No description available.

­^¤åºK­n The main subject of this thesis is to discover the strategy of industrializing the music competitions held in Taiwan. Case study and interview key persons were ways employed to collect materials, and Delphi Method was used later for further examination. Because of the geographical limitation on this subject, the author first explained the connection between the music competitions and the culture and education condition in Taiwan¡¦s society. In the second chapter, the urge of industrialize the music competitions was revealed from cultural, economical, and educational point of views. It was in this chapter that the author was aware music competitions, as merchandise, should have their own life cycle during the process of industrialization. Therefore the strategy corresponding to each developmental stage should be different from each other. Four examples were raised in Chapter three to display various developmental stages of music competitions; they were the International Music and Arts Competition(held at Hong Kong, partnership with Greenery Music Limited). The International Taipei Chopin Piano Competition(held by Fredric Chopin Foundation of Taipei); Yamaha National Music competition(held in Taiwan, by Yamaha KHS music co., Ltd); Asia Beat-- Yamaha Band Contest(held in Taiwan, by Yamaha KHS music co., Ltd). In Chapter four, the author suggested a model for industrializing the music competitions, 12 experts in this field were consulted in the rules of Delphi Method then. In Chapter five, final strategy were concluded, they were as the following: I The leading stage of industrialization: branding the music competition. II The developmental stage of industrialization: market the competition and set the standard Operation Procedure Process¡]SOP¡^of it. III The stable stage of industrialization: forming a supply chain of the music competition profession. IV The declination stage of industrialization: re-model the brand, for better connection of the masses and greater benefit as well.

In today's hypercompetitive and fast changing business environment, companies are increasingly under pressure to find new ways to make their business operations lean and profitable through acquiring a sustainable competitive advantage. Some essential ways of doing this are by looking for improvements in innovative ways and being more responsive to market changes. / The marine industry is no exception to these changes, and faces a similar situation. The question of how to succeed in today's rapidly changing competitive environment poses the greatest challenge for companies in the industry. This study focuses on this issue by examining how different subsets of the marine industry perceive the competitive environment and what they assess to be the possible responses to the challenges they face. / This study examines the competitive strategies of the marine switchboard industry in China, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. Specifically, the research question that is asked is: how can marine electrical switchboard manufacturers gain a sustainable competitive advantage in today's fast changing marine global industry? The study begins by reviewing the related literature to define possible competitive strategies, as well as the key factors required for acquiring a competitive advantage. These are related to the marine electrical switchboard industry to see how they can best be applied. / Next, an investigation is done to ascertain the persistent and systematic similarities and differences in the competitive strategies of different players in the industry. Empirical data was gathered by using three questionnaires, which were administered by mail and through interviews. The first questionnaire targeted ship-owners and operators, shipyard executives and engineers, and marine consultants and designers. The second questionnaire was aimed at marine equipment suppliers and manufacturers, while the last questionnaire was used during interviews with shipyard executives and engineers. / Fifteen hypotheses were tested as part of the study. The overall results show that higher product quality, lower production cost, and better customer service are the three most important factors for improving competitive advantage. Interestingly, the results suggest that there are more similarities than differences in the ranking of competitive strategies in the marine industry across countries in spite of quite different composition, structure and stage of development of the marine industry in the three countries studied. Customers may not be concerned with how efficient a company is, but rather in how its internal operations impact them. It is the outside-in view that raises the issue of differentiation and it is by differentiating itself on items such as these above factors that a business achieves a competitive edge / Moreover, in order to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage, firms will have to “out-innovate” the competition continuously so that the customer is the ultimate beneficiary. Beyond technological innovations, a firm's service innovations have become increasingly important. Essentially, service innovation depends on the firm's ability to evolve, collaborate and enter partnerships that effectively fulfil customer's holistic needs and thereby increase the opportunities for enhancing customer relationships. On a long-term perspective, creating an environment that successfully nurtures and maintains their relationship with their customers is one of the primary challenges faced by the management of every organization. / Thesis (PhD)--University of South Australia, 2005.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1992. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-92).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Berkeley, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 186-202).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Michigan, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 109-115).

D.Comm. / The purpose of this study is to: Provide a framework to analyse the key drivers of competitiveness within a cluster2 of industries; Apply the framework to test the ability of the framework to inform policy and strategic choices; Utilise a number of sectoral studies, to draw general conclusions regarding South Africa's national competitive environment; and Highlight some policy recommendations that emerge from the analysis of the national competitive environment. The transformation of political power from the National Party (NP) to the African National Congress (ANC) involved a revision of priorities for the South African economy. Different political parties contributed in various formats to the pre-election economic debate. Among these, the ANC's "Reconstruction and Development Programme" (RDP) and the Government's "Normative Economic Model" initially received most attention. Although both of the above-mentioned policy documents emphasised the importance of higher economic growth, neither of them elaborated on specific action initiatives to attain greater economic prosperity. At that stage, the new Government of National Unity still had to provide the details regarding an economic programme for reconstruction and development. In view of the ANC's pre-election promises, it was expected that the development of the economy, to the benefit of all South Africans, would be one of the new government's highest priorities during the next two to five years. In this regard, it was anticipated that an analysis of the international competitiveness of the South African economy at a macro-economic as well as a more detailed sectoral level, will be of significant value. At the outset of this study, early in 1994, the then National Economic Forum launched the "Global Advantage of South Africa Project" to analyse the competitiveness of the domestic economy. This study was structured to follow the approach that was developed by professor Michael Porter in his competitive analysis of ten nations, as described in his book "The Competitive Advantage of Nations", as well as subsequent work in this field that had been done by "The Monitor Company" in a number of countries 3. The Competitive Advantage of Nations (CAON) approach provides a unique framework to develop a better understanding of the conditions that govern the competitive ability of firms within a nation. This thesis will attempt to explain and apply the CAON-thinking and frameworks in the South African context, in an effort to: provide a reference guide for institutions or individuals that will be involved in the industrial policy research on competitiveness that needs to be undertaken during the next few years; to develop a better understanding of South Africa's competitive platform; and to formulate recommendations to enhance the country's international competitiveness.

