Sears Holdings Corporation-a, 2010). Over the decades Kmart has earned endless accolades that have augmented its position in the global retail sector, and during 1976 it created history “by opening 271 Kmart stores in one year, becoming the first-ever retailer to launch 17 million square feet of sales space in a single year” (Sears Holdings Corporation-a, 2010). However, the picture at Kmart has not been rosy all through. At the beginning of 2002, “the company filed for bankruptcy after its debt spiraled to more than $10 billion” (Kelly, 2004), and it has been reported that in the next two years the company had closed nearly 600 stores and laid off nearly 59000 employees. This incident helped Kmart make history yet again because the company had almost “$17.0 billion in assets at the time of their filing, making it the largest retailer the United States had ever seen declare bankruptcy” (Cole, 2002, p.2). In order to survive the financial plights, Kmart merged with Sears Roebuck in November 2004 following a deal worth $11 billion. Although the company is performing well and trying its best to “create long-term value in a deliberate and logical fashion, while remaining cognizant of the risks and challenges” (Sears Holdings Corporation-b, 2010), problems that still exist are pushing Kmart to the back foot. While identifying and evaluating these problems, the current report will also aim at outlining a comprehensive change management process that might help Kmart in regaining its position in the global retail sector. 1. Problems Faced By Kmart After introducing to the world the innovative concept of discount retailing back in the year 1962, Kmart fueled a surge in Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI) returns. This in turn resulted in the company’s stock price surpassing “the S&P 500 36-fold from 1960 to 1972” (Madden, 2010, p.67). This indeed was a major accomplishment given that the retail market had already been rendered competitive by players like Wal-Mart. Figure 1: Kmart's CFROI Returns (1960-2005) (Madden, 2010, p.68) However, from the above figure, it is also apparent that the company declined gradually in terms of financial health prior to its insolvency in 2002. The fundamental point exemplified by the performance of Kmart during 1972-2002 is that “a viable business model must be rooted in a value proposition to customers that is cognizant of competitive alternatives” (Madden, 2010, p.67). The figure appended below illustrates the company’s performance during 1972-2002 in terms of its real asset growth rate. It may be observed that towards the middle of 1990s, Kmart’s performance in this vital area started declining. Figure 2: Kmart's Real Asset Growth Rate (1960-2005) (Source: Madden, 2010, p.68) It has been observed that the management at Kmart had gained a substantial authority over the organizational resources by virtue of its highly successful past. As a result, it became complacent and continued to do business without paying heed to the changes that had been taking place rather rapidly in its external environment. With more and more players entering the global retail arena, the industry was becoming increasingly competitive during the three decades, i.e. 1970s-1990s; under such circumstances, Kmart’s core competencies were waning off as the company was shifting into a zone of self deception. The limitations that the company suffered from were evident from the fact that it had embarked on an unnecessary acquisition spree instead of identifying and evaluating the central problem. Interestingly, it is during the same period that Wal-Mart, under the supervision of Sam Walton, continually improved upon the same discount retailing model that was actually introduced by Kmart and outperformed the latter by wide margins. In order to highlight the complacence, it requires a mention at this stage that “Wal-Mart gained distribution efficiency from its store locations; its industry-leading technology revolutionarized inventory and supplier processes; and its enthusiastic employees continually worked on all the little details to improve store productivity” (Madden, 2010, p.67). In brief, Wal-Mart did everything that is expected to be done by an organization driven by a clear vision about the future opportunities. Amidst all these radical changes that were taking place around it, Kmart expanded its existing store base, although without an innovative mindset. Even though its format resembled that of Wal-Mart, the customers did not quite like it. This is perhaps the worst point of difference (POD) that may exist between two rivals. At a time when other retail players, e.g. Target, developed competitive business models in a bid to differentiate their store formats from that of Wal-Mart and were thus enabled to persistently garner CFROI returns over and above their capital