英文论文代写：松下公司和菲利普公司的对比
松下公司独特能力和独特不胜任能力
松下在各种方面都在成长。由于强大的供应链，该公司能够接触到日本的增长能力。看起来这家公司专注于满足全球消费者的需求。该公司开始慢慢取代飞利浦占领的市场。这个国家的贸易壁垒正在减少。该公司开始专注于不同国家之间的自由化和发展全球消费利基市场。与飞利浦的商业模式相反，松下公司是集中化的。松下从VCR等产品中受益。该产品以具有竞争力的价格出售。这个价格使公司能够维持价值链的价值。松下公司开始利用与国外低成本国家的成本节约。这些不同国家的低成本工资已经导致公司降低了产品制造成本。这最终成为了公司价值链的一部分。松下公司产品部门保持对最终产品的控制，开发(Hagedoorn和Schakenraad, 1992)。这使公司最终获得了优势。这与飞利浦公司的情况截然不同。对计划的控制是基于与总经理和公司经理共享的财务数据。他们经常互相拜访，互相交谈。每晚都有电话和传真互相发送。
美国论文代写：松下公司和菲利普公司的对比
松下公司的竞争力是指该公司从规模经济中获益的能力，以及确保“快速进入市场”原则的能力。松下公司通过专注于复制市场上存在的其他竞争对手的产品和创新来弥补这一劣势。这家公司在这一原则上取得了成功。他们以较低的成本生产和销售产品，不注重产品的创新。这是该公司成功的原因之一。与飞利浦公司相比，这是一个非常不同的战略。另一方面，飞利浦公司专注于本土创新和开发符合公司要求的产品。松下公司也有一些无能之处。他们的创新水平较低。公司没有新产品开发。他们在模仿其他公司开发的产品。然而，他们以较低的价格把它卖给了市场。只有成本差异使公司得以成功。这家公司是一个全球品牌。他们不得不依赖国外子公司的创新。汇率和金融市场波动的问题也影响了公司的生产(Sleuwaegen et al.， 2003)。日元的升值摧毁了松下公司的利润空间。对创新的关注在这些公司中很明显。赶上公司生计的创业活动减少了。他们幸存了下来。然而，这个创新的问题使得公司在后期面临了很多问题。这是该公司后来面临的一个独特问题。
代写essay：松下公司和菲利普公司的对比
Matsushita Company Distinctive competence and Distinctive In-Competencies
Matsushita was growing in a variety of ways. Owing to the robust supply chain, the company was able to reach out to the Japanese capacity of growth. It looked as though the company was focused on developing the needs of the global consumer. The company slowly started to replace the markets that Philips had managed to gain. The trade barriers were reducing in the nation. The company started to focus on the liberalization between the different nation and developing global consumer niche markets. In contrast to the business model of Philips, Matsushita Company was centralized. Matsushita had benefitted from the products such as VCR. The product was sold at competitive prices. This price had enabled the company to maintain the value of the value chain. The Matsushita Company started to take advantage of the cost savings with the foreign low-cost countries. These low-cost wages in the different nations had caused the company to reduce the product manufacturing costs. This became eventually the part of the value chain of the company. Matsushita company product division maintained control over the final product that was developed (Hagedoorn and Schakenraad, 1992). This enabled the company to eventually gain an advantage. This was distinctively different when compared to Philips Company. Control of the plan was maintained based on the financial figures that were shared with the general managers and the corporate managers. They are visited each other and spoke with one another in a frequent basis. There were nightly phone calls and faxes that were sent to each other.
美国作业代写：松下公司和菲利普公司的对比
Matsushita company competencies were the ability that the company had developed to benefit from the economics of scale and the ability to ensure the “fast to market” principle. Matsushita Company made up for the low performance by focusing on the copying of products and innovation from other rival companies that existed in the markets. The company was able to succeed on this principle. They produced and sold the products at a lower cost and did not focus on the innovation of the product. This was one of the reasons for the company to succeed. This was a very different strategy when compared to the Philips Company. Philips Company on the other hand was focused on local innovation and development of products that met the company requirements. Matsushita Company also had some incompetencies. They were less level of innovation. There was no new product development for the company. They were mimicking the product that the other companies developed. However, they sold it to the market at lower price. Only the cost differentiation had enabled the company to succeed. The company was a global brand. They had to depend on the innovation of their foreign subsidiaries. The issue of exchange rates and the financial market fluctuation also impacted the production of the company (Sleuwaegen et al., 2003). The appreciation of the Japanese Yen had devastated Matsushita company profit margins. The focus on less innovation was evident in the companies. There were less entrepreneurial activities that were catching up with the sustenance of the company. They were able to survive. Nevertheless, this issue of innovation had caused the company to face a lot of issues in the later times. This was the distinctive issue that the company had faced at a later time.
