Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
Description
The purpose of our research was to develop recommendations and/or strategies for Company A's data center group in the context of the server CPU chip industry. We used data collected from the International Data Corporation (IDC) that was provided by our team coaches, and data that is accessible on the internet. As the server CPU industry expands and transitions to cloud computing, Company A's Data Center Group will need to expand their server CPU chip product mix to meet new demands of the cloud industry and to maintain high market share. Company A boasts leading performance with their x86 server chips and 95% market segment share. The cloud industry is dominated by seven companies Company A calls "The Super 7." These seven companies include: Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu. In the long run, the growing market share of the Super 7 could give them substantial buying power over Company A, which could lead to discounts and margin compression for Company A's main growth engine. Additionally, in the long-run, the substantial growth of the Super 7 could fuel the development of their own design teams and work towards making their own server chips internally, which would be detrimental to Company A's data center revenue. We first researched the server industry and key terminology relevant to our project. We narrowed our scope by focusing most on the cloud computing aspect of the server industry. We then researched what Company A has already been doing in the context of cloud computing and what they are currently doing to address the problem. Next, using our market analysis, we identified key areas we think Company A's data center group should focus on. Using the information available to us, we developed our strategies and recommendations that we think will help Company A's Data Center Group position themselves well in an extremely fast growing cloud computing industry.
ContributorsJurgenson, Alex (Co-author) / Nguyen, Duy (Co-author) / Kolder, Sean (Co-author) / Wang, Chenxi (Co-author) / Simonson, Mark (Thesis director) / Hertzel, Michael (Committee member) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / Department of Management (Contributor) / Department of Information Systems (Contributor) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / WPC Graduate Programs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
New Venture Group, a student-run consulting organization at ASU, collaborated with representatives from Intel Corporation to determine current best supplier management practices in the area of capital equipment procurement. The New Venture Group team accomplished this goal by completing the following deliverables: (1) Research and consolidate best practices for managing capital equipment suppliers. (2) Interview suppliers of capital equipment in the semiconductor industry to understand their motivators. (3) Examine top supply chain companies that utilize capital equipment manufacturers within their procurement systems. (4) Gather data and knowledge in conjunction with Intel Corporation's current practices to improve the effectiveness of the company's supplier management techniques regarding capital equipment manufacturers. The thesis report outlines the key insights and recommendations that our team extracted from the research that we performed. Our team analyzed peer-reviewed journal articles, conducted interviews with suppliers of capital equipment to semiconductor manufacturers, and surveyed buyers at top companies to reach important key insights. We then used these insights to develop the following strategies to improve Intel's capital equipment supplier management structure: All Suppliers 1. Allow high-performance suppliers to select one reward from an established portfolio of incentives. 2. Increase measurement frequency for specific metrics. 3. Use collaborative two-way measurement with a corresponding balanced scorecard. Key Suppliers of Critical Products 4. Conduct gap analysis through supplier self-assessments. 5. Implement collaborative target pricing. 6. Delegate an Ombudsman. 7. Create a value map to determine the strengths and incentivize collaboration. 8. Create comparison charts comparing supplier technological competencies versus Intel's product developments. 9. Establish a systematized product development process and strategic sourcing strategy that supports the continuation of Moore's Law.
ContributorsSantiago, Bryce (Co-author) / Chen, Jenny (Co-author) / Chang, Karen (Co-author) / Baldridge, Stephen (Co-author) / Laub, Jeffrey (Thesis director) / Brooks, Daniel (Committee member) / Department of Information Systems (Contributor, Contributor) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / Department of Supply Chain Management (Contributor) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
The semiconductor industry looks to constantly improve the efficiency of research and development in order to reduce costs and time to market. One such method was designed in order to decrease time spent inducing warpage in integrated circuits in an Intel research process. Intel's Atom product line seeks to compete with ARM architecture by entering the mobile devices CPU market. Due to the fundamental differences between the Atom's Bonnell architecture and the ARM architecture, the Intel Atom product line must utilize such improved research and development methods. Until power consumption is drastically lowered while maintaining processing speed, the Atom product line will not be able to effectively break into the mobile devices CPU market.
ContributorsLandseidel, Jack Adam (Author) / Adams, James (Thesis director) / Krause, Stephen (Committee member) / Anwar, Shahriar (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / Materials Science and Engineering Program (Contributor)
Created2013-05