Failure Cases of Nike

In March 1999, Nike decided to implement the first part of its supply chain strategy; the demand and supply
chain planning application software from i2 technologies. This software was intended to help the company
match its supply with demand by mapping out the manufacturing of specific products.

This module had to be linked with other ERP and back-end systems as well. The i2 project replaced an
earlier implementation by Manugistics . The project was supposed to reduce the amount of rubber; canvas
and other materials that Nike needed to produce for its wide range of footwear products with a variety of
sizes and styles.
Nike also wanted to make sure that it built more shoes that fulfilled customers demand. The cost of the i2
project was estimated to be around $40 million. Nike went ahead with the deployment using its legacy
systems rather than implementing it as part of its SAP ERP project. The company had 1,20,000 different
varieties of products (SKUs) and a wide variety of information sources...

Was It Avoidable?
IT experts were surprised by the fact that Nike did not hire a third-party integrator since the company was
replacing an already troublesome older application with a new supply chain planning application. The
company claimed that i2 software had failed to deliver on the promised functionality as it delivered
erroneous forecasts. However, officials at i2 denied this allegation and charged Nike of a faulty
implementation, which ignored i2 recommendations of minimizing customization to 10-15% of the software
and stage-wise deployment

The Lessons Learned

After the debacle, Nike realized that implementing supply-chain management software cannot be taken lightly. The
company felt that a third-party perspective from an integrator's point of view could have exposed the flaws in the
implementation. Experts felt that Nike and i2 should have set realistic goals since SCM deployments had yet to be
proved across all verticals...

Failure Cases of AT and T

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) was the largest corporation in the world for much of
the 20th century. A government-regulated monopoly for most of its existence, it built most of the U.S.
telephone system and was the standard of the worldwide telecommunications industry
AT&T had its origin in the invention of the telephone in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell. In 1877 Bell and
several financial partners formed the Bell Telephone Company, and in 1878 they formed the New
England Telephone Company to license telephone exchanges in New England. In November 1879, the
patent suit was settled out of court. Western Union left the telephone business and sold its system of 56,000
telephones in 55 cities to Bell. Bell agreed to stay out of the telegraph business, and paid Western Union a
20% royalty on telephone equipment leases for the next 17 years. 
 AT&T's CEO of mobility, Ralph de la Vega, said 3 percent of its data users are taking up 40 percent of
AT&T's wireless capacity, and that the company was working on ways to cut down their usage. That would
imply plans to impose some sort of limitation on data use.
Over the course of a year, AT&T went from denying network issues to acknowledging there were
challenges in supporting data. And then de la Vega pointed fingers at heavy data users. That didn't go over
so well: De la Vega's statement inspired the satiric blog The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs to launch Operation
Chokehold — a protest with the intention of bringing down AT&T's network.

 the telephone was having a dramatic impact on the United States, where large numbers of people still lived
in the relative isolation of farms or small towns. The telephone lessened their isolation, and the response to
the new invention was enthusiastic. The number of rural telephones shot from 267,000 in 1902 to 1.4 million
in 1907. The telephone was coming to be viewed as indispensable by virtually all businesses and most
private homes.

The conventional wisdom was that AT&T reserved the best parts of the company for itself. However, AT&T
wasn't built as a collection of interchangeable modular pieces. AT&T may have had the profitable long-
distance business, but not the means to deliver that service "door-to-door." In order to bring the signal from
a long-distance line from one phone to the other, it had to pass through a Baby Bell's local copper wire
system. The Baby Bells charged access fees for use of that last mile of wire connecting to someone's
home.This put AT&T at the mercy of its former appendages.

