Most important facts surrounding the case
Apple was a troubled company in the 1980s and the early 1990s before it became a successful company. The company faced increased competition and at one time wanted to compete in the cloning space. Its ideas were not taking off and customers at the time were facing a challenge of picking the right products for their needs. There was too much proliferation of models. Apple at the time was using a traditional approach in the manufacture and sale of new products.
Apple eventually abandoned the traditional approach to business and embraced the design thinking approach. It took up a cohesive method, which includes four key steps. It is characterized by excellence in execution, platform strategy, iterative customer involvement, and eventually beautiful products.
Key issue or issues
Apple’s excellence in execution began when Steve Jobs returned to the company. He spearheaded the quest to develop insanely great products and wanted to have a core working approach that ensured there was a big rise in sales. In the use of a platform strategy, the design of the initial product as a platform was critical to its relevancy and eventual success in the market. A platform allowed the company to come up with derivative products. For example, the iPod was a platform and iPod mini was its derivative product.
The company insisted on ensuring that customer experience goals were part of design and development. It embraced the belief that the interface was critical to device functionality and acceptance by users. Therefore, there were increased tests for users to ensure execution happened smoothly. Lastly, Apple put design at the centre of manufacturing to make sure products came out beautiful and attractive in all standards. Beauty also called for the use of new materials and manufacturing processes and allowed the company to stay bold and not stick to playing it safe.
The key issue was the sustainability of the design approach and the transition of leadership, given that the CEO was the chief innovator in the company.
Alternative courses of action
One alternative would be to apprentice a new leader, who would work closely with the CEO in understanding the chief innovation culture at the company. Another option would be to come up with self-executing teams and a standard board of approval within the company. The board would ensure that new products meet specific company ideologies and best practices before they are introduced into the market. On the other hand, the independent teams would retain their freedom to be creative.
Evaluation of each course of action
Apple, with Tim Cook working closely with Steve Jobs as the operations director, adopted the first course of action. The transition was smooth because Jobs left work and still served as chairman of the board. This would ensure that he could still direct strategy to some extent and play a critical advisory role. The second option would still allow Steve Jobs, upon resigning, to advise the company’s product quality board. Teams would be able to come up with independent designs and product concepts faster and conduct parallel user tests, while following the beautiful and user-friendliness design approach. The board, on the other hand, would ensure products stuck to a platform mentality, as either core products or additions.
Recommended best action
The best course of action is to go with the one CEO successor, who retains absolute control of the company’s innovation process. Although the second alternative is enticing, as it can increase the rate of innovation, it is susceptible to misdirection and high expenditures. Therefore, a strong position of the CEO as chief innovator is crucial for Apple’s success. The company should think of either developing new platforms or improving the beauty and useful features of the present design.