costs, Kmart was happily doing business as usual! When Wal-Mart was in full swing, the financial performance of Kmart was critically damaged. In addition to the fact that during the 1990s “there was a revolving door of CEOs at Kmart who focused on short-term fixes” (Madden, 2010, p.67), it has been reported that employee morale had also plummeted to a great extent. The problems were accentuated further when the organization decided to close 15 stores that were “identified as not meeting Kmart's necessary return-on-investment requirements to remain open or renew the leases” (Bloomberg Business News, 1996) and in turn cut 1300 jobs in February 1996. It had also revealed plans of shutting down a total of 60 stores during that year. It has been observed that Kmart lagged behind Wal-Mart as well as Target in terms of the frequency at which it turned over its stock (three times a year), and this information had been used to explain its position in terms of sales per sq. ft. On facing immense competition from its rivals, Kmart had set up a new stock management system; however, suppliers as well as analysts had argued that “it uses its technology less effectively than the others do” (The New York Times, 1993). On the basis of the observations of Turner (2003), it may be mentioned in this context that the big-fix approach adopted by Kmart was “diametrically opposite to that of the steady, relentless, incremental improvements orchestrated at Wal-Mart” (Madden, 2010, p.67). That Kmart’s success was hindered by a serious lack of stability as well as efficient internal processes is evident from the fact that the company had as many as 6 different chief information officers (CIOs) during 1994-2002. It has been categorically explained that Kmart’s vision about its corporate goals as well as objectives being rather fuzzy led to most of its problems. It has been said that most of the strategies implemented by the organization were but “ill-conceived expansion initiatives” (Somani, n.d., p.6-7) that not only drained the retailer of its cash reserves and pushed it into bankruptcy, but also allowed a host of rival companies to gain considerable advantage over it. The figure appended below illustrates the comparative market shares of notable retail organizations during 1990-2000. Figure 3: Market Shares of Discount Stores and Supercenters (1990-2000) (Source: Somani, n.d., p.6-7) By now it is quite comprehensible that the problems that Kmart is facing are lingering in nature, i.e. the company has not been able to completely recuperate from the multiple ailments that it has been suffering from since the 1970s. Even as the company had been striving in its attempts to recover, the hardest blow that it encountered was in the form of bankruptcy that was phenomenal enough to carve its name in history. This incident was even more shocking because of the fact that prior to filing for insolvency the organization reported annual sales that were as high as $40 billion (Markham, 2006, p.234). Figure 4: Roles Played by the Top Management (Source: Daft & Armstrong, 2009, p.51) It goes without saying that the strategic direction of any organization is generally set by its top management; it is this organizational component that strikes a balance between the external and internal environments of a company and designs strategies that best suit the organizational profitability. Kmart’s lack of stability in its top management resulted in a significant loss of its market share in comparison to those of its rivals. On top of these already existing issues, Kmart received a lot of flak when two of its executives were charged on grounds of securities fraud as well as additional violations related to its bankruptcy. Although later on these charges were dropped due to lack of substantial evidence, it has recently been reported that “a federal judge ordered a former chief executive of the Kmart Corporation, Charles Conaway, to pay more than $10 million for misleading shareholders about the retailer’s prospects before its 2002 bankruptcy” (The New York Times, 2010). This event has tainted the image of the already troubles corporation to a large extent. The list of problems that are adding to woes of Kmart seems to be never ending. As has been observed by Markham (2006), when Martha Stewart was accused for hindering justice, it was a major setback for Kmart because “one of its important lines of business was the marketing of Martha Stewart brand products” (Markham, 2006, p.235). Even though the net loss that Sears Holding Corporation was expected to incur had declined by $19 million during Q3 of the 2009 fiscal, it was observed that the company experienced numerous quarters of feeble sales (Hals, 2009), which points at the fact that Kmart needs to realize that its operations are still plagued with underlying problems. It goes without saying that the problems that are being faced by Kmart are multifarious and deep seated. The company is highly troubled in almost all its aspects – ranging from operations to corporate goodwill. Following its merger with Sears, there have been efforts to revitalize its financial health, but alas, these attempts were quite discontinuous and inefficient. In a nutshell, it may be said in the words of Marcia Layton Turner (2003) that “out of what looks like pure greed, former managers pushed Kmart into bankruptcy by draining the corporate coffers, in the process giving themselves extensive compensation packages and embarking on ill-advised price wars” (Turner, 2003, p.1). 