Another far-reaching decision AT&T made during the breakup was to give up its rights to wireless
telephone service and infrastructure. No one expected the coming revolution in mobile technology with the
cell phone. The Baby Bells, initially resentful about the breakup, appeared to have had the better part of the
deal. Paradoxically, a Baby Bell became AT&T's salvation in its darkest days. AT&T went from nearly
$150 billion in assets before the breakup to $34 billion in total assets. That's a 77 percent drop in asset value,
and it happened with the stroke of a pen. AT&T spent the years after 1984 trying to preserve its long-
distance business and seeking new streams of revenue in a rapidly changing, competitive market.

AT&T went from the safe confines of monopoly power into the "sink or swim" environment of the free
market. The 1984 decree opened long-distance service to outside competition for the first time. In the Ma
Bell days, the company depended on long-distance service to keep profits up. Local service was priced
nearly at cost, while long distance prices could be inflated without much complaint. The post-divesture
AT&T may have had Ma Bell's profit machine, but that machine's potential for driving profits would decline
significantly in a "price war" atmosphere. Looking to grab a piece of AT&T's market, long-distance carriers
such as Sprint and MCI priced their services low enough to undersell AT&T. MCI emerged as AT&T's main
competitor in the long-distance market. Price wars between these two companies shaved profits away from
AT&T. No one knew that the company that would become WorldCom was deceiving Wall Street with
overly optimistic performance reports

The main reason behind the failure of at and t that they don’t adapt the changes in the IT. They can’t able to
provide good customer service to their Customers.
 SUCCESS CASE OF CADBURY
COMPANY
Cadbury Schweppes was formed by a merger in 1969 between Cadbury and Schweppes. Since then the
business has expanded into a leading international confectionery and beverages company. Through an active
programme of both acquisitions and disposals the company has created a strong portfolio of brands which
are sold in almost every country in the world. Cadbury Schweppes has nearly 54,000 employees and
produces Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG)
Cadbury Schweppes was formed by a merger in 1969 between Cadbury and Schweppes. Since then the
business has expanded into a leading international confectionery and beverages company. Through an active
programme of both acquisitions and disposals the company has created a strong portfolio of brands which
are sold in almost every country in the world. Cadbury Schweppes has nearly 54,000 employees and
produces Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG).
Its products fall into two main categories:

Confectionery
Beverages.

Its portfolio of brands include leading regional and local brands such as Schweppes, Dr Pepper, Orangina,
Halls, Trebor, Hollywood, and of course, the Cadbury masterbrand itself. These Products are sold in a range
of countries depending on consumer preferences and tastes.
The core purpose of Cadbury Schweppes is “working together to create brands people love”. It aims to be
judged as a company that is among the very best in the business world – successful, significant and admired.
The company has set five goals to achieve this, one of which relates to Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) – “To be admired as a great company to work for and one that is socially responsible to its
communities and consumers across the globe”
Cadbury plc is a leading global confectionery company with an outstanding portfolio of chocolate, gum and
candy brands. It has number one or number two positions in over 20 of the world’s 50 largest confectionery
markets. Cadbury also has the largest and most broadly spread emerging markets business of any
confectionery company. With origins stretching back nearly 200 years, Cadbury’s brands include many
global, regional and local favourites including Cadbury, Creme Egg, Flake and Green & Black’s in
chocolate; Trident, Clorets, Dentyne, Hollywood, Bubbaloo and Stimorol in gum; and Halls, Cadbury
Eclairs and The Natural Confectionery Company in candy. (Cadbury, 2010).
 
 
Key Reasons For Cadburys’ Success:
The key reasons for Cadburys success is the company’s enduring and sustained key product lines such as
Cadburys Milk Tray and the heritage which goes with that name. Milk Tray is synonymous with quality,
luxury and decadence and the series of famous advertisements that have spanned numerous decades and
been viewed by more than one generation of consumer. This sort of product recognition a main contributing
factor makes up the image of Cadburys. Another reason for Cadburys continued growth and progression has
been its success in entering other aspects of the confectionary market i.e. gum, the single fastest growing
item of confectionary in the marketplace. This currently accounts for 29% of the company’s revenue.

The Cadbury company says that cadbury is not just for kids, it is for both kids and adults.