The canadian company Magna failed to win Opel from GM (after having failed to buy a stake in Chrysler couple of years ago) and now say they wont pursue Automakers anymore and would instead focus on their core auto parts business.
Should they have won? Investors in Magna dont think so. They feel Magna is better off without Opel since Magna would have had issues keeping some of its parts business customers who would have seen it as a competitor.
Should they have bid for it in the first place? I, for one, think so. Unless you bid for some opportunities, you don't learn. What can one learn from occasionally (this is the operative word) bidding for unwinnable, unconnected or unwanted opportunities?
- What are potential new business opportunties worth pursuing in future?
- What is the new marketplace looking like?
- How do we solve unfamiliar complex problems when we must solve them?
- How is our company perceived in the market?
- How quickly can we change our company's DNA?
- Do we have the leadership skills to lead us into the future?
- What is the return (positive and negative) on risk taken?
I am not saying Magna bid for Opel for these reasons. They must have had their own set of good reasons.
What I am saying is that sometimes, it makes sense to bid on opportunities which dont seem winnable, desirable or relevant.
Ok..agreed..but the companies should also understand their focus areas and need to know "what they want to become when they grow up!)
Shripriya Subramanian
November 11, 2009 at 12:24 AMAgreed, but please notice I suggest that companies do this only OCCASIONALLY. For example, the Indian way has been to learn by doing and most of the Indian IT industry have bid for, won, first failed and then later successfully delivered projects in areas where they had no competency at the time of bidding. Most of it has been because of the can do attitude.
skv
November 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM