samsung electronics case study

Samsung Electronics—A Detailed Case Study

Devashish Shrivastava

Samsung is a South Korean electronic gadget manufacturer in Samsung Town, Seoul. Samsung Electronics was established by Lee Byung-Chul in 1938 as an exchanging organization.

We all know this information about Samsung. Don't we? But what we don't know? Do you know how much Samsung has grown in these years? What are the Future Plans of Samsung? How much Samsung invested in its R&D? What difficulties did the company face coming all this way? What is the history behind this multinational conglomerate?

Don't worry we got you covered. We have penned down a detailed Case Study on Samsung Electronics. Let's find out in this thoroughly studied Samsung case study.

Let's start the detailed case study from here.

Samsung entered the electronics industry in the late 1960s and the development and shipbuilding ventures in the mid-1970. Following Lee's demise in 1987, Samsung was divided into five business groups - Samsung Group, Shinsegae Group, CJ Group, Hansol Group and Joongang Group.

Some of the notable Samsung industrial subsidiaries include Samsung Electronics, Samsung Heavy Industries  Samsung Engineering, and Samsung C&T (separately the world's 13th and 36th biggest development companies). Other notable subsidiaries include Samsung Life Insurance, Samsung Everland, and Cheil Worldwide.

Samsung has a powerful influence on South Korea's monetary advancement, legislative issues, media, and culture. Samsung has played a significant role behind the "Miracle on the Han River". Its subsidiary organizations produce around a fifth of South Korea's complete exports. Samsung's revenue was equivalent to 17% of South Korea's $1,082 billion GDP.

History of Samsung Electronics Samsung's Business Strategy Samsung Rides High In India Business Growth in India Future Plans of Samsung FAQ's

History of Samsung Electronics

1938 (Inception of Samsung)-

• In 1938, Lee Byung-Chul (1910–1987) of a huge landowning family in the Uiryeong region moved to nearby city Daegu and established Samsung Sanghoe.
• Samsung began as a little exchanging organization with forty representatives situated in Su-dong. It managed dried fish, privately developed staple goods and noodles. The organization succeeded and Lee moved its head office to Seoul in 1947.
• When the Korean War broke out, Lee had to leave Seoul. He began a sugar processing plant in Busan named Cheil Jedang. In 1954, Lee founded Cheil Mojik. It was the biggest woollen factory in the country.
• Samsung broadened into a wide range of territories. Lee wanted to build Samsung as a pioneer in a wide scope of enterprises.
• In 1947, Cho Hong-Jai, the Hyosung gathering's organizer, put resources into another organization called Samsung Mulsan Gongsa or the Samsung Trading Corporation with Samsung's founder Lee Byung-Chul. The exchanging firm developed into the present-day Samsung C&T Corporation .
• After few years in business, Cho and Lee got separated due to the differences in the management style. In 1980, Samsung acquired the Gumi-based Hanguk Jeonja Tongsin and entered the telecommunications market . During the initial days, it sold switchboards.

1987 (Demise of Lee Byung-Chul)-

• After Lee's demise in 1987, the Samsung Group was divided into four business gatherings—Samsung Group, Shinsegae Group, CJ Group, and the Hansol Group.
• One Hansol Group agent stated, "Just individuals uninformed of the laws overseeing the business world could think something so ridiculous," while also adding, "When Hansol got separated from the Samsung Group in 1991, it cut off all installment assurances and offer holding ties with Samsung subsidiaries."
• One Hansol Group source attested, "Hansol, Shinsegae, and CJ have been under autonomous administration since their particular divisions from the Samsung Group."
• One Shinsegae retail chain official executive stated, "Shinsegae has no installment certifications related to the Samsung Group." In 1982, it constructed a TV get-together plant in Portugal, a plant in New York in 1984, a plant in Tokyo in 1985 and an office in England in 1996.

2000 (Samsung in 20th Century)

• In 2000, Samsung opened a development center in Warsaw, Poland. It started with set-top-box technology before moving to TV and cell phones. The cell phone stage was created with accomplices and formally propelled with the first Samsung Solstice line of gadgets and different subordinates in 2008. It later emerged into the Samsung Galaxy line of gadgets that is Notes, Edge, and other models.
• In 2010, Samsung declared a ten-year development system based on five businesses. One of these organizations was to be centered around bio-pharmaceuticals in which ₩2,100 billion was invested.
• In the first quarter of 2012, Samsung Electronics turned into the world's biggest cell phone creator by unit deals, surpassing Nokia which had been the market chief since 1998.
• In 2015, Samsung was granted U.S. patents as compared to other organizations like IBM , Google , Sony, Microsoft , and Apple. Samsung got 7,679 utility licenses before 11 December 2015.
• On 2 August 2016, Samsung Electronics revealed the Galaxy Note7 smartphone, which went on sale on 19 August 2016. At the beginning of September 2016, it halted its selling of smartphones due to some problems with the smartphones. Samsung suspended the selling of the smartphones and recalled its units for inspection.
• This happened after certain units of the telephones had batteries with a deformity that made them produce extreme warmth, prompting flames and blasts. Samsung replaced the reviewed units of the telephones with a new version. It was later found that the new version of the Galaxy Note 7 also had the same battery deformity.
• Samsung recalled all Galaxy Note7 cell phones worldwide on 10 October 2016 and permanently ended its production on the same day.

Samsung's Business Strategy

Great business strategies have been applied by Samsung over the years. Not very far back, Samsung wasn't as famous as now. Samsung has now advanced so much that it is the principal contender of Apple Inc. Samsung is the biggest tech business by income and the seventh most significant brand today. The showcasing procedure it applied encouraged Samsung electronics to turn into an industry driving innovation organization.

The Samsung marketing strategy was one of the best systems at any point because it helped a cost-driven organization to change its structure and become a power producer. Due to the consistently changing tastes of purchasers in the innovation business, organizations needed to pursue the pace and offer dynamic and advancing devices to their clients. In this way, Samsung additionally needed to change to pick up the high ground available, and the new Samsung showcasing methodology was the way to advancement.

Some of the business strategies of Samsung Electronics are listed below:

Promotional Mix Of Samsung

Samsung has arrived at fantastic statures with its cell phones which helped the brand to turn into an image of value and unwavering quality for its purchasers.

Samsung Marketing Mix Pricing Strategy and Samsung Advertising Methodology are the two estimating techniques used by the organization. Other than its items, Samsung is celebrated for its customer support . However, item variety is the most dominant part of the promoting blend of Samsung.

• Skimming Price

Like Apple , Samsung uses skimming costs to pick up the high ground over its rivals. For example, Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge are the brand's new results of Samsung conveying the trademark "Next is Now" and guaranteeing that they are the best smartphone maker at any point made.

What will happen when different contenders will dispatch a cell phone with indistinguishable highlights? Straightforward. Samsung will bring down the cost and effectively steal the customers from its competitors.

• Focused Pricing

Samsung experiences issues in increasing an edge over its rivals with different items. Doubtlessly, Samsung is a credible brand. However, regarding home appliances, it can't be in any way, shape, or form outperform LG In the cameras segment and other home appliance units. Also, Samsung cannot compete with Canon and Nikon.

For Samsung to withstand this savage challenge, it's crucial to utilize aggressive valuing of its products. Moreover, Samsung is neither a newbie underway nor non-inventive. For the most part, it is often the first company to be innovative with its products and present a change among its competitors.

• Putting in Samsung Marketing Strategy

Samsung uses divert advertising strategies. Retailers who present the innovation chain will undoubtedly incorporate Samsung in their rundown on account of the firm being a world-celebrated brand. Samsung can likewise fill in as an option for the purchasers. The circulation is a convincing piece of the Samsung promoting methodology.

In specific urban communities, Samsung has an agreement with a solitary dissemination organization that circulates the items all through the city. For example, Mumbai is an incredible case where Samsung conveys its products through a solitary organization.

Samsung Rides High In India

The greatest leader by far in the smartphone business is Samsung Electronics, the world's greatest cell phone and TV producer.

Samsung is India's greatest, versatile brand. It is the developer of Reliance Jio's 4G LTE system — the greatest and busiest information system on the planet.

Discernments, advertise wars, openings, rivalry — now and then from conventional remote adversaries, from nearby upstarts, and emerging Chinese brands trouble Samsung.

Be that as it may, every time Samsung has had the option to fight off the dangers and hold its ground. It has been leading the market in the TV fragment for more than 12 years and in the versatile business for a long time after it toppled Nokia in 2012.

Riding The Smartphone Wave

As indicated by some statistical surveying firms following cell phone shipments, Chinese firm Xiaomi is creeping nearer — or has even surpassed Samsung after December 2017 quarter.

While for the entire year 2017, Samsung was No. 1 in the cell phone space, IDC information indicated Xiaomi drove the last quarter with 26.8% piece of the overall industry. Samsung was at 24.2%. Different players, for example, Vivo, Lenovo, and Oppo stayed at 6.5, 5.6, and 4.9%, separately.

Warsi, who has been working with Samsung for as far back as 12 years and has as of late been advanced as Global Vice President, is unflinching, "These difficulties offer us the chance to work more earnestly for our customers and with our accomplices.

Furthermore, shoppers love marks that emphasis on them," he says. "Samsung is India's No. 1 cell phone organization crosswise over sections — premium, mid and reasonable. That is what makes a difference."

Statistical surveying firm GfK tracks disconnected offers of handsets — which make up around 70% of the market — in which Xiaomi is attempting to make advances.

Samsung had a 42% worth piece of the overall industry in the general cell phone showcase in the nation in 2019 and 55% in the superior fragment as indicated by GfK. An industry official who would not like to be named says that India must be Samsung's greatest market by large volumes.

The thought currently is to become the cell phone business which gets more worth. As indicated by reports, Samsung India's incomes from cell phone deals in 2018-19 remained at an astounding INR 34,300 crore. That is over $5.5 billion and development of 27%. Samsung's nearest adversaries are talking about incomes of $1 billion in India, going up to $2 billion.

Samsung is the world's largest manufacturer of consumer electronics by revenue. As of 2019, Samsung Electronics is the world's second-largest technology company by revenue, and its market capitalization stood at US$301.65 billion, the 18th largest in the world.

Shopper Is At The Center

Samsung is a worldwide advancement powerhouse that leads the patterns. It profoundly put resources in India — 22 years of connections in the exchange, and tremendous interests in neighborhood R&D . It has around 10,000 architects working in research offices in India and is perhaps the greatest scout from the IITs.

"Samsung has a solid brand picture in India, as it has been available in various customer electronic portions with quality items for quite a while now. The brand is trusted because of its long history in the nation, dish India nearness, and a vigorous after deals support for buyers," says Shobhit Srivastava, explore expert at Counterpoint Research.

Indeed, even an item fizzle of the size of the Galaxy Note7 in September 2016 couldn't affect Samsung. While the organization was fast enough to get back to every one of the units that had been sold and cease the gadget totally, Samsung's activities and ensuing effective dispatches of leads like Galaxy S8, Note8, the Galaxy S9 and S9+, which were propelled in February, rescued the harm and raised the profile of the brand as a dependable organization. "They rushed to concede their error and that helped them interface with the perceiving clients of today far superior," says Koshy.

Make For India

Samsung's system 'Make for India', which resounds with the administration's ' Make in India ' activity, was conceived in the late spring of 2015. Samsung India's new President and CEO, H.C. Hong, had recently moved in from Latin America and was looked with the prompt tough assignment of fighting a firm challenge from two nearby versatile organizations that is Micromax and Intex.

Samsung's customer hardware business containing TVs, fridges, and other advanced machines were additionally confronting challenges from Sony and LG.

Around a similar time, the legislature of India propelled its 'Make in India' activity. "In this way, Mr. Hong revealed to us we have been doing Make in India effectively for two decades. What we should concentrate on widely to remain on top of things is Make for India (MFI)," says Dipesh Shah, Managing Director of Samsung R&D Institute in Bengaluru, the greatest R&D community for Samsung outside Korea.

Truth be told, the R&D focuses in India contribute intensely to the improvement of worldwide items, for example, Samsung's lead cell phones (Galaxy S9 and S9+). While different organizations focused on propelling their worldwide items in India, Samsung went about rethinking items for the nation at its R&D focuses.

India is significant for Samsung, thinking of the nation as the second biggest cell phone showcase on the planet today, and it is possibly the greatest undiscovered market for some advanced apparatuses. The entrance of iceboxes, clothes washers, microwaves, and forced air systems are appallingly low because of components like the accessibility of continuous power, social conduct, way of life, and earnings.

Business Growth in India

Samsung India crossed the INR 50,000 crore deals achievement in 2017 according to the simply distributed organization filings with the Registrar of Companies (RoC), uniting its situation as the nation's biggest unadulterated play purchaser products MNC. The Korean mammoth's all-out salary, including turnover and other pay, developed by 15.5% to INR 55,511.9 crore in FY 2017 from INR 48,053 crore in the earlier year regardless of Chinese organizations making genuine advances into the Indian cell phone advertise.

Samsung's cell phone business developed deals at 26.7% to INR 34,261 crore, while the home apparatus business developed by 12% to INR 6,395.6 crore. The organization's TV business stayed dormant at INR 4,481.2 crore even though Samsung held the market initiative.

The organization's net benefit developed at a quicker pace of 38% to INR 4,156.2 crore which industry examiners credited to more concentrate on premium models crosswise over cell phones and customer hardware having higher edges.

Samsung, in its filings, said the 'Make for India' activity, through which a large portion of the items was planned and created given the Indian customer's needs, has been an enormous achievement and a major factor behind the development.

All the units at Samsung India improved their gross productivity with the TV business dramatically increasing it and the home machine business nearly trebling it. The cell phone business was the biggest supporter of gross benefit having developed by 44% in FY17 at INR 5,005.9 crore.

Future Plans of Samsung

Samsung has arranged a new venture of around INR 2,500 crore to transform its India tasks into a center for parts business, two senior industry administrators said. The ventures could be increased further, they included. The Korean organization has set up two new parts fabricating substances in India—Samsung Display Co and Samsung SDI India—for the generation of cell phones and batteries.

Independently, Samsung's funding arm—Samsung Venture Investment Corp—has set up activities in India to support new companies in gadgets equipment and programming organizations. The segment organizations will supply items to both Samsung India and other cell phone merchants who as of now source parts from Samsung's abroad tasks.

Samsung sees a big opportunity for segment business considering the administration's push on 'Make in India' where expense on imported cell phone segments and purchaser hardware is going up, the administrators said.

Samsung is likewise pitching to the administration for fare impetuses so it can even fare segments from India. Samsung Display has just marked an update of comprehension with the Uttar Pradesh government for an INR 1,500 crore plant for assembling telephone show to be operational by one year from now April. The plant will come up in Noida, the administrators said.

Samsung SDI India has plans to set up an assembling unit in India for lithium-particle batteries after the organization was drifted a month ago, according to its administrative filings with the Registrar of Companies (RoC).

As per the administrators, Samsung SDI has plans to contribute another INR 900-1,000 crore and will settle the plans after counseling with the Center post general races. These speculations come after it introduced the world's biggest cell phone fabricating unit in India a year ago at an all-out cost of INR 4,915 crore. It is expected to be completed in 2020.

That's all for now. Share your learnings and findings. What did you learn from this article? Which information surprised or amused you the most? Feel free to reach us and share your feedback. We would love to hear from you. Do comment us in the comments section below. Happy Reading.

Who is the owner of Samsung Electronics?

Samsung Group is the owner of Samsung Electronics.

Who is the Founder of Samsung?

Samsung Electronics was established by Lee Byung-Chul (1910–1987) in 1938 as an exchanging organization.

Who is the current CEO of Samsung?

Kim, Ki Nam, Kim, Hyun Suk and Koh, Dong Jin are the current CEO of multinational conglomerate Samsung.

What does Samsung Electronics make?

Samsung Electronics produces smartphones, TV sets, laptops, solid-state drives, digital cinemas screens, etc.

Is Samsung a Chinese company?

Samsung is a South Korean electronic gadget manufacturer in Samsung Town, Seoul.

What is Samsung's strategy?

• Promotional Mix of Samsung

How large is Samsung Electronics?

Samsung is the world's largest manufacturer of consumer electronics by revenue. Samsung Electronics is the world's second-largest technology company by revenue, and its market capitalization stood at US$ 301.65 billion, the 18th largest in the world.

What are the future plans of Samsung Company?

Samsung has arranged a new venture of around INR 2,500 crore to transform its India tasks into a center for parts business, two senior industry administrators said.

Must have tools for startups - Recommended by StartupTalky

• Manage your business smoothly- Google Workspace

How to Secure a Summer Internship: Essential Steps for College Students

This article has been contributed by Padmanava Das, Associate Director of Career Services, FLAME University. Internships are important for college students because they provide a unique opportunity to gain real- world experience, develop job-specific skills, and cultivate coordinated work skills while in school. For many students, an internship is the

National Technology Day: Experts Share Insights on Technology Trends and Innovations

National Technology Day is celebrated on May 11th as an occasion to honor Indian scientists, engineers, and technologists. It's a time to recognise the endless possibilities technology offers and ensure responsible innovation. Nowadays, with AI being the talk of the town, or better to say, the talk of the world,

AI Squared Acquires Multiwoven to Accelerate Delivery of Data and AI Insights into Business Applications

Acquisition of leading open-source reverse ETL (rETL) platform comes on the heels of robust Series A funding round. Mumbai, May 10, 2024: AI Squared , a leading technology provider for integrating information into web-based business applications, announces its acquisition of the world’s number one open-source Reverse ETL (rETL) company, Multiwoven.

Sony Marketing Strategy: An In-depth Analysis of its 7Ps Approach

The Sony Group Corporation is a Japanese global enterprise with its head office in Minato, Tokyo. As a significant player in the technology industry, it is among the biggest producers of consumer and business electronics worldwide and the biggest console maker and publisher of video games. Sony Entertainment Inc., is

Remarkable Recovery: Samsung Crisis Management Case Study

Have you ever wondered how a global tech giant like Samsung managed to navigate a major crisis and bounce back stronger? 

In the world of corporate governance, effective crisis management can be the difference between irreparable damage to a company’s reputation and a successful recovery. 

In this blog post, we delve into a Samsung crisis management case study to learn about exploding batteries to the intricate strategies employed to restore trust.

Samsung’s journey offers valuable insights into the intricacies of crisis management in the digital age. 

Join us as we explore the key lessons learned and best practices from this high-stakes situation, shedding light on the remarkable recovery efforts that propelled Samsung forward.

Let’s learn about sailing through tough times through Samsung crisis management case study

Background of Samsung History and growth of Samsung as a global conglomerate 

Samsung, founded in 1938 by Lee Byung-chul, started as a small trading company in South Korea. Over the years, it steadily expanded into various industries, such as textiles, insurance, and retail.

In the 1960s, Samsung ventured into electronics, marking the beginning of its transformation into a global conglomerate.

With a focus on technological innovation and a commitment to quality, Samsung rapidly gained recognition for its consumer electronics products, including televisions and appliances.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Samsung significantly diversified its business portfolio, entering the semiconductor, telecommunications, and shipbuilding industries.

This diversification strategy helped Samsung become a key player in multiple sectors, solidifying its position as a global leader. Notably, Samsung’s semiconductor division became one of the largest chip manufacturers in the world, supplying components to various electronic devices worldwide.

Samsung’s ascent continued in the 2000s, driven by its successful expansion into the mobile phone market. The introduction of the Galaxy series, powered by the Android operating system, catapulted Samsung to the forefront of the smartphone industry.

The company’s innovative designs, cutting-edge features, and aggressive marketing campaigns contributed to its rise as a major competitor to Apple’s iPhone.

With its global reach, Samsung has consistently ranked among the world’s largest technology companies, epitomizing South Korea’s economic prowess and technological advancements.

Samsung has also been considered one the best companies that successfully managed and implemented change initiatives.

Overview of Samsung’s position in the technology industry

In the consumer electronics segment, Samsung has established itself as a dominant force. Its diverse product lineup encompasses televisions, smartphones, tablets, wearables, home appliances, and audio devices.

The Galaxy series of smartphones, in particular, has enjoyed immense popularity and has emerged as a fierce competitor to other industry giants. Samsung’s televisions are also highly regarded for their cutting-edge display technologies, such as QLED and MicroLED.

The company’s advancements in semiconductor technology have contributed to faster computing speeds, increased storage capacities, and improved energy efficiency.

Samsung’s influence extends beyond consumer electronics and semiconductors. The company is actively involved in telecommunications infrastructure, including the development of 5G networks and the production of network equipment.

Samsung has also made notable strides in the realm of software solutions, including its own mobile operating system, Tizen, and various software platforms for smart devices.

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Crisis

The Note 7 battery issue marked a significant crisis for Samsung, leading to a widespread recall of the flagship smartphone and causing considerable damage to the company’s reputation.

The crisis began in September 2016 when reports emerged of Note 7 devices catching fire or exploding due to faulty batteries. These incidents raised concerns about consumer safety and triggered a wave of negative publicity for Samsung.

Upon receiving initial reports of battery-related incidents, Samsung initially responded by issuing a voluntary recall of the Note 7 in September 2016. The company acknowledged the problem and expressed its commitment to addressing the issue promptly and effectively.

Samsung attributed the battery malfunctions to a manufacturing defect, specifically a flaw in the design that caused a short circuit.

To ensure customer safety, Samsung advised Note 7 owners to power down their devices and refrain from using them. The company swiftly implemented measures to exchange the affected devices, offering customers the option to either replace their Note 7 with a new unit or receive a refund.

Samsung also collaborated with mobile network operators and retail partners to facilitate the recall process.

In its initial response, Samsung took steps to communicate with customers and the public about the issue. The company published official statements expressing regret for the inconvenience caused and assuring customers of its commitment to resolving the problem. Samsung emphasized its dedication to quality and safety, promising to conduct thorough investigations and implement necessary improvements to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Media coverage and public perception during the crisis

During the Note 7 crisis, media coverage played a significant role in shaping public perception and amplifying the negative impact on Samsung’s brand.

The crisis received extensive coverage from both traditional media outlets and online platforms, leading to widespread awareness and public scrutiny. Here’s an overview of media coverage and its influence on public perception:

• News Outlets: Major news organizations across the globe reported on the Note 7 battery issue, highlighting incidents, the recall, and subsequent developments. Television news segments, newspapers, and online news articles extensively covered the crisis , emphasizing the potential safety risks and consumer concerns. The constant media attention contributed to the widespread dissemination of information and increased public awareness of the issue.
• Online Platforms and Social Media: Social media platforms played a pivotal role in the crisis, enabling the rapid spread of information and user-generated content. Users took to platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to share their experiences, express concerns, and criticize Samsung’s handling of the situation. Viral videos, photos, and personal accounts of Note 7 incidents gained traction, further fueling negative sentiment and influencing public perception.
• Expert Analysis and Opinions: Alongside news coverage, experts and industry analysts provided their insights and opinions on the crisis. Their assessments of Samsung’s response, the potential causes of the battery issue, and the implications for the company’s brand reputation contributed to the overall narrative. Expert opinions had the power to sway public perception and shape the understanding of the crisis.
• Consumer Forums and Discussion Platforms: Online forums and discussion boards dedicated to technology and consumer experiences became hubs for discussions surrounding the Note 7 crisis. Consumers shared their frustrations, exchanged information, and warned others about potential risks. These platforms served as gathering places for individuals affected by the crisis and amplified the negative sentiment surrounding Samsung’s brand.

Financial implications and losses incurred by Samsung

The Note 7 crisis had significant financial implications for Samsung, resulting in substantial losses for the company. Here are some of the key financial impacts experienced by Samsung as a result of the crisis:

• Recall and Replacement Costs: The recall and replacement process incurred significant costs for Samsung. The expenses involved in collecting and replacing over 2 million of Note 7 devices, including logistics, shipping, and refurbishment, were substantial. The costs also encompassed the testing and certification of replacement devices to ensure their safety. The total recall cost was estimated at $5.3 billion.
• Decline in Sales and Market Share: The crisis had a detrimental impact on Samsung’s sales and market share in the smartphone industry. As consumer confidence in the Note 7 and Samsung’s brand reputation declined, potential buyers shifted their preferences to alternative smartphone options. The decline in sales of the Note 7, coupled with the negative impact on the perception of other Samsung products, led to a loss of market share for the company.
• Stock Price Decline: The Note 7 crisis had an immediate impact on Samsung’s stock price. News of the battery issue, recalls, and subsequent negative media coverage led to a decline in Samsung’s stock value. Samsung shares fell approximately to 7 percent right after 2 months of the crisis.

Crisis Management Strategy Employed by Samsung

Following are the key aspects of Samsung Galaxy Note 7 crisis management strategy:

Immediate actions taken by Samsung to address the crisis

In the face of the Note 7 crisis, Samsung swiftly implemented a range of immediate actions to address the situation and mitigate the impact on consumers and the company’s brand reputation. Here are some of the key actions taken by Samsung:

• Voluntary Recall: As soon as reports of battery issues emerged, Samsung initiated a voluntary recall of the Note 7. This proactive step demonstrated the company’s commitment to consumer safety and willingness to take responsibility for the problem.
• Temporary Production Halt: To address the root cause of the battery issue, Samsung temporarily halted production of the Note 7. This decision aimed to prevent further distribution of potentially defective devices and allow for thorough investigations and corrective measures.
• Transparent Communication: Samsung made efforts to communicate openly and transparently about the crisis. The company issued official statements and press releases acknowledging the problem, expressing regret for the inconvenience caused, and reassuring customers of its commitment to resolving the issue. Transparent communication was crucial in maintaining trust and providing timely updates to affected consumers.
• Collaboration with Authorities: Samsung collaborated closely with regulatory authorities and industry experts to investigate the battery issue comprehensively. By engaging external expertise, the company aimed to identify the root cause and develop effective solutions. This collaboration demonstrated Samsung’s commitment to finding the best possible resolution.
• Customer Support and Safety Guidelines: Samsung provided clear instructions to consumers regarding the use of Note 7 devices, emphasizing the importance of safety. The company advised customers to power down their devices, participate in the recall, and utilize alternative devices in the interim. This approach prioritized customer safety and aimed to prevent further incidents.
• Increased Battery Testing and Safety Measures: Samsung implemented enhanced battery testing procedures and stringent safety measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. The company adopted more rigorous quality control processes, including additional safety certifications and testing standards, to ensure the highest levels of product safety.

Communication strategies employed by Samsung

Samsung employed various communication strategies to address the Note 7 crisis and manage the impact on its brand reputation. Effective communication was crucial in maintaining transparency, addressing consumer concerns, and rebuilding trust. Here are some of the communication strategies employed by Samsung:

• Official Statements and Press Releases: Samsung issued official statements and press releases to provide updates on the progress of the recall, investigations, and corrective actions. These statements expressed remorse for the inconvenience caused and reiterated the company’s commitment to customer safety. Clear and concise communication helped keep customers informed and reassured them that Samsung was actively working to resolve the issue.
• Direct Customer Communication: Samsung directly communicated with customers to provide instructions and updates on the recall process. The company utilized various channels such as email, SMS messages, and notifications through its official website and smartphone apps. This direct communication ensured that customers received important information and guidance regarding the recall and replacement program.
• Social Media Engagement: Samsung actively engaged with customers and the public on social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. The company responded to customer queries, addressed concerns, and provided updates on the progress of the recall. By engaging in two-way communication, Samsung demonstrated its willingness to listen, respond, and provide assistance to affected customers.
• Collaboration with Industry Experts: Samsung collaborated with industry experts, battery manufacturers, and regulatory authorities to investigate the root cause of the battery issue. This collaboration was communicated to the public, showcasing Samsung’s commitment to finding solutions and ensuring that the necessary expertise was involved in resolving the crisis.
• Advertisements and Marketing Campaigns: Samsung launched advertising and marketing campaigns focused on rebuilding trust and emphasizing its commitment to quality and safety. These campaigns highlighted Samsung’s dedication to addressing the issue and regaining consumer confidence. Advertisements often emphasized the company’s rigorous testing procedures and quality control measures to assure customers of the safety of its products.
• CEO Apology: Samsung’s CEO issued a public apology, taking personal responsibility for the crisis and expressing regret for the inconvenience and concern caused to customers. The CEO’s apology aimed to convey sincerity, empathy, and a commitment to rectifying the situation, while also reinforcing the company’s accountability and determination to regain trust. The apology was published on a full page in 03 major US newspapers – the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Collaborations with regulatory authorities and industry experts

Samsung worked closely with government agencies and regulatory bodies in various countries where incidents related to the Note 7 were reported. The company shared information, conducted investigations, and cooperated with authorities to ensure compliance with safety regulations and guidelines. Collaboration with government agencies helped align efforts to address the crisis and establish industry-wide safety standards.

In the United States, Samsung collaborated with the CPSC, an independent federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety of consumer products. Samsung worked together with the CPSC to investigate the battery issue and coordinate the recall process. This collaboration ensured that the recall efforts followed established safety protocols and provided consumers with accurate information.

Samsung collaborated with battery manufacturers to investigate the specific manufacturing defects that caused the battery issue. The company worked closely with these partners to analyze the battery designs, manufacturing processes, and quality control measures. By involving battery manufacturers in the investigation, Samsung aimed to identify the root cause and implement corrective actions to prevent similar issues in the future.

Samsung engaged independent testing labs to conduct thorough assessments of the Note 7 batteries and verify the effectiveness of corrective measures. These labs specialized in battery testing and certification, providing expertise and unbiased evaluation of the battery performance and safety. Collaboration with independent testing labs helped validate Samsung’s efforts to address the battery issue and instill confidence in the effectiveness of the solutions.

Post-Crisis Recovery and Rebuilding 

Samsung implemented more stringent quality control measures across its product development and manufacturing processes. This included enhanced battery testing protocols, increased inspections, and stricter quality assurance standards. By demonstrating a commitment to producing reliable and safe products, Samsung aimed to rebuild customer trust.

Extended Warranty and Customer Support: Samsung extended warranty periods for existing and new devices, including the Note 7, to provide customers with added assurance. The company also enhanced its customer support services, ensuring that customers could easily access assistance, product information, and technical support. These initiatives aimed to demonstrate Samsung’s commitment to customer satisfaction and support.

  Launch of subsequent product lines and their impact on brand perception

Following the Note 7 crisis, Samsung launched subsequent product lines, including flagship smartphones like the Galaxy S8 and subsequent iterations. These launches played a crucial role in shaping brand perception and rebuilding trust. Key factors that influenced brand perception and the recovery process include:

• Emphasis on Safety and Quality: Samsung placed a strong emphasis on safety and quality in its subsequent product launches. The company implemented rigorous testing procedures and introduced new safety features to ensure the reliability and safety of its devices. By highlighting these improvements, Samsung aimed to regain customer trust and reassure them of its commitment to producing high-quality products.
• Positive User Experience: Samsung focused on delivering positive user experiences with its new product lines. This included improvements in design, performance, and functionality to enhance customer satisfaction. By providing users with exceptional products, Samsung aimed to rebuild its reputation and generate positive word-of-mouth, contributing to brand recovery.
• Brand Messaging and Marketing: Samsung’s marketing efforts during subsequent product launches were carefully crafted to reinforce positive brand associations and regain customer trust. The company emphasized innovation, customer-centricity, and the commitment to quality and safety. Marketing campaigns highlighted features, benefits, and technological advancements to create a positive brand image and overcome the negative perceptions associated with the Note 7 crisis.

Final Words 

Samsung’s handling of the Note 7 crisis serves as a case study in crisis management. Despite the significant financial and reputational setbacks, the company took proactive steps to address the crisis, regain customer trust, and prevent similar incidents in the future.

The Samsung crisis management case study highlights the importance of swift and transparent communication, customer-centric actions, and continuous improvement in product safety and quality. By effectively addressing the crisis, Samsung was able to navigate the challenging situation and rebuild its brand, reaffirming its position as a leading global technology company.

Overall, the Samsung crisis management case study provides valuable insights into how a company can recover from a major setback, restore customer trust, and strengthen its position in the market through strategic actions and a relentless commitment to customer satisfaction and product excellence.

About The Author

Tahir Abbas

Related posts.

05 Most Common Negative Effects of Resistance to Change

Gleicher’s Formula for Change Management – Benefits & Limitations

What is DICE Framework in Change Management?

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Samsung Became a Design Powerhouse

• Youngjin Yoo
• Kyungmook Kim

Until 20 years ago, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics manufactured inexpensive, imitative electronics for other companies. Its leaders valued speed, scale, and reliability above all. The few designers working for the company were dispersed in engineering and new-product units, and they had little status in an organization that emphasized efficiency and engineering rigor.

Then, in 1996, Lee Kun-Hee, the chair of Samsung Group, grew frustrated by the company’s lack of innovation and concluded that in order to become a top brand, Samsung needed expertise in design, which he believed would become “the ultimate battleground for global competition in the 21st century.” He set out to create a design-focused culture that would support world-class innovation. But shifting to an innovation-focused culture without losing an engineering edge is not a simple matter. It involves managing a number of very real tensions.

Samsung’s success in making this shift stems from a single early decision—to build design competency in-house rather than import it. The authors describe how the company created a committed, resourceful corps of designers who overcame internal resistance by deploying the same tools they use in pursuing innovation: empathy, visualization, and experimentation in the marketplace.

HBR Reprint R1509E

The electronics manufacturer now emphasizes design over efficiency.

Idea in Brief

The challenge.

Samsung Electronics knew that in order to become a top brand, it needed a design-focused culture that would support world-class innovation.

The Problem

Designers faced constant challenges stemming from the company’s efficiency-focused management practices, which were deep-rooted. Managers who were invested in the status quo had to be persuaded to buy in to idealized visions of the future.

The Solution

The company built a corps of designers with a capacity for strategic thinking and the tenacity that enabled them to overcome resistance by deploying the same tools—empathy, visualization, and market experimentation—that they use in pursuing innovation.

Until 20 years ago, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics manufactured inexpensive, imitative electronics for other companies. Its leaders valued speed, scale, and reliability above all. Its marketers set prices and introduced features according to what original-equipment manufacturers wanted. Its engineers built products to meet prescribed price and performance requirements. At the end of the process designers would “skin” the product—make it look nice. The few designers working for the company were dispersed in engineering and new-product units, and individual designers followed the methods they preferred. In a company that emphasized efficiency and engineering rigor, the designers had little status or influence.

• YY Youngjin Yoo is the Harry A. Cochran Professor in Management Information Systems and the founding director of the Center for Design+Innovation at Temple University. He is also an overseas advisory fellow of the Samsung Economic Research Institute and consults for Samsung Electronics.
• Kyungmook Kim is a principal designer at Samsung Electronics’ Corporate Design Center.

Partner Center

• Open access
• Published: 21 October 2019

Planting and harvesting innovation - an analysis of Samsung Electronics

• Seung Hoon Jang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-7383 1 ,
• Sang M. Lee 2 ,
• Taewan Kim 3 &
• Donghyun Choi 4  

International Journal of Quality Innovation volume  5 , Article number:  7 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study explores how firms manage the entire life cycle of innovation projects based on the framework of harvesting and planting innovation. While harvesting innovation seeks new products in the expectation of financial performance in the short term, planting innovation pursues creating value over a long time period. Without proper management of the process of planting and harvesting innovation, firms with limited resources may not be successful in launching innovative new products to seize a momentum in high tech industries. To examine this issue, the case of Samsung Electronics (SE), now an electronics giant originated from a former developing country, is analyzed. SE has shown to effectively utilize co-innovation to maintain numerous planting and harvesting innovation projects. Both researchers and practitioners would be interested in learning about how SE shared risks of innovation investment with external partners at the early stage of innovation cycles.

Introduction

Globalization and advances in technologies have made the global market extremely dynamic and competitive. While companies like Apple have created new customer value by introducing such products as iMac computer and iPhone, many other firms have failed to adapt to the fast-changing environment. Kodak, the creator of the film camera, became history since it failed to adapt to the digital era in a timely fashion. To compete successfully in the dynamic global market, organizations must continuously innovate ways to create value [ 1 ]. Thus, innovation has been an important topic to both management researchers and practitioners [ 2 ]. Many studies have explored the relationship between innovative activities and organizational performance [ 3 , 4 ]. The firm’s ability of managing innovative projects has been considered as a key dynamic capability, resulting in new product development [ 5 ]. Innovative activities of the firm have generally shown to positively impact organizational outcome.

Although a number of studies in this research stream have introduced various types of innovation based on learning styles [ 6 , 7 ] or objects [ 3 ], few have paid attention to the timing of financial return from innovation. Given the importance of financial payoff from innovation for firm survival and sustained competitive advantage, research on how a real business should manage both innovation and cash flow is critical. Thus, in this study, we intend to answer the following two research questions.

RQ1: Which classification of innovation can best explain the heterogeneous timing of financial payoff realization?

To answer this question, we applied a classification scheme of planting and harvesting innovation [ 8 , 9 ]. Planting innovation involves pursuing potential sources of competitive advantage, including original technology, which may create value in a long term perspective. In contrast, harvesting innovation aims to develop new ways to monetize planted innovation, including new products for market launching, in the expectation of commercial success in a relatively short term. The aim of this research stream is to determine how to implement planting and harvesting innovation and measure the results of ensuing innovative activities. From this perspective, this study examines how a real global firm manages both types of innovation.

RQ2: How are planting and harvesting activities of innovation actually implemented in a successful global business firm?

To answer this question, we focus on Samsung Electronics (SE) which has become the world’s largest electronics firm through successful planting and harvesting of innovation. While SE has developed many innovative new commercial products, it has focused on fundamental breakthrough technologies as the source of future growth momentum. This case may provide valuable implications for firms from developing economies. To compete in high tech industries, these businesses need to invest a large amount of capital to risky innovation projects. Otherwise, they may remain low value added entities, like assemblers or fast followers. The case of SE, like many other success stories, exhibits a possibility that multinationals originated from developing countries can become leading global firms based on their efforts and vision for breakthrough innovations.

Given the current turbulent global business environment, as observed by trade disputes between the USA and China and the recently disrupted supply of critical input resources from Japan to Korea, it is imperative for firms to develop core competences based on innovation. In the digital age, businesses must rely on innovation to enhance their dynamic capabilities [ 10 ] to enhance agility, flexibility, and resilience for value creation [ 1 ]. Thus, this study which focuses on the effective management of planting and harvesting innovation is expected to make important contributions to the literature.

This study examines how firms can implement innovation projects for both short- and long-term perspectives. For this purpose, we first reviewed the literature for major research streams of innovation. Then, a case method is used to examine how planting and harvesting of innovation have helped SE became a dominant global electronics firm, around 2012. In addition to secondary data, executive interviews reported in media also describe how SE employees implemented planting and harvesting innovation. The results of qualitative analyses are presented and articulated. Finally, the implications and limitations of this research are presented. The framework of planting and harvesting innovation provides a theoretical background on how firms can strive for both short-term cash flow and a long-term momentum despite their limited resources. Furthermore, the study results provide insights to practitioners through the case study of SE which struggled initially to save the cost of innovation by collaborating with external partners for planting and harvesting innovation.

Innovation under resource constraints

Planting versus harvesting innovation.

Researchers in various fields, including economics, sociology, and technology management, have been interested in innovation [ 11 ]. The characteristics of innovative outcomes have been investigated as a major research agenda [ 12 , 13 ]. As Damanpour and colleagues [ 14 ] suggested, the introduction of novel ideas or technologies is the core of innovation. According to Van de Ven [ 15 ], innovation can be described as “the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional order ([ 15 ], p590).” Several definitions of innovation have focused on how to apply creativity to business operations and processes [ 15 , 16 ]. These studies imply that the main focus of innovation research has been on whether the firm creates new tangible or intangible values.

However, innovation has shown to lead to varied results. The meta-analysis by Rosenbusch et al. [ 17 ] reported that different contexts explain heterogeneous outcomes resulting from innovation. Even if firms implement similar innovation projects, the result can be different due to environmental factors. In addition, innovation sometimes improves the value of marketing skills rather than creating new technical capabilities [ 18 , 19 ]. What these results imply is that characteristics of innovative activities are complex. Since a single concept cannot explain the nature and outcome of innovation, researchers need to consider diverse classifications to explain the phenomena of innovation. Given the importance of cash flow in business, a greater focus is required on the influence of innovation on the survival and prosperity of the firm. Even when firms obtain breakthrough technologies, they may not survive when they fail to create new products/services and resulting cash flow as discussed by Jang [ 8 ] and Jang and Grandzol [ 9 ]. Furthermore, the large amount of investment needed for innovative activities requires firms to prioritize and manage their projects based on the commercial potential. Thus, there is a need to search for a new framework that can provide better explanations on innovation with respect to this issue. The most existing classifications of innovation are not based on the timing of financial outcomes of innovative activities.

One of the typologies regarding this topic is the categorization of radical and incremental innovation based on the sharpness of change in innovative practices [ 20 ]. A more drastic transformation can be expected from radical innovation projects while a relatively slight newness can be added to existing technologies during the incremental innovation process. Since radical innovation can pursue both drastic breakthrough and immediate commercialization, there exists the disparity between the distinction of radical and incremental innovation, the main focus of this paper. Space shuttle can be considered as an example of radical innovation as the realization of reusable spacecraft but it is generally considered as a product for immediate use rather than a long-term growth momentum. Such discrepancy leads researchers to develop a new categorization of innovation based on the expected timing of financial outcome.

The Code-Division Multiple Access (CDMA) wireless technology is an interesting case for this point. The CDMA technology was developed by Qualcomm ( www.qualcomm.com ), but the commercial CDMA phones were first created and produced by Korean manufacturers, including SE and LG. While Qualcomm was interested in developing CDMA as planting innovation, SE and LG focused on commercializing the technology for harvesting that innovation. Qualcomm could benefit from licensing fees in the long term with the success of commercial products based on CDMA. In contrast, the short-term cash flow was derived by SE and LG as they sold more CDMA phones to individual consumers.

From this perspective, innovation can be categorized based on its relatedness to the firm’s performance in the short or long term [ 8 , 9 ]. While certain types of innovative activities may result in an increase of the firm resources engaged in the current competition, others can create value that has long-term potential. This approach modifies the definition of innovations by Gumusluoglu and Ilsev [ 21 ] as described in Jang [ 8 ] and Jang and Grandzol [ 9 ]. First, harvesting innovation can be described as the development of a new resource that can help launch new products/services in the short term. New products, such as Toyota Prius, would be a good example of this type of innovation. Planting innovation refers to the creation of potential firm resources that are based on the state-of-the-art innovation in the expectation of long-term financial benefits. For instance, the invention of hybrid engine technology “plants” potential for future value while the creation of a hybrid car like Prius “harvests” the results of the planting of that innovation.

There are several reasons why planting innovation may not result in new commercial products/services in the short term. First, there may be social constraints that would not allow the use of innovative technology, resulting in no market for new products/services. The commercial use of human stem cell research in the USA has been prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration [ 22 ]. Firms initiating planting innovation in this area cannot expect commercial success due to this regulation, except perhaps in other countries. Second, firms may need to wait for the advent of other complementing technologies for the commercialization process. Thus, firms face a high degree of uncertainty about the financial outcome of planting innovation in the long term, especially in the biotech industry. The development of a new technology usually has a high probability of failure. Therefore, planting innovation may not lead to financial gains in the short term even if firms succeed in developing a technology.

The characteristic of planting innovation makes it distinct from invention. Innovation requires entrepreneurial utilization of technological newness by definition, while invention includes scientific and/or technological breakthrough for discovery purposes [ 23 ]. Firms invest in planting innovation projects in the expectation of long-term profits. Although the result of planting innovation may directly create cash flows in the form of patent fee, firms usually wait until finding out how to apply the result of planting innovation. In contrast, harvesting innovation pursues short-term profits by launching new products or services. In the 1970s, the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) at Xerox initiated the development of innovative technologies such as Ethernet (or LAN technology) and copper wire-based Ethernet communication [ 24 ]. Due to the lack of commercial intention of Xerox both short and long term, these developments can be classified as examples of invention rather than planting innovation.

Given the heterogeneous characteristics of planting and harvesting innovation, ambidexterity can be important in balancing such innovative activities. Studies on exploitative and explorative innovations have examined this issue [ 6 , 7 , 25 ]. Since pioneering efforts for new processes or technology involve much risk, firms need to optimize the return of their investment in both types of innovation. One possible approach is to utilize external capabilities through M&A, alliances, or industry-academia collaborations through open innovation. Such arrangements would allow firms to share the risk of innovation with other participants [ 1 ].

In addition, convergence has played a major role in explaining value added activities in modern firms [ 1 , 26 ]. Globalization has encouraged the convergence revolution which allows value creation from the synergy of diverse disciplines, industries including IT, biotechnology, and nanotechnology [ 26 ]. The co-innovation platform helps converge diverse types of innovations for value creation [ 1 ]. Multinationals participating in co-innovation are expected to collaborate with stakeholders, including suppliers, customers, partners, and outsiders. Therefore, outside stakeholders can be active partners who co-create shared goals.

Overall, the classification of innovation can contribute to research by providing clearer guidelines related to the timing of financial outcome of innovation. While planting innovation can result in potential resources for long-term value creation, harvesting innovation is intended to generate continuous cash flows to those engaged in the current market. Following the case of exploitative and explorative innovation, researchers in this field should also consider ambidexterity of the organization. By doing so, firms under resource constraints can be prepared for an optimal portfolio of innovation projects, resulting in better organizational performance in the long term.

• Case analysis

In this study, the case of Samsung Electronics (SE), now the largest electronic firm in the world from a former emerging economy, is examined to unveil the processes of harvesting and planting innovation and their results. Innovative activities have been the core strength of SE and are expected to continue creating value for SE. The Mission 2020 of Samsung ( http://www.samsung.com ) states that it will “inspire the world, create the world” through creative and innovative solutions. This implies that the firm intends to pursue innovation over time beyond the development of commercial products for short-term returns.

Several qualitative techniques are employed to investigate the SE case. First, we collected articles including executive interviews from 2000 to 2012. The articles were manually coded into planting and harvesting innovation frameworks after a careful review of contents. News reports were analyzed via local portal sites, including Lexis-Nexis ( http://www.lexisnexis.com ) and Naver ( www.naver.com ). Particularly, we searched Naver, the major Korean portal website, to collect news articles concerning SE research topics from 2002 to 2012. We chose this period, 2002 and 2012, to collect data for this study as this is when SE made the significant transformation to become a dominant global IT leader. The search keywords used were “Samsung Electronics” and “Innovation.” The search using the keywords assured the study to verify that all related articles are captured. After removing duplicates, we investigated the contents of 183 related news articles. Based on the analysis, all the key interviews of executives and managers at SE were collected and examined. In addition, the other secondary data sources like the websites of companies, universities, and local governments were examined.

Samsung Electronics

SE has been a major global player in electronics and related industries for over three decades. Hoovers ( www.hoovers.com ), a leading corporate information provider on large businesses, describes the overall state of this firm as the new “Electronics Samson.” In year 2015, it reported $171 billion revenue and $16 billion net profit. Its major products include digital electronics, semiconductors, and DVD players. Financial Times ranked Samsung Electronics as 19th in their 2015 FT Global 500 ( www.ft.com/ft500 ). It is beyond doubt that this firm has been successful in creating value for its customers.

The webpage of Samsung Electronics ( www.samsung.com ) and Samsung C&T ( www.samsungcnt.co.kr ) describes the history of Samsung Group and Electronics as follows. Samsung group was founded in 1938 as a small retail firm in Daegu, Korea. The founding chairman, Lee Byung-Chull, established Samsung-Sanyo Electronics to diversify the business in 1969. As the name implies, the firm collaborated with Japan’s electronics giant Sanyo. It began production of black-and-white TV sets for the first time in 1970, as an outsource manufacturer. After changing its name to Samsung Electronics, the firm began to produce color TV sets, video recorders, microwaves, and personal computers. It has rapidly developed as a global firm since it entered the semiconductor industry in the early 1980s. Since South Korea has recently been accepted as a developed economy [ 27 ], it can be said that SE began as an emerging market firm.

Given the fact that SE was founded only about five decades ago, the current performance and growth are astonishing. Despite the current status, the firm used to be considered as a fast follower [ 28 ]. SE had focused on producing existing products with better quality at lower prices than other global firms. It is an interesting research topic to examine how and why SE has evolved into a global giant in the electronics industry.

To provide an explanation on this issue, we investigated how SE has implemented innovation to achieve strategic objectives. In 2001, President of Booz Allen and Hamilton Korea stated that Korean firms need to pursue breakthrough innovations to adapt to new market environments [ 29 ]. In other words, SE as well as other major Korean manufacturers began to pursue innovation rather than continue to follow market leaders to survive in the dynamic global marketplace.

Harvesting innovation at Samsung Electronics

SE has engaged in various innovation activities to gain global competitive advantage. By doing so, the firm has been able to create value and benefit from new markets with expectations of stable cash inflows. For instance, SE developed new products like Rambus DRAM and Nand flash memory rather than increasing the accumulation rate of semiconductors [ 28 ]. Since these new products reflect the needs of customers, including PC or smartphone manufacturers, the innovation brought a large amount of profit in the short term. Given the astonishing results that SE has accomplished, its process of harvesting innovation has drawn much attention.

SE has continued implementing innovative activities steadily. The Value Innovation Program (VIP) Centre, setup in 1998, has played a key role in developing innovative new products at SE [ 28 , 30 , 31 ]. This Centre has shown to nurture creativity and broaden the ideas of R&D staff. As the chief researcher at SE stated, the introduction of value innovation methods has contributed to the creation of many new ideas [ 28 ]. Through this system, all participants were expected to overcome the trap of past success syndrome, leading to what is possible.

Blue Ocean Strategy (BOS) [ 32 ] has been the backbone of the harvesting innovation process at SE [ 30 ]. SE invited W. Kim, the main author of BOS, to train its executives. Senior executives have encouraged the dissemination of value innovation at SE based on the BOS approach [ 33 ]. SE strives to create value which its customers never even expected through value innovation for new products. SE’s value innovation includes value management and value creation [ 33 ]. While the former focuses on cost reduction and efficiency improvement, the latter aims to generate added value. Therefore, the firm searches for creative ideas rather than implementing traditional continuous improvement type programs.

SE has found practical tools to implement harvesting innovation based on BOS [ 31 ]. First, the VIP Centre has utilized the strategy canvas, a framework of implementing BOS [ 32 , 34 ]. In the Centre, managerial decisions on important projects have been made based on the value curve of each unit against competitors, resulting in new products like 40-inch LCD TV. In addition, the “7 Tools Method” practiced in Japan, which enables firms to empirically recognize value factors of their customers, was introduced [ 35 ]. For instance, a survey of 226 Japanese employees triggered the production of a laptop that works well even in a bad wireless environment. These types of techniques have helped SE create new products successfully by reflecting innate needs and requirements of individual and business customers.

It has been reported that all of the creative ideas from the VIP Centre have been reflected in the design and development of new products of SE [ 36 ]. As a result, innovativeness of the firm’s new products has been globally recognized as the numerous Innovation Awards of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) attest (see Table 1 ). These achievements prove that the innovative results of SE have been widely recognized by professionals in the field as well as ordinary customers. SE has succeeded in developing new products through harvesting innovation activities.

Planting innovation at Samsung Electronics

SE has also focused on the creation of innovative ideas which may not realize any meaningful revenue in the short term. The major results of planting innovation are original technologies which can result in competitive advantage and lead to future business success. The CEO of SE stressed the importance of “technology preparation management,” pursuing core technologies in order to respond to the convergence across technologies and products [ 37 ]. This statement exhibits the strong will of top management of SE to implement the planting innovation strategy.

The Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT) has played a critical role in developing original technologies. The website ( www.site.samsung.com ) describes the research efforts currently in place. The Future IT and Convergence domain seeks technologies across real 3D processing, communication theory and network, multicore processing, data intelligence, and medical imaging. The New Materials and Nanotechnology domain aims at developing flexible electronics, solid state lighting, film ceramic crystal composite materials, micro-system integration, oxide materials and devices, spintronics, and nanostructure and materials research. The Energy and Environment domain focuses on energy storage, energy conversion, and environment fields. The Bio and Health domain explores gene analysis and point of care testing (POCT). Indeed, SE has encouraged researchers to create a broad range of intellectual capital for the purpose of leading future technologies.

Furthermore, it seems likely that SE seeks Chesbrough’s [ 2 , 38 ] open innovation to improve efficiency and effectiveness of planting innovation. By doing so, the firm can create innovative results with less burden in time and resources. The CEO mentioned that open innovation needs to be encouraged to shorten the technology life cycle and to enable convergence in the electronics industry [ 37 ]. Thus, SE senior managers have aggressively focused on the utilization of external ideas and capabilities [ 39 ].

M&A has been a major instrument to acquire external intellectual capital. SE has acquired several firms, including SanDisk, Amica (a Polish electronics firm) in 2009, and Transchip (a non-memory semiconductor manufacturer in Israel) in 2008 [ 40 ]. SE informed the board of directors of SanDisk about its intention of collaborative innovation orientation and human resource retention in SanDisk [ 41 ]. Such M&A activities have enabled SE to obtain proven and complimentary intellectual capital and dynamic capabilities, including R&D employees.

SE has also managed a broader range of intellectual capital without much investment by sharing their proprietary technologies with partners. For example, SE and IBM, two top US patent firms, established a cross-licensing agreement which allows the participants to utilize each other’s patents for innovation in 2011 [ 42 ]. These firms can share their patents without additional investment, resulting in a more stable basis for innovative activities. This type of contract enables SE to implement planting innovation with finite capabilities. Executives of SE and IBM also announced that the objective of cross-licensing lies in sharing intellectual capital in the expectation of continuous innovative outputs. In sum, SE has implemented planting innovation through SAIT internally and has utilized external capabilities through M&A and licensing for significant financial gains in the long run. SAIT has implemented several major research projects independently as well.

Ambidexterity and co-innovation

Since SE is implementing planting and harvesting innovation simultaneously, one major task is balancing both types of innovative activities. Otherwise, the firm may suffer from lack of financial cash flows or future leadership in the industry. Despite their brand image, major manufacturers of wristwatch had to overcome the loss of sales volume in the 1970s due to the revolutionary quarts movement technology [ 43 ]. Although US electronic giants initiated the transistor technology, Japanese manufacturers like Sony harvested the lion’s share of its benefits with their transistor radios [ 44 ].

The significance of inter-organizational cooperation in attaining competitive advantage cannot be ignored [ 45 ]. Thus, any organization, however large or global it may be, cannot be competitive for long without collaboration with other world-class partners. From this perspective, the success or failure of firms today lies in managing the relationships with other value chain partners and stakeholders [ 4 ].

Beyond the conventional exploration and open innovation focusing on the use of external resources, SE has been searching for the best way to simultaneously implement planting and harvesting innovation through co-innovation with stakeholders [ 1 ] (see Fig. 1 ). The main focus of the VIP Centre has been on how to encourage collaboration among internal departments. Resulting convergence across departments has enabled the firm to recognize the diverse viewpoints other than the opinions of core engineers. The VIP Centre director stated that those firms interested in value innovation need to adopt the cross-functional team (CFC) concept with a separate space to promote inter-departmental collaboration for value innovation [ 34 ]. This process is expected to encourage formal and informal sharing of ideas, opinions, and viewpoints since participants have more opportunities to communicate with many people. For instance, the CFC team consisting of marketers, designers, and engineers developed a new slim style laptop which caught the fancy of Japanese consumers [ 35 ]. Furthermore, the members of the Centre frequently collaborate with external partners [ 35 ].

Co-innovation at Samsung Electronics. Based on the information from SAIT ( www.SAIT.samsung.com ) and Kim’s [ 35 ] study

SAIT has played a significant role in connecting SE with external entities ( http://www.sait.samsung.co.kr ), such as universities, through the Global Research Outreach (GRO) program and other collaborators via the Collaborative Open Research Expert (CORE) program. These efforts have allowed the firm to share the risks inherent in planting innovation. Thus, the firm has been able to reduce the uncertainty involved in innovative practices and maximize its value with finite organizational resources.

Another example of collaboration lies in its value-chain management beyond the use of external capabilities. An association of Samsung’s collaborating vendors, Hyup-Sung-Hoe, has played a key role in co-innovation processes [ 46 ]. SE and collaborating vendors have participated in innovation activities, including sectional committee meetings. It is evident that SE’s innovation activities cover not only its own value chain but also that of its partners. Given the fact that current business activities must include vendors, the improvement of innovation capabilities of the entire value chain is essential for gaining competitive advantage. SE also considers the creation of new ventures with excellent technologies as another outcome of its open innovation strategy [ 47 ]. The firm manages its entire value chain to compete successfully, as opposed to conducting business with partners for short-term monetary rewards. Figure 1 presents SE’s value chain convergence activities.

SE has participated in the various industry-academia collaboration projects. This partnership has enabled SE to interact with partners to utilize their tangible and intangible resources. Particularly, research universities can provide professional human resources, research expertise, and infrastructure. In 2012, SE established the Centre for Intelligent Computing (CIC) with Seoul National University [ 48 ]. While the former supports the facilities and programs, the latter provides research ideas and its faculty resource. Such projects allow SE to benefit from the results of collaborative innovation while sharing the burden of investment. Furthermore, individual participants would likely to share ideas and opinions due to their “relationships” even after the official project is completed, beyond organizational boundaries. SE has also established the Samsung Talent Program (STP) with 14 Korean universities [ 48 ]. This program is intended to nurture and develop R&D employees to fit its needs.

The use of a co-innovation mechanism has played a key role in managing planting and harvesting innovation with limited organizational resources. SE has established networks with the various innovation partners, including diverse internal departments, academia, technicians, customers, and suppliers to collaborate and co-create for shared goals. In addition to external resources, the closely interconnected relationships among participants are expected to nurture collective intelligence. Overall, co-innovation allows SE to manage both types of innovation, harvesting and planting, while coping with its fast expanding global presence.

Firm performance

The innovation investment of Samsung Electronics has shown tremendous financial return as can be seen in Fig. 2 . The financial information from Daum ( www.daum.net ), a major portal site in Korea, exhibits that SE’s sales volume has dramatically increased since the early 2000s. As SE has paid more attention to harvesting innovation, its sales volume surged from 2001 to 2004. This implies that the firm continued its growth by actively pursuing innovative activities which created much financial gain in the short term.

Annual revenue of Samsung Electronics. Based on the financial information from Daum ( www.daum.net ) and Hoovers ( www.hoovers.com ) and news articles from Naver ( www.naver.com )

The revenue of the firm diminished drastically in 2007 with the global financial crisis. This “earning shock” was due to the decrease of demands for LCDs and semiconductors [ 49 ]. The global economy was in recession for several years afterward. For example, in 2012, the Federal Reserve Bank announced that the net asset of median family in the USA decreased by 38.8% from December 2007 to June 2009 [ 50 ]. Given that the consumption of middle-class families in the USA has been the locomotive of global economy for decades, the effect of the macro-economic crisis would be challenging for many global firms.

SE executives began to search solutions for the creation of original technologies, while continuing its innovation harvesting efforts. Despite the global financial crisis, SE has continued its growth [ 50 ]. In 2017, the revenue was approximately $224 billion [ 51 ]. SE has steadily expanded its business after it introduced harvesting and planting innovation despite the hostile macro-economic environment and recent ownership succession.

Discussion and evaluation

This study investigated planting and harvesting innovation to answer the research question, “Which classification of innovation best explains the heterogeneous timing of revenue realization?” While harvesting innovation seeks commercial results in a relatively short term, planting innovation pursues the development of new ideas and technologies for a long term. For instance, a firm with the CDMA wireless technology may not succeed financially without the dispersion of CDMA phones. Given the finite amount of resources, firms need to efficiently balance planting and harvesting innovation. Otherwise, they would fail to develop both new products/services for market launching and original technologies for future market expansion while continuing their business activities.

A case analysis was employed to answer the second research question, “How are planting and harvesting activities of innovation implemented in a successful global business firm?” Samsung Electronics (SE) was chosen as a case study since it has become the largest electronics firm in the world but originated from a former emerging economy, South Korea. Despite its limitations, SE continued to grow by using innovation as a vehicle to move from an outsourcing firm to a global leader in innovation. It is a dramatic success story for a local firm in Korea which began its business in the 1970s. Since SE established innovation as the core of its business activities in its mission statement, it has implemented the dual strategy of planting and harvesting innovation.

SE has participated in various activities to develop innovative new technologies as well as products. The interviews reported were collected from news articles to analyze the stream of innovative activities of SE. Harvesting innovation has led to the initiation of a broad range of new products, allowing the firm to access global customers and also received world-renowned innovation awards. SE has also focused on planting innovation which can result in original technologies. Based on Blue Ocean Strategy, the Value Innovation Program (VIP) Centre has been primarily responsible for developing new products. The Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT) pursues original technologies which can continuously support technological leadership in the years to come.

Co-innovation [ 1 ] has enabled SE to focus both planting and harvesting innovation activities with limited resources. External collaborators have contributed to the application of SE’s tacit knowledge for convergence that is difficult to imitate by competitors. The VIP Centre and SAIT have played a critical role in encouraging collaboration among innovation value chain partners, including academic researchers, technicians, vendors, and customers to co-create value. It has enabled the firm to pursue innovative outcomes while managing financial stability. The financial performance of SE exhibits that its innovation activities have resulted in a remarkable success.

Conclusions

The digital age is characterized by the increased complexity and uncertainty of the business environment [ 1 ]. In the environment of increasing velocity of change, business firms must develop dynamic capabilities through innovation to adapt to change with agility, flexibility, and speed [ 4 ]. There have been various innovation approaches in the literature: exploitative vs. explorative [ 7 ], disruptive [ 52 ] vs. non-disruptive [ 53 ], ambidexterity [ 54 ], and convergence innovation [ 55 ]. However, the purpose of innovation remains the same, which is to create new or added value by applying ideas or technologies in a fundamentally different way [ 1 ]. What is not widely known is that innovation is not one integrated process. Instead, there are several steps and cycles in innovation. Planting innovation involves creating new ideas, scientific breakthroughs, or new technologies. Planting seeds does not guarantee a good harvest. Many nurturing steps such as careful planning, risk taking, and entrepreneurship are needed to have a successful harvest. Thus, studying the most spectacular success transformation case of SE through its innovation process provides meaningful theoretical and practical insights and a contribution to the literature of innovation.

This study is not free from limitations. Although SE can be considered as one of global leading innovators originated from Korea, a success story from one of the poorest countries in the world to an advanced economy, the generalizability of the single case study can be limited as Tversky and Kahneman [ 56 ] suggested. Future researchers should conduct relevant studies in various contexts to overcome such limitation. In addition, the qualitative analysis tool of Gibbert et al. [ 57 ] can be used to lessen the concern on generalizability.

There are many factors that have contributed to the success of SE. In this study, we used the revenue as the reference of SE’s efforts of harvesting innovation. There could be many other factors that contributed to the performance of SE. However, we believe these factors all contributed to the combined efforts of SE in harvesting innovation.

In addition, it is also expected that future studies may apply more refined research methods to examine the process and consequences of planting and harvesting innovation. While we believe in the merits of the research method applied in this study, it is also possible that executives might have exaggerated the process and outcomes of their projects. Future researchers are expected to cross-check the results of planting and harvesting innovation by utilizing multiple research methods.

Despite the limitations, this research provides several meaningful implications. It uses a distinction of planting and harvesting innovation [ 8 , 9 ] to examine how a firm grows into a global leader despite its finite managerial and financial resources. While planting innovation aims to implement technological advancement as a potential source of long-term profits, harvesting innovation focuses on the development of new products for market expansion in the short term. The framework of planting and harvesting innovation is expected to provide a tool for managers to distribute limited funds for various types of innovation projects. It shall enable them to clarify whether the current focus of innovation investment lies in launching new innovative products or seeking competitive advantage for future profits. The case of Samsung Electronics exhibited that its innovation has focused on both short-term profits and technological innovation for the future growth momentum. Firms are recommended to follow this notion to compete successfully in high tech industries with limited financial, technological, and managerial competencies.

Collaboration is also required for firms seeking both planting and harvesting innovation. Given their shortage of resources and competencies, firms need to share the risks and the burdens of innovation projects with external partners. Following the case of Samsung, they are expected to cooperate with various entities, including research institutions, suppliers, customers, or new ventures. It enables firms to afford the cost of breakthrough innovation despite their finite resources and experiences. Collaboration helps these firms create innovation results for advanced as well as emerging economies.

This study also provides implications from methodological perspectives (Table 2 ). The use of indirect interviews from news articles allowed us to observe the opinions of SE executives over time. In addition, it can collect the opinions of executives at the time of innovative activities rather than asking current employees’ perceptions about what happened in the past. It provides future researchers with an effective method for exploratory research. The use of this underused but promising methodology can contribute to overcoming the limitations of research in the management field despite its possible limitations.

Practitioners can obtain lessons from the results of this study. They could observe how SE, a former emerging market firm, dispersed investment risks by collaborating with the various stakeholders to implement planting innovation. The convergence of internal and external ideas, from suppliers, academia, other businesses, and customers, is essential for the implementation of both types of innovation with finite resources. Furthermore, they need to nurture innovative capabilities of entire internal and external stakeholders as co-innovators. This shall allow firms to achieve the network effect of innovation.

As suggested by Lee [ 4 ], the main focus of innovation projects has been on how to benefit business activities in new ways. Lee [ 58 ] and Schniederjans and Schniederjans [ 59 ] also examined how practical operational issues like quality practices can be improved by innovation.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Blue Ocean Strategy

Consumer Electronics Association

Cross-functional team

Centre for Intelligent Computing

Collaborative Open Research Expert

Global Research Outreach

Palo Alto Research Center

Point of care testing

Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology

Code-Division Multiple Access

Samsung Talent Program

Value Innovation Program

Lee SM, Lim SB (2018) Living innovation: from value creation to the greater good. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, U.K

Book   Google Scholar  

Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA

Google Scholar  

Damanpour F, Walker RM, Avellaneda CN (2009) Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations. J Manage Stud 46(4):650–675

Article   Google Scholar  

Lee SM (2018) Innovation: from small “i” to large “I”. Int J Quality Inno. 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-018-0022-4

Lawson B, Samson D (2001) Developing innovation capability in organizations: a dynamic capabilities approach. Int J Innov Manage 5(3):377–400

He Z-L, Wong P-K (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494

March J (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87

Jang S H (2012) Ownership structure, absorptive capacity, and innovation: planting vs harvesting innovation (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/businessdiss/29/

Jang SH, Grandzol C (2014) Value co-creation in emerging economies: planting and harvesting innovation perspectives. Int J Serv Sci 5(3/4):171–181

Teece DJ (2014) The foundation of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Acad Manage Perspect 28(4):324–338

Gopalakrishnan S, Damanpour F (1997) A review of innovation research in economics, sociology, and technology management. Omega 25(1):15–28

Nohria N, Gulati R (1996) Is slack good or bad for innovation? Acad Manage J 39(5):1245–1264

Johannessen JA, Olsen B, Lumpkin GT (2001) Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom? Eur J Innov Manage 4(1):20–31

Damanpour F, Szabat KA, Evan WM (1989) The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. J Manage Stud 26(6):587–602

Van de Ven AH (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Manage Sci 32(5):590–607

Rogers M (1998) The definition and measurement of innovation. Working Paper. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Melbourne, Australia

Rosenbusch N, Brinckmann J, Bausch A (2011) Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. J Bus Venturing 26(4):441–457

Stieglitz N, Heine K (2007) Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J 28(1):1–15

Teece D (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res Policy 15(6):285–305

Dewar R, Dutton J (1986) The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis. Manage Sci 32(11):1422–1433

Gumusluoglu L, Ilsev A (2009) Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. J Bus Res 62(4):461–473

Halme DG, Kessler DA (2006) FDA regulation of stem-cell based therapies. New Engl J Med 355(16):1730–1735

Schmookler J (1966) Invention and economic growth. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA

Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS (2002) The role of business model in capturing value from innovation: wvidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind Corp Change 11(3):529–555

Simsek Z (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. J Manage Stud 46(4):597–624

Lee SM, Olson DL, Trimi S (2010) The impact of convergence on organizational innovation. Organ Dyn 39(3):218–225

Park Y, Lee JY, Hong S (2011) Effects of international entry-order strategies on foreign subsidiary exit. Manage Decis 49(9):1471–1488

Song D (2004a) Open the era of value innovation: (3) the case of Samsung Electronics. Hankyung Business Daily (April 19) Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=015&aid=0000701971

Hwang I (2001) No future for Korean firms: (1) technology imitation. Maeil Business Newspaper, September, 20 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=009&aid=0000151003

Lee T (2005) [Searching blue ocean] Large firms: Samsung Electronics, be a consumer. Hankyung Business Daily, October 10 Retrieved from http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2005100701291

Lee T (2006) Korea innovation forum 2006: Samsung electronics VIP centre. Hankyung Business Daily, February 14 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=015&aid=0000872791

Kim W, Maugborne W (2005) Blue ocean strategy: how to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Song D (2004b) Open the era of value innovation: (5) VI from executives. Hankyung Business Daily, May 5 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=015&aid=0000706660

Song D (2005) Toward the blue ocean: an interview with Lee Dong Jin, a VIP centre Vice President at Samsung Electronics. Hankyung Business Daily, November 8 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=015&aid=0000848475

Kim M (2004) The era of value innovation: (4) VI embedded in Samsung. Hankyung Business Daily, May 4 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=015&aid=0000706224

Kim Y (2007) Samsung value innovation program (VIP) centre. Financial News, November 4 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=014&aid=0000355858

Yang H (2008) Samsung Electronics Vice President Lee Yun Woo: initiate future core technologies. Financial News, July 1 Retrieved from http://www.fnnews.com/news/200807011810110422?t=y

Chesbrough H (2012) Open innovation: where we’ve been and where we’re going. Res Techno Manage 55(4):20–27

Lee D (2011) Samsung Electronics Vice President Choi Jisung: respond early to even natural disasters. Daily Maekyung, April 1 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=009&aid=0002439029

Jin S (2009) Samsung takes over Polish Amica. Moneytoday December 22 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=008&aid=0002254573

Kim B (2008) Samsung Electronics announces proposal for combination with SanDisk in letter to board of directors. Moneytoday, September 17 Retrieved from https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=008&aid=0002034388

Yonhap (2011) AsiaNet: Samsung Electronics and IBM announce patent cross-license agreement. February 9 Retrieved from https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=104&oid=001&aid=0004904103

Barrett ME (2000) Time marches on: the worldwide watch industry. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 42(3):349–372

Lynn LH (1998) The commercialization of the transistor radio in Japan: the functioning of an innovation community. IEEE T Eng Manage 45(3):220–229

Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) Relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23(4):660–679

Kim C (2009a) Collaborating vendors benefit from Samsung Electronics. Maekyung Economy, August 23 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=024&aid=0000026894

Kim M (2009b) Samsung embraces ventures. Munhwailbo, November 4 Retrieved from https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=021&aid=0002013900

Park Y (2012) Industry-academia collaboration, ‘upgrade.’ Economic Review. In: March 9 Retrieved from http://www.econovill.com/archives/39043

Park S (2007) The bad performance of Samsung Electronics in the first quarter, Why? Sekyeilbo, April 14 Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=022&aid=0000220925

Bae B, Go S (2012) The middle class in Korea and U.S. was demolished as the result of the global financial crisis in 2008. Kukminilbo, June 12 Retrieved from https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=005&aid=0000514948

Hoover’s Company Records (2019) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. In-depth Records, January 23 Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy-bloomu.klnpa.org/api/document?collection=company-financial&id=urn:contentItem:5H1P-0GF1-JBPR-X276-00000-00&context=1516831

Christensen CM, Rayner M, McDonals R (2015) What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Bus Rev 93(12):44–53

Kim WC, Maubourgne R (2019) Nondisruptive creation: rethinking innovation and growth. MIT Sloan Manage Rev Spring:46–56

O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: the past, present, and future. Acad Manage Perspect 27(4):324–338

Lee SM, Olson D (2010) Convergenomics: strategic innovation in the convergence era. Gower, Surrey, UK

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus 59(4):251–278

Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Manage J 29(13):1465–1474

Lee D (2015) The effect of operational innovation and QM practices on organizational performance in the healthcare sector. Int J Quality Inno 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-015-0008-4

Schniederjans D, Schniederjans M (2015) Quality management and innovation: new insights on a structural contingency framework. Int J Quality Inno 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-015-0004-8

Download references

There was no funding support for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zeigler College of Business, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, USA

Seung Hoon Jang

Department of Management, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA

Sang M. Lee

Kania School of Management, University of Scranton, Scranton, USA

School of Air Transport and Logistics, Korea Aerospace University, Goyang, South Korea

Donghyun Choi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the developing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seung Hoon Jang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jang, S.H., Lee, S.M., Kim, T. et al. Planting and harvesting innovation - an analysis of Samsung Electronics. Int J Qual Innov 5 , 7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-019-0032-x

Download citation

Received : 25 April 2019

Accepted : 11 September 2019

Published : 21 October 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-019-0032-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Planting innovation
• Harvesting innovation
• Co-innovation
• Multinationals

Samsung Electronics: From ‘National Champion’ to ‘Global Leader’

Cite this chapter.

• Sang-Chul Park ,
• Claes G. Alvstam ,
• Harald Dolles &
• Patrik Ström  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Macmillan Asian Business Series ((PAMABS))

1034 Accesses

Samsung Electronics, headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul, is the flagship company of the largest and oldest of the Korean chaebol , the Samsung Group. It is one of the world’s leading conglomerates, with revenues in 2012 of US$ 248 billion and 369,000 employees (Samsung Electronics, 2012a). Samsung Electronics alone is ranked 20th in the Fortune Global 500 list, with revenues of US$ 184 billion and 222,000 employees (Fortune, 2013). The group started with the founding of Samsung Corporation, a trading company, established by Lee Byung-Chull in 1938, selling fish, vegetables and fruit to China. Within a decade Samsung had flour mills and confectionery machines. The trading function continued to be important, but from what was, according to Chang (2008), a humble beginning, soon embarked on a strategy of rapid diversification into sugar, textiles, various financial services, petrochemicals, shipbuilding, heavy machinery equipment and aerospace. By 1950 Samsung had become one of Korea’s top ten firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Alon, I., Fetscherin, M. and Gugler, P. (eds) (2012) Chinese International Investments (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

Google Scholar  

Amsden, A. (1989) Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (New York: Oxford University Press).

Anderson, E. and Gatignon, H. (1986) ‘Modes of Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 17(3): 1–26.

Article   Google Scholar  

Asakawa, K. (2007) Metanational Learning in TFT-LCD Industry: An Organizing Framework , RIETI Discussion Paper Series, No. 07-E-029 (Tokyo: Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry).

Autio, E. (2005) ‘Creative Tension: The Significance of Ben Oviatt’s and Patricia McDougall’s Article: Toward a Theory of International New Ventures,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 36(1): 9–19.

Ballhaus, W., Pagella, A. and Vogel, C. (2009) A Change of Pace for the Semiconductor Industry? (Hechingen: Kohlhammer und Wallishauser).

Barney, J. (1991) ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,’ Journal of Management , 17(1): 99–120.

Barney, J., Wright, M. and Ketchen, D.J. (2001) ‘The Resource-based View of the Firm: Ten Years after 1991,’ Journal of Management , 27(6): 625–641.

Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1991) ‘Global Strategic Management: Impact on the New Frontiers of Strategy Research,’ Strategic Management Journal , 12 (Summer): 5–16.

Benito, G.R.G., Petersen, B. and Welch, L.S. (2007) Foreign Operation Methods: Theory, Analysis, Strategy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

Cantwell, J. and Tolentino, P. (1990) Technological Accumulation and Third World Multinationals (London: Routledge).

Chang, S.-J. (ed.) (2004) [Cases of Korean Companies’ Global Management] (Seoul: Parkyoungsa).

Chang, S.-J. (2008) Sony vs. Samsung: The Inside Story of the Electronics Giants’ Battle for Global Supremacy (Singapore: John Wiley and Sons (Asia)).

Chang, S.-J., Yoon, C. and Sohn, K. (2004) ‘[Samsung Electronics’ Overseas Business Organization 2003],’ in S.-J. Chang (ed.), [Cases of Korean Companies’ Global Management] (Seoul: Parkyoungsa): 250–265.

Chen, M. (2004) Asian Management Systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean Styles of Business , 2nd ed. (London: Thomson Business Press).

Chung, K.-H., Lee, H.-C. and Jung, J.-H. (1997) Korean Management: Global Strategy and Cultural Transformation (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).

Dolles, H. (1997) Keiretsu: Emergenz, Struktur, Wettbewerbsstärke und Dynamik japanischer Verbundgruppen [Keiretsu: Emergence, Structure, Competitive Strengths and Organizational Dynamics of Corporate Groupings in Japan] (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang).

Dunning, J.H. (1980) ‘Toward an Eclectic Theory of International Production: Some Empirical Tests,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 11(1): 9–31.

Dunning, J.H. (1988) ‘The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production — A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 19(1): 1–31.

Dunning, J.H. (1993) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy (New York: Addison Wesley).

Dunning, J.H. (1998) ‘Location and the Multinational Enterprise: A Neglected Factor,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 29(1): 45–86.

Electronic News (2006) ‘Samsung, Siltronic Team Up for $1B Fab,’ Electronic News , 52(30): 6.

Fortune (2013) ‘The 500 Largest Corporations in the World,’ available online: http://money.cnn.com /magazines/fortune/global500/index.html [accessed July 19, 2013].

Grobart, S. (2013) ‘How Samsung Became the World’s No. 1 Smartphone Maker,’ Bloomberg Businessweek , March 28.

Hemmert, M. (1993) Vertikale Kooperation zwischen japanischen Industrieunternehmen [Vertical Cooperation between Japanese Industrial Firms] (Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag).

Book   Google Scholar  

Hemmert, M. (2008) ‘Innovation Management of Japanese and Korean Firms: A Comparative Analysis,’ Asia Pacific Business Review , 14(3): 293–314.

Hemmert, M. (2012) Tiger Management: Korean Companies on World Markets (Abingdon: Routledge).

Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M. and Wright, M. (2000) ‘Strategizing in Emerging Economies,’ Academy of Management Journal , 43(3): 249–267.

Jin, D. (2006) [Manage Passion] (Seoul: Kimyoungsa).

Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (1977) ‘The Internationalization Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 8(1): 23–32.

Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (2009) ‘The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited: From Liability of Foreignness to Liability of Outsidership,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 40(1): 1412–1425.

Jun, Y. and Han, J.W. (1994) [A Way Toward a Best Firm: The Growth and Change of Samsung] (Seoul: Kimyoungsa).

Kang, J. (1996) [The Myth of Samsung Electronics and Its Secrets] (Seoul: Kyryoone Publishing).

Kim, Y. (1997) Technological Capabilities and Samsung Electronics’ International Production Network in Asia , BRIE Working Paper No. 106 (Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy).

Kim, W., Shi, Y. and Gregory, M. (2004) ‘Transition from Limitation to Innovation: Lessons from a Korean Multinational Corporation,’ International Journal of Business , 9(4): 329–346.

Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1996) ‘The Born Global Firm: A Challenge to Traditional Internationalization Theory,’ in S.T. Cavusgil and G.A. Madsen (eds), Advances in International Marketing , 8 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press): 11–26.

Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2004) ‘Organizational Capabilities and the Born Global Firm,’ Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 124–141.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Korea Newswire (2011) ‘Samsung’s Microwave Oven is World’s First to Win Anti-bacterial Certification,’ available online: http://m.newswire.co.kr/newsRead. php?no=542900 [accessed 2 August 2, 2013].

Korea Times (2011) ‘Samsung Chairman Stresses Quality Control,’ July 20.

Lall, S. and Chen, E. (1983) The New Multinationals: The Spread of Third World Enterprises (New York: John Wiley and Sons).

Lee, J. and Slater, J. (2007) ‘Dynamic Capabilities, Entrepreneurial Rent-seeking and the Investment Development Path: The Case of Samsung,’ Journal of International Management , 13(3): 241–257.

Lee, K. (1997) [Kun-Hee Lee Essay: Let’s Think Before We Look at the World] (Seoul: Donga Ilbo).

Lee, K. and He, X. (2006) ‘Capability of the Samsung Group in Project Execution and Vertical Integration: Creating in Korea and Replicating in China,’ Asian Business & Management , 8(3): 277–299.

Lee, Y. (2010) ‘Samsung’s Lee Shifts Strategy in Challenge to Apple,’ August 30, available online: http://www.bloomberg.com /news/2010-08-30/samsung-s-rebounding-lee-sees-product-crisis-as-choi-tries-to-triple-sales.html [accessed July 31, 2013].

Liu, C.Z. (2007) ‘Lenovo: An Example of Globalization of Chinese Enterprises,’ Journal of International Business Studies , 38(4): 573–577.

Marschan-Piekkari, R. and Welch, C. (2004) ‘Qualitative Research Methods in International Business: The State of the Art,’ in R. Marschan-Piekkari and C. Welch (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 5–24.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Mathews, J.A. (2002) Dragon Multinationals: A New Model for Global Growth (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Michell, A. (2010) Samsung Electronics and the Struggle for Leadership in the Electronics Industry (Singapore: John Wiley and Sons (Asia)).

Milne, R. (2013) ‘Nokia Sends Out Stronger Signal,’ Financial Times , January 11: 13.

Mundy, S. (2013a) ‘Galaxy Helps Samsung Hit Record,’ Financial Times , January 9, available online: http://www.ft.com /cms/s/0/ccfbf8e2-5932-11e2-b59d-00144feab49a. html#axzz2ZrezznfE [accessed July 19, 2013].

Mundy, S. (2013b) ‘Samsung Code of Conduct Put to Test,’ Financial Times , March 3, available online: http://www.ft.com /cms/s/0/2b6d8012-83e0-11e2-b700-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ZrbO1PPX [accessed July 19, 2013].

Pellenbarg, P. and Wever, E. (eds) (2012) International Business Geography: Case Studies of Corporate Firms (Abingdon: Routledge).

Peng, M. (2001) ‘The Resource-based View and International Business,’ Journal of Management , 27(6): 803–829.

Samsung Electronics (2012a) Annual Report 2012 , available online: http://www.samsung.com /us/aboutsamsung/ir/financialinformation/earningsrelease/IR_ Earnings2007.html [accessed July 19, 2013].

Samsung Electronics (2012b) Global Harmony with People, Society and Environment , Sustainability Report 2012, available online: http://www.samsung.com /us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/sustainabilityreports/download/2012/2012_sustainability_ rpt.pdf [accessed July 19, 2013].

Samsung Electro-Mechanics (2013) ‘Samsung Electro-Mechanics — The Future-making World Class Electromechanical Company in the World,’ available online: http://www.samsungsem.com /introduce/biz_about.jsp?lang=en [accessed August 2, 2013].

Samsung Tomorrow (2012) The History of Samsung Electronics (1): Paving a New Path (19681970) , available online: http://global.samsungtomorrow.com /?p=13544#sthash. wm1xdijO.dpuf [accessed August 2, 2013].

Shin, J. and Jang, S. (2006) [Dissecting the Secrets of How Samsung Semiconductors became No. 1 in the World] (Seoul: Samsung Economic Research Institute).

Schlunze, R.D., Agola, N.O. and Baber, W.W. (eds) (2012) Spaces of International Economy and Management: Launching New Perspectives on Management and Geography (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

Song, J.A. (2012) ‘Samsung Seeks US Ericsson Sales Ban,’ Financial Times , December 26, available online: http://www.ft.com /intl/cms/s/0/137aacec-4f3c-11e2-856f-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Zrezznf [accessed July 19, 2013].

Song, J.A. (2013) ‘Korean Focus on European Deals,’ Financial Times , January 2: 14.

Stevenson, A. (2012) ‘Samsung Buys Handset Operations from UK Firm CSR for $310m,’ V3.co.uk News , July 17, available online: http://www.v3.co.uk /v3-uk/news/2192124/samsung-buys-handset-operations-from-uk-firm-csr-for-usd310m [accessed July 23, 2013].

Ungson, G.R., Steers, R.M. and Park, S.-H. (1997) Korean Enterprise: The Quest for Globalization (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Technology Monitoring Team (2012) All Technologies (Utility Patents) Report , available online: http://www.uspto.gov /web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/all_tech.htm [accessed December 26, 2012].

Wallström, M. (2012) ‘Samsung köper svensk it-bolag’ [Samsung buys Swedish IT company], IDG.se, June 1, available online: http://www.idg.se /2.1085/1.451974/samsung-koper-svenskt-it-bolag [accessed January 2, 2013].

Wells, L. (1983) Third World Multinationals: The Rise of Foreign Investments from Developing Countries (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Yeung, H.W.C. (1999) The Globalization of Business Firms from Emerging Economies (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

Yeung, H.W.C. (2012) ‘Foreword: Challenges for Management Geography: Transnational Management and Global Production Networks,’ in R.D. Schlunze, N.O. Agola and W.W. Baber (eds), Spaces of International Economy and Management: Launching New Perspectives on Management and Geography (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan): xiii-xix.

Yin, R.K. (2013) Case Study Research, Design and Methods , 5th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for International Business Studies (CIBS), School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Claes G. Alvstam , Harald Dolles  & Patrik Ström ,  & 

Molde University College, Specialized University, Norway

Harald Dolles

Copyright information

© 2014 Sang-Chul Park, Claes G. Alvstam, Harald Dolles and Patrik Ström

About this chapter

Park, SC., Alvstam, C.G., Dolles, H., Ström, P. (2014). Samsung Electronics: From ‘National Champion’ to ‘Global Leader’. In: Alvstam, C.G., Dolles, H., Ström, P. (eds) Asian Inward and Outward FDI. Palgrave Macmillan Asian Business Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137312211_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137312211_9

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-45720-5

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-31221-1

eBook Packages : Palgrave Business & Management Collection Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• June 2005 (Revised February 2009)
• HBS Case Collection

Samsung Electronics

• Format: Print
• | Pages: 26

More from the Authors

• Faculty Research

Global Strategic Management

• April 2013 (Revised November 2013)

Microsoft in Korea

The unfairness trap: a key missing factor in the economic theory of discrimination.

• Global Strategic Management  By: Jordan I. Siegel
• Microsoft in Korea  By: Jordan I. Siegel and Lynn Pyun
• The Unfairness Trap: A Key Missing Factor in the Economic Theory of Discrimination  By: Jordan I. Siegel, Naomi Kodama and Hanna Halaburda

• SMB Technology
• Mobile Productivity
• Mobile Security
• Computing & Monitors
• Memory & Storage
• Digital Signage
• Trending Tech
• Hospitality
• Manufacturing
• Transportation
• Food & Beverage
• Live Events & Sports
• Spectaculars & DOOH
• Gaming & Esports
• White Papers
• Infographics
• Assessments & Calculators

Case Studies

• About Samsung Insights
• Our Experts

Subscribe to Insights

Get the latest insights from Samsung delivered right to your inbox.

See our Privacy Policy

Samsung Business Insights

All Case Studies

Houston Astros up the score at Minute Maid Park with state-of-the-art Samsung displays

The Houston Astros recently upgraded with a state-of-the-art Samsung LED scoreboard and video displays at Minute Maid Park to enhance fan experience and engagement.

Millard Public Schools level up their technology game with Samsung digital displays

At Millard Public Schools in Omaha, Nebraska, Samsung displays with ScorevisionLE (SVLE) software amplify the middle school experience, in both competitive programming and fan engagement.

The Wall powers collaborative design at Lucid Motors

While reviewing new designs, the design team at Lucid Motors benefits from the high-definition image quality and color resolution on Samsung’s The Wall.

Hilton Waikiki Beach welcomes and wows guests with The Wall

Located above the main lobby bar, Samsung’s The Wall in the Hilton Waikiki enhances the experience for both guests and locals. Hospitality TVs in guest rooms and other Samsung displays throughout the property elevate the property.

Buona Beef selects Samsung Kiosk for its digital transformation

Buona Beef, a renowned Chicago brand, added Samsung Kiosks to their locations to increase sales and efficiency of service.

West Sayville Fire Department leads the way with interactive displays

Samsung digital signage throughout the West Sayville Fire Department improves operations, communications, and productivity for all its members.

Miami high school’s connected campus elevates education and engagement

College preparatory Christopher Columbus High School recently outfitted their campus with Samsung display technology to create a connected campus. Interactive whiteboards in the classroom promote effective, collaborative learning, while digital signage throughout the campus streamline communication for all.

The Wall brings digital excellence to Syracuse University

The S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University installed Samsung's The Wall to provide a wow factor to current and prospective students.

Stevens Institute of Technology gets on board with interactive boards

Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ uses Samsung interactive whiteboards throughout classrooms and meeting rooms for hybrid classrooms and in-person collaboration.

The Wall brings design at the Hyundai America Technical Center to life

The Wall's MicroLED technology gives designers at Hyundai America Technical Center true to life renditions of their design.

Product details

Brought to you by:

Samsung Electronics

By: Jordan Siegel, James Jinho Chang

When is it possible to create a dual advantage of being both low cost and differentiated? In this case, students assess whether Samsung Electronics has been able to achieve such a dual advantage, and…

• Length: 26 page(s)
• Publication Date: Jun 30, 2005
• Discipline: Strategy
• Product #: 705508-PDF-ENG

What's included:

• Teaching Note
• Educator Copy
• Supplements

$4.95 per student

degree granting course

$8.95 per student

non-degree granting course

Get access to this material, plus much more with a free Educator Account:

• Access to world-famous HBS cases
• Up to 60% off materials for your students
• Resources for teaching online
• Tips and reviews from other Educators

Already registered? Sign in

• Student Registration
• Non-Academic Registration
• Included Materials

When is it possible to create a dual advantage of being both low cost and differentiated? In this case, students assess whether Samsung Electronics has been able to achieve such a dual advantage, and if so, how this was possible. Moreover, Samsung Electronics' long-held competitive advantage is under renewed attack. Students also can assess how Samsung should respond to large-scale Chinese entry into its industry.

Learning Objectives

To teach advanced concepts of competitive advantage; to determine the conditions under which dual advantage is possible; and to discuss how industry incumbents should best respond to large-scale Chinese entry.

Jun 30, 2005 (Revised: Feb 27, 2009)

Discipline:

Harvard Business School

705508-PDF-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

• About / Contact
• Privacy Policy
• Alphabetical List of Companies
• Business Analysis Topics

Samsung’s Generic Competitive Strategy & Growth Strategies

Samsung’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies set business goals for technological innovation as a critical factor in developing competitive advantages. Headquartered in Korea, the conglomerate competes with technology-intensive firms, such as Apple , Google (Alphabet) , Microsoft , Sony , and Intel , which create strong competitive forces, as determined through a Five Forces analysis of Samsung. The industry environment imposes aggressive competitive behavior that typically involves rapid technological innovation for product differentiation, as seen in the evolution of smartphones available in the global market. To effectively compete, Samsung’s generic competitive strategy and growth strategies must involve investment in technological innovation. The resulting competitive advantages enable the company to keep its competitive position as one of the best performers in the semiconductors, consumer electronics, and home appliances industries. Samsung’s generic competitive strategy and intensive strategies for growth are suited to the current business environment and the strategic positioning of the multinational organization’s operations.

The generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies of Samsung Group permeate its entire organization, influencing the strategic choices and implementations of its divisions and subsidiaries. The Group’s unitary leadership is responsible for the corporate strategic direction and competitive advantages of the conglomerate and its technology-focused subsidiaries. Samsung’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies are observable in product design, marketing strategies, and the business organizational development direction of subsidiaries.

Samsung’s Generic Competitive Strategy (Porter Model)

Samsung applies broad differentiation as its generic competitive strategy. Based on Michael E. Porter’s competitive strategy model, the strategic objective of broad differentiation is to maintain competitive advantage by providing unique (or differentiated) products targeting a wide market, which in this case is industry-wide, involving practically every person or group that buys smartphones, laptops, and other equipment. To achieve Samsung’s strategic plans for growth and expansion in the global market, this generic competitive strategy requires the application of product development as a main intensive growth strategy to compete with other technology firms.

Samsung’s investments in product development are a strategic implication of differentiation as its generic competitive strategy. For example, the company invests in technological innovation to support the competitive advantage of its products in the consumer electronics market. Another implication of this generic competitive strategy is Samsung’s marketing mix (4Ps) and related strategies that promote products as unique or different alternatives to the majority of competitors. This marketing approach and technological innovation sustain the corporation’s competitive advantages and value chain effectiveness in satisfying customers’ needs in consumer electronics, computing technology, and home appliances.

Other generic competitive strategies, such as cost leadership, differentiation focus, and cost focus, are also applied in Samsung’s operations, but to a limited extent. Cost focus leads to the company’s being the best-cost provider in some segments of the semiconductor and electronic components markets. The limited application of cost focus still comes with innovation standards that reflect Samsung’s main generic competitive strategy of broad differentiation. These generic strategies align with the company’s intensive growth strategies to succeed in sustaining the technology firm’s competitive advantages.

Samsung’s Intensive Growth Strategies (Ansoff Matrix)

Market Penetration (Primary) . Samsung’s revenue growth depends on market penetration as the primary intensive strategy. In Igor Ansoff’s matrix, the strategic objective of market penetration is to grow the technology business by increasing its revenues from the sale of current products in current markets, such as the European Union’s consumer electronics market, where the corporation already has operations. Competitive advantages and business strengths identified in the SWOT analysis of Samsung combat negative forces from competition in these markets. As an intensive growth strategy, market penetration depends on the effectiveness of the generic competitive strategy of broad differentiation, in terms of how the company creates technologically innovative products that are differentiated enough to attract target customers in current or existing markets.

Product Development (Secondary) . Considering the emphasis of product superiority in Samsung’s corporate mission and vision statements , product development is a major intensive growth strategy of the enterprise. A strategic objective of product development in this case is to grow the business through new products, such as new electronic gadgets. Also, this intensive strategy grows Samsung’s operations through iterative innovation, which leads to improved versions or variants of existing products. For example, the company regularly rolls out new smartphone models, similar to what competitors are doing in their product development strategy. The implementation of product development as an intensive growth strategy is based on Samsung’s generic competitive strategy of differentiation, which requires product development for uniqueness that differentiates the business from the competition. Economies of scope based on the conglomerate’s various subsidiaries support product development and competitive advantage by providing technological expertise and material inputs from the subsidiaries. Samsung’s organizational culture (work culture) affects human-resource support for operational effectiveness, value chain efficiencies, supply chain management, and other business activities that fulfill the strategic objectives of product development.

Market Development . The global scale of Samsung’s operations makes market development a minor intensive strategy for business growth. Market development’s strategic objective is to enter new markets using the company’s existing products, such as introducing new Galaxy tablets in Latin American markets after these products’ introduction in the United States. As an intensive growth strategy, market development’s success depends on product value and competitive advantage, which in this case comes with Samsung’s generic strategy of differentiation via technological innovation. For example, effective innovation for cutting-edge technological design makes the corporation’s products more competitive when rolled out in target markets. With this intensive growth strategy, introducing products to new markets may come with changes in the geographical units of Samsung’s organizational structure (company structure) .

Diversification . Samsung’s diversified business operations maintain multiple revenue channels and spread risk across industries and markets. This intensive growth strategy’s implementation is infrequent in the technology conglomerate, considering regulatory hurdles and other barriers. With the strategic objective of establishing new profitable businesses, the diversification strategy grows Samsung typically through acquisitions of smaller firms, such as Harman International Industries. The minor role designation of this intensive growth strategy limits the risks of establishing new business operations. In implementing diversification, the generic competitive strategy of differentiation is also applied for competitiveness and strategic alignment among Samsung subsidiaries’ business operations.

Some Considerations – Samsung’s Generic Competitive Strategy & Intensive Growth Strategies

Samsung’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies direct the organization’s growth and development. Differentiation plays a major role in building the company’s competitive advantage, although other generic competitive strategies, such as cost leadership and focus strategies, also support the technology enterprise and its competitiveness. Samsung’s operations management strategies and administration must align with the differentiation generic competitive strategy and the intensive growth strategies to support business growth while competing with aggressive multinational companies.

• López, D., & Oliver, M. (2023). Integrating innovation into business strategy: Perspectives from innovation managers. Sustainability, 15 (8), 6503.
• Samsung – Brand Identity .
• Samsung R&D Center .
• Samsung Catalyst Fund .
• Taherdoost, H. (2023). An overview of trends in information systems: Emerging technologies that transform the information technology industry. Cloud Computing and Data Science , 1-16.
• U.S. Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration – Software and Information Technology Industry .
• Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
• This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
• Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

Online Small Business Courses

Learn Digital Marketing, Sales and Business

Samsung Electronics: Quality Improvement Case Study

Samsung Electronics, a global leader in consumer electronics, has long been recognized for its commitment to innovation and quality. However, like any industry giant, the company has faced its share of quality improvement challenges.

In this case study, we will explore how Samsung Electronics identified opportunities for quality enhancement, implemented robust quality control measures, and leveraged technology to achieve excellence in their products.

By delving into the strategies and outcomes of their quality improvement initiatives, we can gain valuable insights into the complex world of quality management in the electronics industry and the lessons that can be applied to various business contexts.

Samsung Electronics: A Legacy of Innovation

Samsung Electronics has forged a legacy of innovation through its commitment to continuous technological advancement and groundbreaking product development. The company's journey towards innovation began with its inception, and it has consistently pushed the boundaries of what is possible in the tech industry.

Samsung's relentless pursuit of technological advancement is evident in its diverse range of products, from semiconductors and smartphones to home appliances and beyond. The company has consistently invested in research and development, driving progress in areas such as AI, 5G technology, and IoT. Samsung's ability to anticipate and meet the evolving needs of consumers has solidified its position as a global leader in innovation.

Furthermore, Samsung's legacy of innovation extends beyond product development. The company has actively contributed to shaping industry standards and technological ecosystems, driving progress and fostering collaboration within the tech community. By consistently delivering groundbreaking solutions, Samsung has cemented its reputation as a trailblazer in the global tech landscape.

This commitment to innovation not only sets Samsung apart but also paves the way for future advancements in technology.

Identifying Quality Improvement Opportunities

To identify quality improvement opportunities, Samsung Electronics must first analyze defects in production to pinpoint areas for enhancement.

Additionally, a comprehensive analysis of process efficiency is crucial to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies.

Furthermore, a detailed examination of customer complaints can reveal valuable insights into areas that require improvement.

Defects in Production

Identifying and addressing defects in the production process is crucial for Samsung Electronics to continually improve the quality of its products. Effective defects management and production optimization are essential for ensuring customer satisfaction and maintaining a competitive edge in the market. The table below outlines key areas for identifying defects and optimizing production processes:

Process Efficiency Analysis

In the context of ensuring high-quality production, an essential aspect involves conducting a comprehensive analysis of process efficiency to identify opportunities for quality improvement. This entails a detailed examination of the manufacturing processes to streamline operations and enhance overall product quality. The analysis focuses on identifying areas for improvement and implementing changes to optimize efficiency and minimize waste.

Key elements of the process efficiency analysis include:

• Value Stream Mapping: Visualizing the production process to identify areas of improvement.
• Root Cause Analysis: Investigating the underlying reasons for inefficiencies or defects.
• Performance Metrics Tracking: Monitoring key performance indicators to assess process effectiveness.
• Standard Operating Procedures Review: Evaluating and updating procedures to ensure efficiency and quality.
• Continuous Improvement Initiatives: Implementing ongoing efforts to enhance processes and drive quality improvements.

This analytical approach enables Samsung Electronics to continuously enhance its operational efficiency and product quality.

Customer Complaints Analysis

Regularly monitoring and analyzing customer complaints is a crucial step in identifying opportunities for quality improvement at Samsung Electronics. By effectively addressing customer dissatisfaction, Samsung can enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty. The table below illustrates an example of a customer complaints analysis, outlining the types of complaints and their root causes.

