Samantha Maddox, TQ3

By using Birger Wernerfelt strategy and the VIRS framework it is apparent which resources and capabilities General Motors drew upon to create a stronger market position and what rushed them into bankruptcy. Additionally, the value chain analysis assists in discovering General Motor’s strengths and weaknesses throughout history. The value chain analysis aided me in identifying General Motors primary activities and support activities. A primary activity example in the logistics group for General Motors is in 1994 when the company integrated into one globally based sourcing process from 27 different units. Also, in the logistics category the company centralized US distribution of Buick, Pontiac and GMC into one channel allowing for brand optimization. Product development is another primary activity for General Motors and the company was able to create new engineering for development of electric, hybrid and battery vehicle technology. Successful engineering revamped decentralized structure in many engineering centers throughout the U.S. The marketing brand portfolio is also a primary activity General Motors performed; in 2009 they decided to focus on four core brands. The four brands General Motors chose to focus on were Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. Customer service is a important primary activity, Whitacre changed the organization to increase customer service satisfaction by cutting performance criteria and restructuring. One supporting activity is the general administration. Rick Wagoner oversaw massive restructuring of General Motors four geographical units but that was not enough to keep from going bankrupt. Technology is also a supporting activity Bob Lutz implemented for General Motors by employing the design and technology leadership to come out with the first fully electronic vehicle. Regarding human resources and development Wagoner persuaded employees and retirees to pay for part of the firms escalating health-care-related costs. Some of the financial resources I analyzed are cash, equity holders, and bond holders. Using the VIRS table I can infer cash is valuable, not rare, not costly to imitate, and not substituted easily therefore it is a competitive parity. Equity holders are valuable, not rare, not costly to imitate and not substituted easily therefore it is also a competitive parity. Bondholders are valuable, are rare, not costly to imitate and not easy to substitute thus they are a competitive