Microsoft in 2004: Shaping a New Image
|
|
ICMR HOME | Case Studies Collection
Case Details:
Case Code : BSTA113
Case Length : 08 Pages
Period : 1998 - 2004
Organization : Microsoft Corporation
Pub Date : 2005
Teaching Note :Not Available
Countries : USA
Industry : Software
To download Microsoft in 2004: Shaping a New Image case study (Case Code: BSTA113) click on the button below, and select the case from the list of available cases:
OR
Buy With PayPal
|
Price:
For delivery in electronic format: Rs. 300;
For delivery through courier (within India): Rs.
300 + Rs. 25 for Shipping & Handling Charges
» Business Strategy Case Studies
» Case Studies Collection
» Business Strategy Short Case Studies
» View Detailed Pricing Info
» How To Order This Case
» Business Case Studies
» Area Specific Case Studies
» Industry Wise Case Studies
» Company Wise Case Studies
Please note:
This case study was compiled from published sources, and is intended to be used as a basis for class discussion. It is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. Nor is it a primary information source.
Chat with us
Please leave your feedback
|
|
<< Previous
Introduction
|
In 2004, Microsoft, the world's largest software company was
facing new concerns with growth slowing down considerably as compared to the
heady days of the 1990s. While Microsoft remained financially strong, doubts
continued to be expressed about the company's ability to innovate and compete
effectively in the emerging business environment.
Meanwhile, as the new millennium got underway, the problems of being a large
organization became evident. Business units had too many information systems.
Marketing activities were uncordinated. The different units defined financial
terms differently, complicating the task of closing the books of accounts each
quarter.
|
|
The procurement process was disorganized. Decision making was highly
centralized. Decisions - big or small, went all the way up to Bill Gates (Gates)
or Steve Ballmer (Ballmer). A senior executive recalled1,
“Just to get approval of resources, or an incremental head count, or decisions
on pricing, it had to go to Bill and Steve. As a result it would start to slow
things down. Also, it probably wasn't always clear whether something should go
to Bill as opposed to Steve.”...
Excerpts >>
|
|
