Chapter 13 Case 13-3.

Texas Instruments and Hewlett-Packard Case Overview Texas Instruments (TI) and Hewlett-Packard (HP) are two companies famous for introducing electric and electronic products. Developed, manufactured, and sold hightechnology electric and electronic products. Although competing in similar industries, their strategies are very much different. Texas Instruments had three main lines of business in 1984: component, which include semiconductor integrated circuits, semiconductor subassemblies, and electronic control devices; digital products, which included minicomputers, personal computers, scientific instruments, and calculators; and government electronics, which included radar systems, missile guidance and control systems, and infrared surveillance systems. The three businesses generated 46 percent, 19 percent, and 24 percent, respectively, of TIs sales in 1984. Hewlett-Packard operated in two main lines of business: computer products, which included factory automation computers, engineering workstations, data terminals, personal computers, and calculators; and electronic test and measurement systems, which included instruments that were used to evaluate the operation of electrical equipment against standards, instruments that would measure and display electronic signals, voltmeters, and oscilloscopes. These businesses generated 53 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of HPs 1984 sales. Analysis and Discussion Inferred from the case, I expect some differences in planning and control system between Texas Instruments and Hewlett Packard. Strategic Planning Systems: In term of corporate level strategy, both firms have the same definition of business in which the firm will participate. TI and Hewlett-Packard (HP) are both in high-technology electric and electronics. But, the second aspect of corporate level strategy, which is deployment of resources among the business, may be different for each firm depends on the objectives that they want to achieve and competitive advantages that they have.

TI is well known for its first to entry, stay and try to achieve market leadership by cost leadership strategy. Meanwhile, HP is well known for offering unique, high value, high featured products. In addition, both firms use related diversification as they operate main business lines which connect to each other and may achieve operating synergy. For example, TI's business lines, each business line can act as both suppliers and consumers for others (e.g.: digital products line acts as consumers for component business line and suppliers for the government electronics business line). The same condition may be applied in HP. Budgeting Systems: On Texas Instrument role of the budget is considered as a control tool for the company. Business unit managers have a low impact in preparing the budget, but they have to start from scratch every year and justify the budget as a whole, while at the Hewlett-Packard considered the role of the budget as a means of short-term planning. Manager of the business unit operates in the immediate environment and they have a better knowledge about the environment because they greatly affect the budget. Reporting Systems: TI is more concentrated on reporting issues as the company's operations as the company's main activities such as the operation (manufacturing and assembly). Reporting policy issues are less frequent. Instead, HP is more concentrated on the problem of reporting policy as more companies are engaged in developing new products. Therefore, less frequent reporting of operating issues. Performance Evaluation Systems: On TI, performance standards focus more on shortterm results and use criteria such as cost control, operating income, cash flow from operations. While HP is likely to promote the long-term focus based on market share, new product development, market development, and human resource development. Incentive Compensation Systems: In HP, the company gives special incentives to innovation and the successful market acceptance of new products. In TI, management are likely to be less reliant on bonuses and more on regular salaries and compensation.

Conclusion The HP has a more flexible but higher risk strategy. They require constant innovations to lead the market and these new products demand a premium price. Budget flexible and there is greater dependent in constant updates and reporting. Management performance is measured on long-term, non-financial parameters and they are motivated by higher, but less frequent, special compensations. TI has a more structured, lower risk strategy, they require efficiency and productivity to keep maintain low cost and sell prices. Budgets are very important forms of control and actual performances are expected to adhere to the budget. Management performance is ensured on short-term, financial parameter and they are motivated by more frequent but relatively lower special compensations. Recommendation Recommended the firms to use the management control tools above as they correspond to a build or harvest strategy. The use of these expected control systems are crucial for the strategies of HP and TI to work and for them to achieve their goals.