2. Organizational Change Management The discussion undertaken in the preceding section makes it evident that Kmart, regardless of being one of the iconic players in the highly lucrative global retail sector, is currently entangled in numerous problems. Once praised for introducing the innovative idea of discount retailing, the company has over the years deteriorated its leadership position, while many of its rivals have outperformed it by incorporating the Kmart format into their operations. Under the present circumstances, it is rather necessary for Kmart to implement radical changes to its existing organizational structure and the dynamics associated with it. However, prior to discussing the probable change management process that the organization might undertake, it is deemed necessary to provide a generalized idea about organizational change and its effective management. While organizational change (OC) may be defined as “new ways of organizing and working” (Dawson, 2003, p.16), organizational change management (OCM) can be defined as “a methodology designed to lessen the stress and resistance of employees and management to individual critical changes” (Harrington & Lomax, 1999, p.46). As has been observed during the course of the current research, Kmart could not be easily outperformed unless it allowed other players to muscle their way into the retail sector. Literature review has revealed that Kmart, during the peak of its success, started showing symptoms of complacence and failed to be aware of the numerous radical changes that were taking place rapidly in global business scenario. It has been theorized that “innovation goals pertain to internal flexibility and readiness to adapt to unexpected changes in the environment”; and as has been asserted by Daft and Armstrong (2009), “innovation goals are often defined with respect to the development of specific new services, products, or production processes” (Daft & Armstrong, 2009, p.55). However, Kmart failed to identify the need for innovation. Having started its journey almost at the same time as Wal-Mart, i.e. in 1962, Kmart was clearly the market leader during the first 25 years of its existence – way ahead of Wal-Mart, both in terms of sales volumes as well as number of stores. However, the scenario was drastically reversed over a period of just 8 years (1987-1995) during which the market share of Kmart dipped by 12 per cent (i.e. 1.5 per cent annually) and that of Wal-Mart was enhanced by 21.5 per cent (i.e. approximately 2.7 per cent annually). It has been observed that in contrast to Wal-Mart’s efforts to lower its operational costs, Kmart had tried to augment its marketing as well as merchandizing strengths. Furthermore, the organization pumped out hefty amounts by investing “heavily in national television campaigns using high-profile spokespeople such as Jaclyn Smith (a former Charlie’s Angel) and Martha Stewart” (Meredith & Shafer, 2007, p.3), thereby overlooking the necessity to improve its core business. It may be reiterated that Kmart started lagging behind Wal-Mart in terms of technological expertise, and as has been reported by Duff and Ortega (1995), “by Kmart’s own admission, its employees were seriously lacking the skills needed to plan and control inventory effectively” (Meredith & Shafer, 2007, p.3). In 2002, the company realized a strong need for restructuring after receiving “a painful lesson that it couldn’t beat Wal-Mart on price, when it reduced advertising circulars, and cut prices on 38,000 items, or about 40 percent of its merchandise” (The Michigan Daily, 2002). Figure 5: Five Basic Organizational Components (Source: Daft & Armstrong, 2009, p.15) In a bid to support the idea that successful organizations, Daft and Armstrong (2009) have drawn inspiration from the framework that was proposed by Henry Mintzberg. It is according to this framework that in every organization there are five parts. These have been illustrated in the figure appended above. In order to survive the breakneck competition on which almost all the contemporary business sectors are centered, it is highly necessary for companies to have a strong technical core that “includes