This thesis studies the influence of horizontal competition on supply chain performance. Unlike most of the existing literature which focuses on horizontal competition between echelon levels, we look at both the supply chain and the individual company??s performance with the presence of supply chain to supply chain competition. Specifically, this thesis is composed of three individual research papers. The first paper deals with chain-to-chain horizontal competition and considers price competition among an arbitrary number of supply chains by comparing two cases. In the first case each supply chain is vertically integrated, while in the second, decentralised, case the manufacturers and retailers act independently. We explore the effect of varying the level of price competition on the profitts of the industry participants and demonstrate the important role played by the spread of underlying market shares. The coefficient of variation of these market shares determines whether decentralised supply chains can outperform integrated supply chains with an appropriate level of competition. The second and third papers focus on in-chain horizontal competition with capacity constraints. In the second paper, we look at a supply chain with one manufacturer and two downstream retailers. Based on total capacity available, the manufacturer needs to find ways to best use the capacity by determining whether or not to release the capacity information to retailers. The third paper looks at competition in a more complicated supply chain structure. A retailer buys three brands of products from two manufacturers. One manufacturer produces both branded and private label products, and the other one manufactures a branded product only. With our model, we are able to determine the profits of each supply chain agent. At the end of the paper, we use data from the Australian milk industry and discuss a problem in which a manufacturer needs to decide how to allocate capacity between the national brand and the private label when there is a capacity shortage.

<p>It can be read from the EC treaty that the European Community shall have as its task to promote competition throughout the Community. Competition law exists to ensure competition in a free market, as competition is believed to bring such benefits as efficiency, low prices and innovation. Article 82 EC is meant to promote competition and is also meant to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. For Article 82 EC to be applicable several requisites must be met and one of them is that the undertaking must be in a dominant position. It is no easy task to establish dominance and there are no clear guidelines as how to do so.</p><p>In the United Brands case the ECJ provided a definition of dominance stating that dominance was economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enabled it to prevent effective competition and to behave to an appreciable extent independently. Subsequently, in Hoffman La Roche it was stated that some competition does not prevent the undertaking from being dominant.</p><p>One important element in the assessment of dominance is the market share data. However, mere numbers cannot determine dominance and other factors must be taken into account. It is the effect on the market the undertaking has that is of interest and not merely its market share. Such factors may strengthen or weaken the undertaking’s market position. Important to note is that there is no exhaustive list of factors the Community authorities could take into consideration when assessing dominance.</p><p>Through the years, there has been much criticism directed against the application of Article 82 EC and several commentators have argued that it is applied too arbitrary, and that there is no formalistic approach. The Commission has acknowledged the fact that the current case law under Article 82 EC is controversial and is currently working on a review of the provision. It is however doubtful whether the review will have much impact considering that the Commission is bound by existing case law, but possibly it could encourage a development in the future.</p>

It can be read from the EC treaty that the European Community shall have as its task to promote competition throughout the Community. Competition law exists to ensure competition in a free market, as competition is believed to bring such benefits as efficiency, low prices and innovation. Article 82 EC is meant to promote competition and is also meant to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. For Article 82 EC to be applicable several requisites must be met and one of them is that the undertaking must be in a dominant position. It is no easy task to establish dominance and there are no clear guidelines as how to do so. In the United Brands case the ECJ provided a definition of dominance stating that dominance was economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enabled it to prevent effective competition and to behave to an appreciable extent independently. Subsequently, in Hoffman La Roche it was stated that some competition does not prevent the undertaking from being dominant. One important element in the assessment of dominance is the market share data. However, mere numbers cannot determine dominance and other factors must be taken into account. It is the effect on the market the undertaking has that is of interest and not merely its market share. Such factors may strengthen or weaken the undertaking’s market position. Important to note is that there is no exhaustive list of factors the Community authorities could take into consideration when assessing dominance. Through the years, there has been much criticism directed against the application of Article 82 EC and several commentators have argued that it is applied too arbitrary, and that there is no formalistic approach. The Commission has acknowledged the fact that the current case law under Article 82 EC is controversial and is currently working on a review of the provision. It is however doubtful whether the review will have much impact considering that the Commission is bound by existing case law, but possibly it could encourage a development in the future.