Essays on Strategic Choices of Nokia Corporation Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Strategic Choices of Nokia Corporation" is an outstanding example of a management case study.   Nokia Corporation is one of the largest manufacturers of mobile devices and network equipment. The company also engages in the provision of mobile equipment, solutions, as well as services for corporations, service providers and network operators (Steinbock 2010, p. 1-3). The business strategies of the company encompass of five fundamental success factors. The success factors/ key competencies are the formulation of unimaginable mobile gadgets, mobile telephone gadgets with internet capacity, availing of enterprises solutions of high standards, enhancing professional services and building scale in networks.

The strategic assets of Nokia include the brand and design of its mobile devices, consumer engagement and fulfilment, as well as technology and architecture (Sairanen, 2006, p. 7). The aim of this discourse is to identify and critically discuss the key issues involving/ confronting the strategic choices of Nokia. To attain this, the expose utilises Porters Five Forces model, PESTEL and SWOT analysis. 2.0 Key Issue from Strategic Choices The major shortcomings afflicting the company are tied to marketing strategies that are wrong, non-coherent vision with the current market trends, having in place management that has not been able to anticipate change especially in relation to technological change.

This inability to anticipate and direct change in the field of Smartphone has seen them lose considerate market share in the mobile device industry (Steinbock 2010, p. 3-11; Burrows, 2011). This inability to take lead in Smartphone development has allowed Apple, Samsung, RIM (Research-in-Motion) and other new companies to challenge advantages enjoyed by Nokia (Spektor, 2012; Goasduff & Pettey, 2010). Carew & Virki (2012) concurs with the later by stating that the inability to arrive faster and concrete decisions has undermined the company’ s dominance.

The threat of relinquishing leadership in mass-market has grown manifold with the emergence of Asian competitors manufacturing low-cost mobile phone gadgets (Burrows, 2012). A noteworthy decrease in the market share of Nokia’ s mobile phone by 17%, from 40% to 23% has seen the company dominance in mass-market decline to 17% in the period of 2007-2012, up from a high of 40%. In addition, the company only controls a paltry of 12% market share in the Smartphone sector as compared to Apple and Samsung that boast of a combined 50% market share of Smartphone (Nokia Corporation, 2012). After the launch of the Nokia’ s Window 8 Phone, analysts postulated that "The challenge is that the world is working on the 4th, 5th and 6th editions of their devices, while Nokia is still trying to move from chapter 1.

It still has quite a bit to catch up, " (Carew and Virki, 2012). The grave consequence of this laxity in taking leadership in Smartphone production is the possibility of a decline in brand recognition.

Moreover, there is also the possibility of losing the goodwill it enjoys in relation to customer loyalty in the advanced economies. Wall Street postulates a worrying future about Nokia. It observes that Nokia is among the ten brands that will not feature in America by the year 2013 (McIntyre, 2012). 3.0 Factors Impacting on Nokia’ s Strategic Choices 3.1 Macro Factors Impacting on Nokia: PESTEL Analysis 3.1.1 Political Factors It is fundamental for the company to exploit its strong points to the fullest within the legal context of the countries that host its markets.

For instance, in 2008, the inability of the company to meet German Federal Government requirement of offering the agreed number of full-time local jobs forced them to return investment subsidies given to them (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2008). Furthermore, in the year 2011, the Chinese government levelled accusations against them that they transferred the Symbian workforce without following due diligence (Xi, 2011).

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us