I continue to be amazed that GE seems to be continually surprised about its ability to be a major player in the Nuclear arena. The headline in the August 26, 2010 Wall Street Journal was "Laggard GE Makes Nuclear Push". The article said that GE was able to get only one order while Westinghouse Toshiba received 8 and others got seven others. It also said that GE was disappointed that Obama hasn't help GE get more orders and provide funding.
This surprises me since it was always clear that GE had backed the less popular BWR and the market preferred the PWR. This is what I wrote in my book: The Secret To GE's Success three years ago: " Recall that, in the heyday of nuclear power, GE elected to back the BWR and not the PWR reactors. Over 75% of the installed nuclear units are PWR, and in many emerging markets like China, PWR dominate.
In January, 2006, British Nuclear Fuels--the owner of what was left of Westinghouse, including nuclear assets--decided to put it up for sale. GE allied with Hitachi made a bid. The two other bidders were both Japanese companies: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toshiba. Toshiba bid $ 5.4 billion and acquired Westinghouse. GE believed the bid was too high but by failing to match Toshiba's price, it missed the opportunity to get access to the PWR technology and a large installed base, as well as the possibly losing the Chinese market. However, it should be noted that they have a relationship with Hitachi, who has been a PWR supplier. This may be one of the reasons that GE decided not to increase its bid for Westinghouse and it plans to use the combination of their own BWR and Hitachi's PWR to capture a significant share of Chinese opportunity"
I guess I was wrong about the combination of BWR and PWR since the article pointed out the GE is still focused on "a new improved" BWR, which I still think is a losing strategy.
This situation illustrates that GE may still be doing too much "imagination planning and not the proven, critical strategic thinking and decision making that made the company strong.
Bill Rothschild...
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
WHAT DOES GENERAL ELECTRIC STAND FOR..IT IS VERY CONFUSING..
The recent discussion of how IMMELT told the C staff to be KIND of OBAMA is a complete violation of every good principle of LEADERSHIP and especially GE LEADERSHIP. The result has not only hurt the value of NBC but the integrity of the entire management team.
A year ago, I was asked to comment, by CHEIF EXECUTIVE MAGAZINE, on whether IMMELT and his team should be fired. I asserted that it was not a good idea to replace Immelt, since IMMELT was the best GE had and t there was no one in the current GE team that could do the job. Since the GE TEAM was all hand picked by Jeff and would likely continue the same strategic plan.
I personally met with IMMELT in JULY 2009 and came away believing he was open and committed to doing what was needed for GE to be come the GREAT company was. For the first few months it appeared that he was doing what a good STRATEGIC leader, in the GE tradition.
IMMELT has done some of the SURGERY that is needed, but it is confuusing to understand why he supported an OBAMA administration which is clearly either doing what is wrong because it is confused or incompetent or is trying to do what will UNDERMINE what the country is built on and wants to REDISTRIBUTE wealth AND destroy the country.
If you read my book THE SECRET TO GE's SUCCESS, you will see that GE has been a political company and was once a SOCIALISTIC oriented company under SWOPE; to a highly conservative creator of RONALD REAGEN... but unlike the IMMELT situation was based on intensive evaluations of what the US needed and how GE could help and benefit. This is a contrast to the current situation where GE, under IMMELT, has backed an adminstration which is clearly FAILING to help the country and is not help GE succeed in using its talents and resources to help the country GROW STRATEGICALLY and create REAL financially strong jobs.
A year ago, I was asked to comment, by CHEIF EXECUTIVE MAGAZINE, on whether IMMELT and his team should be fired. I asserted that it was not a good idea to replace Immelt, since IMMELT was the best GE had and t there was no one in the current GE team that could do the job. Since the GE TEAM was all hand picked by Jeff and would likely continue the same strategic plan.
I personally met with IMMELT in JULY 2009 and came away believing he was open and committed to doing what was needed for GE to be come the GREAT company was. For the first few months it appeared that he was doing what a good STRATEGIC leader, in the GE tradition.
IMMELT has done some of the SURGERY that is needed, but it is confuusing to understand why he supported an OBAMA administration which is clearly either doing what is wrong because it is confused or incompetent or is trying to do what will UNDERMINE what the country is built on and wants to REDISTRIBUTE wealth AND destroy the country.
If you read my book THE SECRET TO GE's SUCCESS, you will see that GE has been a political company and was once a SOCIALISTIC oriented company under SWOPE; to a highly conservative creator of RONALD REAGEN... but unlike the IMMELT situation was based on intensive evaluations of what the US needed and how GE could help and benefit. This is a contrast to the current situation where GE, under IMMELT, has backed an adminstration which is clearly FAILING to help the country and is not help GE succeed in using its talents and resources to help the country GROW STRATEGICALLY and create REAL financially strong jobs.
IMMELT has challenged the benefit of investing in CHINA and has added a few hundred jobs to the US, but it still APPEARS TO BE A STRONG PRO-AMERICAN COMPANY.
IMMELT must decide whether it is in favor of SAVING the country or supporting the forces what will undermine it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)