people who do the basic work of the organization” (Daft & Armstrong, 2009, p.15). On the foundation laid by this major organizational aspect other components, viz. (1) technical support, (2) administrative support, (3) middle management, and (4) top management perform their respective roles to help an organization manifest its corporate goals and objectives. So far, it has been observed more than once that Kmart’s primary weakness existed in its technical core. However, it has also been revealed during the course of research that the company exhibited significant flaw in another vital area – administration. Kmart’s timeline shows that there have been numerous changes in its top management and most of its top executives centered their strategies on short terms goals. Figure 6: Contextual vs. Structural Dimensions (Source: Daft & Armstrong, 2009, p.18) The above figure throws light upon organizational design by showing the interactions that generally take place between structural and contextual facets. While the structural components include (1) formalization, (2) specialization, (3) chain of command, (4) centralization, (5) professionalism, and (6) personnel ratios; the contextual dimensions of an organization consist of (1) goal(s) and strategies, (2) size, (3) environment, (4) technology, and (5) culture. Whenever there is any nonalignment among these elements, there arises a need for reorganization. In the case of Kmart, it has been observed that “its decision to seek judicial reorganization was based on a combination of factors, including a rapid decline in its liquidity resulting from its below-plan sales and earnings performance” (Cole, 2002, p.7). During the process of restructuring itself, Kmart had planned to employ numerous operational as well as financial initiatives. Of these, a major initiative was to seek approval from the Bankruptcy Court and terminate with immediate effect “the leases of approximately 350 stores that were closed previously by Kmart or are currently being leased by other tenants at rents under Kmart’s obligation” (Cole, 2002, p.8). The reason behind such a radical decision is obvious – the company aimed at saving almost $250 million by doing away with these leases. Furthermore, it also intended to curtail its yearly operating costs by another $350 million by performing a host of other activities such as business process reengineering (BPR), staff reduction and office consolidations. These initiatives were testified by a 2003 report that said Kmart “would cut 660 jobs, including 15 percent of its headquarters staff, to save $150 million a year as it works to emerge from bankruptcy” (The New York Times, 2003). The company has been continually striving to position itself as a responsible corporate citizen by enforcing “energy management policies throughout its facilities to promote sustainability and conservation” (Sears Brands, LLC, 2010), and it provides on its website a regularly updated recall list in order to ensure that its customers do not face any safety issues by using those products (Sears Holdings Corporation-c, 2010). These are initiatives that definitely speak about the good intentions of Kmart. That the company has again shifted its focus on its core competence, i.e. discount retailing, can be illustrated by Sears Holdings Corporation’s expectation “to report total Adjusted EBITDA (consisting of Kmart Sears Domestic and Sears Canada segments) of $290 to $350 million in the current quarter and operating income in the range of $85 to $130 million” (Thomson Reuters, 2010). As the success of any organizational initiative (including its reorganization and/or change management) depends to a large extent on the employees, it needs a mention in this context that Kmart may encounter certain challenges owing to its highly diverse workforce. Even though workforce diversity brings with it various benefits, the fact that “almost 32 percent of its workforce represents multicultural minorities” (Sears Holdings Corporation-d, 2010) necessitates Kmart to take special care while bringing about radical changes. Figure 7: Stakeholder Groups and their Expectations (Source: Daft & Armstrong, 2009, p.22) The above figure shows the intricate network of an organization’s stakeholder groups along with their expectations. When an organization is troubled, the stakeholders start worrying about the financial impact that might be borne by them as a consequence of the organizational problems. As has been observed in the case of Kmart, the company ran the risk of losing patronage from shareholders. Owing to the fact that “in an environment where production and fixed-capital investment cannot adjust instantaneously to respond to consumption demand shocks, firms opt to hold inventories in the short run so as to avoid stockout and to smooth production against demand uncertainty” (Wen, 2002, p.1), Kmart’s suppliers might back out in order to ink deals with players like Wal-Mart and Target. However, the company also has a multicultural consumer base and hence, its diverse workforce provides it with an exceptionally strong position in the global retail market. Taking all these facts into consideration, Kmart should enhance employee empowerment and make a shift from competitive strategy to one that is collaborative because in learning organizations “the accumulated actions of an informed and empowered workforce contribute to strategy development” (Daft & Armstrong, 2009, p.29), thereby bringing about a holistic improvement in terms of organizational performance. 3. Concluding Remarks It has been observed during the course of this research that Kmart, once an undisputed market leader in the highly lucrative as well as competitive global retail sector, slowly pushed itself towards bankruptcy by virtue of immense complacence. It is pretty remarkable a fact that Kmart is one of the most significant names in the history of retail business because it is this organization that had introduced the concept of discount retail and had thus changed the rules of business in this sector. However, it has been found that although various other retail organizations modeled their operations by gathering ideas from the Kmart format, Kmart did almost nothing to enhance its core competencies. As a result, the behemoth gradually lost its market share to companies like Wal-Mart, Target, etc. Even as other players focused on core operational areas to enhance their efficiency and profitability, Kmart’s activities were mainly centered on marketing. Moreover, the problems faced by the company may also be attributed to an unstable top management. That there had been numerous changes in its key positions over short durations of time speaks about the inefficiency of Kmart in retaining talent. Furthermore, it has been observed that most of these leaders had stressed upon the achievement of short term goals, which in turn blurred the corporate vision. It is no wonder that unlike Wal-Mart, Kmart failed to recognize the long terms benefits that it might have attained by augmenting its technological expertise. While its rivals embarked on curtailing their operational costs by institutionalizing technological developments, especially those that were taking place in the area of information technology, Kmart went on spending more and more in areas that were of minor significance to its central business philosophy. The problems were further accentuated by the association of its executives with financial scandals that were driven by utter greed. The research has revealed that post-bankruptcy, Kmart has shifted its focus back to its key business objective and the company has been making significant attempts to revitalize itself by cutting costs. So far, it has shut down a number of loss-making stores and reduced its workforce by a significant percentage in a bid to curtail operational expenses. However, the company has hit the headlines yet again on grounds of safety issues for which it had to recall large numbers of its products from various global outlets. In a nutshell, it may be said that Kmart should learn from the experiences that it has gathered during the course of its colorful journey and focus meticulously on adding to its core competencies in order to outperform its rivals and regain its lost ground. 4. Recommendations After the completion of an extensive research about the problems that are being faced by the American retail giant Kmart, it has been realized that these problems are pretty much persistent, i.e. the behemoth has been experiencing them since the last few decades. Although these problems have ensued from various areas of Kmart’s operations, certain distinct issues have been recognized during the course of this research endeavor. On the basis of this knowledge, the following set of recommendations is deemed beneficial for Kmart: 1) It should efficiently manage its workforce diversity in recognition of the fact that it is one of the invaluable resources that enhance organizational learning (OL) and also betters organizational performance; 2) Care should be taken while designating someone with the responsibility of change management. Kmart should assess the extent of its troubles and realize that although short term goals will help it overcome intermittent barriers, it needs a comprehensive long term strategy to outperform rivals; 3) The company should try and enhance its technological competence in order to reduce its operational expenses. Perhaps it is time that Kmart needs to learn a few lessons from Wal-Mart! 4) Finally, Kmart needs to ensure that the products it sells do not have safety issues. If products of an organization need to be recalled often, its goodwill automatically wanes off, thereby affecting its sales volumes and profitability. References 1. Bloomberg Business News. (February 24, 1996). Kmart to Shut 15 Stores, Cutting 1,300 Jobs. Business Day. The New York Times. [Online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/24/business/kmart-to-shut-15-stores-cutting-1300-jobs.html [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 2. Cole, M. (May 8, 2002). Enron and Kmart Go Bankrupt: Filing Chapter 11 – Reorganization. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.plu.edu/~enron/Cole.pdf [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 3. Daft, R. L. & Armstrong, A. (2009). Organization Theory & Design. 1st Canadian Edition. Nelson Education Ltd. 4. Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience of People at Work. SAGE Publications Ltd. 5. Hals, T. (November 19, 2009). UPDATE 4-Sears Loss Narrows, but Underlying Problems Linger. Reuters. [Online]. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1915870820091119 [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 6. Harrington, J. H. & Lomax, C. K. (1999). Performance Improvement Methods: Fighting the War on Waste. Vol. 1. McGraw-Hill Professional. 7. Kelly, R. (November 18, 2004). Kmart-Sears Merger Threatens Thousands of US Jobs. World Socialist Web Site. [Online]. Available at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/kmrt-n18.shtml [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 8. Madden, J. B. (2010). Wealth Creation: A Systems Mindset for Building and Investing in Businesses for the Long Term. John Wiley and Sons. 9. Markham, W. J. (2006). A Financial History of Modern U.S. Corporate Scandals: From Enron to Reform. M.E. Sharpe. 10. Meredith, R. J. & Shafer, M. S. (2007). Operations Management for MBAs. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. 11. Sears Brands, LLC. (2010). Corporate Initiatives. Environmental Sustainability. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sears.com/shc/s/dap_10153_12605_DAP_Green+SHC+Initiatives [Accessed on November 8, 2010]. 12. Sears Holdings Corporation-a. (2010). Corporate History. Kmart. [Online]. Available at: http://www.searsholdings.com/about/kmart/history.htm [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 13. Sears Holdings Corporation-b. (2010). Investor Information. [Online]. Available at: http://www.searsholdings.com/invest/ [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 14. Sears Holdings Corporation-c. (2010). Product Recalls. Kmart. [Online]. Available at: http://www.searsholdings.com/about/kmart/product_recall.htm [Accessed on November 8, 2010]. 15. Sears Holdings Corporation-d. (2010). Multicultural Initiatives. Kmart. [Online]. Available at: http://www.searsholdings.com/about/kmart/multicultural.htm [Accessed on November 8, 2010]. 16. Somani, A. (No Date). Kmart – Its Current Problems and Its Future. [Doc]. Available at: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~asomani/PortfolioBackup/Portfolio/KmartProject.doc [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 17. The Michigan Daily. (January 23, 2002). Kmart to Evaluate its Market Position, Begin Restructuring. [Online]. Available at: http://www.michigandaily.com/content/kmart-evaluate-its-market-position-begin-restructuring [Accessed on November 8, 2010]. 18. The New York Times. (October 10, 1993). Kmart's Stock Surge Masks a Weakness at the Core; Working to Keep the Shelves Full. Technology. [Online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/10/business/kmart-s-stock-surge-masks-weakness-core-working-keep-shelves-full.html [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 19. The New York Times. (April 1, 2003). Company News; Kmart to Cut 660 Jobs, Including 400 at Headquarters. Business Day. [Online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/business/company-news-kmart-to-cut-660-jobs-including-400-at-headquarters.html [Accessed on November 8, 2010]. 20. The New York Times. (February 26, 2010). Judge Fines Ex-Chief of Kmart $10 Million. Legal/Regulatory. [Online]. Available at: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/judge-fines-ex-chief-of-kmart-10-million/ [Accessed on November 6, 2010]. 21. Thomson Reuters. (April 23, 2010). Sears Holdings Corporation Issues Q1 2011 Earnings Guidance In Line With Analysts’ Estimates. Key Developments: Sears Holdings Corporation (SHLD.O). Reuters. [Online]. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/keyDevelopments?symbol=SHLD.O [Accessed on November 8, 2010]. 22. Turner, L. M. (2003). Kmart’s Ten Deadly Sins: How Incompetence Tainted an American Icon. John Wiley and Sons. 23. Wen, Y. (August 1, 2002). Understanding the Inventory Cycle. CAE Working Paper #02-04. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.arts.cornell.edu/econ/CAE/workingpaper.pdf [Accessed on November 15, 2010]. Read More