Analyzing customer complaints allows Samsung to pinpoint areas for improvement, such as streamlining manufacturing processes, optimizing service operations, and enhancing product development. This approach is essential for maintaining high-quality standards and continuously improving customer satisfaction. Identifying and addressing the root causes of complaints can lead to sustained quality enhancement and increased customer loyalty.

Implementing Robust Quality Control Measures

As Samsung Electronics aims to fortify its quality control measures, the focus will be on implementing process improvement strategies to enhance product quality and reliability.

This will involve the meticulous integration of robust quality control processes throughout the production cycle, ensuring that performance metrics are continuously tracked and analyzed to identify areas for improvement.

Ultimately, the goal is to establish a comprehensive framework that safeguards product quality and customer satisfaction.

Process Improvement Strategies

Implementing robust quality control measures is a critical component of Samsung Electronics' process improvement strategies, ensuring the consistent delivery of high-quality products to customers.

To achieve this, the company employs the following strategies:

• Continuous Improvement : Samsung Electronics focuses on constantly refining its processes to enhance product quality and customer satisfaction.
• Quality Assurance : The company utilizes stringent quality assurance protocols to detect and rectify any deviations from established quality standards.
• Data-Driven Approaches : Samsung Electronics leverages data analytics to identify trends and potential areas for improvement within its manufacturing processes.
• Employee Involvement : The company encourages active participation from employees at all levels to contribute ideas for process enhancement and quality control.
• Supplier Collaboration : Samsung Electronics collaborates closely with its suppliers to ensure the quality of incoming components, thereby maintaining high standards throughout the production process.

Quality Control Implementation

Employing a comprehensive framework of stringent quality control measures, Samsung Electronics ensures the consistent delivery of high-quality products to its discerning customer base.

The company has implemented a multifaceted approach to quality control, encompassing thorough testing at every stage of production, stringent adherence to industry standards, and a robust feedback mechanism from customers and market data.

Samsung Electronics emphasizes continuous improvement in quality control through the use of advanced technologies, such as automated inspection systems and machine learning algorithms to detect and address potential defects proactively.

Furthermore, the company has established a culture of quality consciousness among its employees, ensuring that every individual is committed to upholding the highest standards.

Performance Metrics Tracking

A meticulous tracking of performance metrics is essential for ensuring the efficacy and success of robust quality control measures within Samsung Electronics. To achieve this, the company utilizes a comprehensive approach to performance metrics tracking, encompassing various key aspects:

• Quality Control: Samsung Electronics focuses on tracking quality control metrics such as defect rates, customer complaints, and product returns to identify areas for improvement.
• Productivity Tracking: The company also diligently tracks productivity metrics, including production yield, cycle times, and equipment downtime, to optimize operational efficiency.
• Data Analysis: Utilizing advanced data analysis tools, Samsung Electronics examines performance metrics to identify trends, root causes of issues, and opportunities for enhancing product quality and productivity.
• Continuous Improvement: The company emphasizes the continuous monitoring and tracking of performance metrics to drive ongoing quality improvements and operational enhancements.
• Benchmarking: Samsung Electronics employs benchmarking techniques to compare performance metrics against industry standards and best practices, facilitating a proactive approach to quality control and productivity tracking.

Overcoming Quality Improvement Challenges

Samsung Electronics faced significant hurdles in overcoming quality improvement challenges, requiring a comprehensive and strategic approach to drive meaningful change.

One of the primary challenges was integrating quality control measures across diverse product lines and manufacturing processes. Samsung addressed this by implementing a unified quality management system that standardized quality control protocols, enabling the company to consistently monitor and improve product quality.

Additionally, risk management posed a significant challenge due to the global scale of Samsung's operations. To mitigate this, Samsung developed a robust risk assessment framework that identified potential quality risks at various stages of production and supply chain, allowing for proactive intervention to prevent quality issues.

Another obstacle was fostering a quality-centric culture across all organizational levels. Samsung tackled this by instituting extensive training programs and incentivizing employees to prioritize quality. Furthermore, the company established clear quality improvement goals and regularly communicated progress to drive accountability and motivation.

Leveraging Technology for Quality Enhancement

Leveraging advanced technological solutions has become imperative for achieving significant enhancements in product quality across diverse industry sectors. For Samsung Electronics, technology integration and quality assurance techniques have played a pivotal role in driving continuous quality improvement.

The following approaches highlight how leveraging technology has led to quality enhancement at Samsung Electronics:

• Implementation of advanced data analytics tools for real-time quality monitoring
• Integration of Internet of Things (IoT) for predictive maintenance and quality control
• Utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) for automated quality inspection and defect detection
• Adoption of virtual reality (VR) for immersive quality testing and training simulations
• Deployment of blockchain technology for transparent supply chain management and quality tracking

Monitoring and Evaluating Quality Performance

The implementation of advanced data analytics tools, integration of Internet of Things (IoT), and utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) have significantly influenced the monitoring and evaluating of quality performance at Samsung Electronics. Quality measurement at Samsung Electronics involves the continuous collection and analysis of data from various sources, such as production processes, customer feedback, and supply chain operations. This data is then used to assess the performance of products and processes in real-time, enabling prompt corrective actions when deviations from quality standards are identified.

Continuous improvement is a key focus in Samsung Electronics' quality monitoring and evaluation processes. Through the use of advanced analytics, the company is able to identify trends, patterns, and potential areas for improvement. Furthermore, AI algorithms are employed to predict and prevent quality issues before they occur, contributing to proactive quality management.

The integration of IoT allows for real-time monitoring of equipment and processes, providing valuable insights into the production environment. This comprehensive approach to quality performance monitoring and evaluation enables Samsung Electronics to consistently enhance the quality of its products and processes, thus maintaining its position as a leader in the electronics industry.

Achieving Excellence: Quality Improvement Outcomes

Consistently delivering high-quality products and processes is the ultimate goal of Samsung Electronics' commitment to continuous improvement and proactive quality management. The company has implemented various quality improvement strategies and continuous improvement initiatives to achieve excellence in its outcomes.

Some of the key outcomes of these efforts include:

• Enhanced Product Quality : Through rigorous quality control measures and continuous monitoring, Samsung Electronics has significantly improved the overall quality of its products, leading to higher customer satisfaction and loyalty.
• Streamlined Processes : The implementation of lean manufacturing principles and process optimization techniques has resulted in streamlined operations, reduced waste, and improved efficiency across the organization.
• Improved Supplier Relationships : Samsung Electronics has focused on building strong partnerships with its suppliers, fostering collaboration, and ensuring that high-quality standards are maintained throughout the supply chain.
• Enhanced Employee Engagement : By promoting a culture of continuous improvement and providing employees with the necessary training and resources, Samsung Electronics has seen increased employee engagement and contribution to quality enhancement efforts.
• Market Leadership : As a result of its relentless pursuit of quality excellence, Samsung Electronics has solidified its position as a market leader, setting industry benchmarks for quality standards and innovation.

Through robust quality control measures, Samsung Electronics has been able to achieve excellence in quality improvement.

By leveraging technology and continuously monitoring and evaluating quality performance, the company has established a legacy of innovation in the industry.

Like a master craftsman refining a diamond, Samsung has honed its quality improvement processes to achieve brilliance in its products, setting a standard for others to follow.

Similar Posts

J.C. Penney: Retail Strategy Case Study

J.C. Penney, a long-standing player in the retail industry, has faced its fair share of challenges in recent years. The company's strategic shifts and efforts to adapt to the evolving retail landscape have sparked both interest and skepticism. Examining J.C. Penney's retail strategy case study offers valuable insights into the complexities of navigating a highly…

Malden Mills: Ethical Business Practices Case Study

Malden Mills, now known as Polartec, has long been regarded as a case study in ethical business practices within the corporate landscape. The company's journey is marked by resilience, particularly in the face of adversity following a devastating fire. This case study delves into the leadership's response to the fire, the initiatives taken to prioritize…

Gravity Payments: A Salary Revolution Case Study

In 2015, Gravity Payments, a credit card processing company, made headlines when its CEO, Dan Price, announced that the minimum salary for all employees would be raised to $70,000 per year. This bold move sparked a wave of discussion and debate across the business world, as well as attracting national and global media attention. The…

SpaceX: Commercial Space Travel Case Study

SpaceX, founded by the enigmatic Elon Musk, has undeniably revolutionized the landscape of space exploration and commercial space travel. The company's ambitious goals, coupled with its innovative technologies, have garnered global attention and positioned it as a leading force in the aerospace industry. From the successful deployment of commercial satellites to bold ventures in human…

Barclays and the LIBOR Scandal: A Banking Case Study

The LIBOR scandal, particularly Barclays' involvement in it, stands as a significant case study in the banking industry. The controversy surrounding the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) shook the financial world, raising serious questions about integrity and ethics within the banking sector. As we delve into the intricate details of this case,…

Amazon.com: E-commerce Dominance Case Study

Amazon.com's remarkable rise to e-commerce dominance is a subject of fascination for business analysts and enthusiasts alike. From its humble beginnings as an online bookstore to its evolution into a global retail powerhouse, the Amazon story is one of strategic innovation, disruptive technology, and relentless customer focus. As we explore the case study of Amazon's…

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, samsung electronics: analyzing qualitative complaint data.

Publication date: 20 January 2017

Teaching notes

“Samsung Electronics had experienced a series of quality-related problems, including the recall of one of its LCD TV models. Unfortunately for quality director Kevin Sarni, there was no single root cause behind these problems: Samsung's supply chain management, product design, and testing/quality assurance functions all played a role.

Sarni regularly worked with quantitative data from Samsung's customer complaint database, but recently he had been shown comments about Samsung products posted on the website ConsumerAffairs.com . The number and emotional tone of the website postings concerned him; he worried these kinds of complaints might touch off a social media—fueled public relations firestorm that would make his job more difficult.

He wanted to analyze this feedback, but had no experience with qualitative data. An internal Six Sigma Black Belt consultant suggested he start by creating an affinity diagram and use that to create a Pareto chart to determine which issues to address first. Once Sarni completed the unfamiliar diagrams he had still another task ahead of him: examining the results to see if they justified taking short—term action to address the quality problems raised in the complaints.”

Organize and analyze qualitative data using affinity diagrams

Identify priorities using Pareto charts

The case reinforces the importance of approaching problem solving in a methodical and data-driven manner and demonstrates the power of visual (vs. table-driven) tools.

• Business Process Improvement
• Crisis Management
• Customer Relationship Management
• Customer Service
• Manufacturing
• Operations Management
• Organizational Effectiveness
• Total Quality
• Customer Satisfaction

Boepple, J. (2017), "Samsung Electronics: Analyzing Qualitative Complaint Data", . https://doi.org/10.1108/case.kellogg.2016.000291

Kellogg School of Management

Copyright © 2013, The Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University

You do not currently have access to these teaching notes. Teaching notes are available for teaching faculty at subscribing institutions. Teaching notes accompany case studies with suggested learning objectives, classroom methods and potential assignment questions. They support dynamic classroom discussion to help develop student's analytical skills.

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Teknion Store
• Architectural Interiors
• Asia / Pacific
• Canada | English
• Canada | Français
• Latin America & Caribbean
• Middle East / Africa
• UK / Europe
• Resources »
• Inspiration »
• Case Studies »

Share selection

Add individuals:, add a message, your message could not be sent. please ensure that you have filled all the required fields., your message has been sent..

Are your sure you would like to delete this favorited item from your dashboard?

Samsung Electronics Co.

DESIGNER/DEALER

Products featured.

Envita Tables

Livello Tables

Fractals Seating

RBT Seating

Projek Seating

Ledger Filing & Storage

Project details +

Roots Canada

Worldwide Headquarters

Toronto, Ontario

Bullock Associates

Consultants Inc.

ie Freestanding System

Contessa Task Seating

Expansion Desking

“At Samsung, we always innovate, we always change, so we wanted to design an open, flexible and people-focused space that would promote collaboration and push innovation forward.” 

The challenge.

Samsung Electronics Company, Canada, is a subsidiary of the Samsung multi-national group known worldwide for sophisticated digital technologies. In response to robust growth, Samsung seized the opportunity to move into new headquarters offices in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. As befits a company known for innovation, Samsung shed a conventional approach to office design, working with the figure3 design firm, Teknion and furniture dealer Office Max to create a workspace where creativity can flourish. Alexandru Borcea, Corporate Affairs Manager at Samsung, says, “At Samsung, we always innovate, we always change, so we wanted to design an open, flexible and people-focused space that would promote collaboration and push innovation forward.” In keeping with its core values, Samsung also wanted the office to be a place where people like to “hang out”—comfortable, energizing and inspiring. Sound ergonomics and a safe, healthy environment were imperative. “People are our foundation. Employee well-being is essential. To that end, we selected everything with ergonomics in mind—not just a good chair or within the workstation,” Borcea notes. Three other key points emerged as Samsung worked with lead interior designer Katy Krause at figure3 to define goals for the new headquarters: collaboration, technology integration and brand expression. Solutions evolved that integrate an array of Samsung technologies with spaces and furniture designed to enable and encourage collaboration—and to accommodate ongoing change. The Samsung brand is expressed via large-scale graphics and a striking use of color in upholstery treatments and finishes. “We wanted to use our technology to engage our people even more,” adds Borcea. “At the same time, we built in flexibility to give people a lot of different ways to work, with plenty of spaces for collaboration, but also those that are more private and physically intimate.”The office landscape provides a balance of open and enclosed spaces, plus furniture that can be adjusted and moved around, and both low- and high-tech work tools such as whiteboards and touch screens. Phase One of the Samsung project entailed purchasing new furniture for 550 workstations and 29 offices, as well as furnishings for the reception area, a formal boardroom, casual meeting spaces, idea rooms, enclaves, training areas and a cafeteria. In order to achieve a “complete fit,” custom solutions were provided to fulfill very specific functional or aesthetic requirements.

The Response

Following the guidelines set by Samsung, Teknion, Office Max and figure3 delivered a workspace designed to help happy, healthy employees be more productive, more likely to collaborate and more likely to innovate.

Collaboration

In the new Samsung office, collaborative spaces take diverse forms, including casual open meeting spaces furnished with Collaborative Ottomans, “idea rooms” with mobile tables and chairs, and larger conference rooms that seamlessly integrate Samsung AV/communication technology with Teknion’s Expansion conference tables and credenzas. In less formal environments, Fractal high-back lounge chairs and sofas provide a degree of visual privacy and enclosure, inviting employees to gather for conversation, to share ideas and information. “We put a lot of thought into what we wanted from our furniture,” Borcea comments. “We didn’t go to a showroom and say, ‘we like that.’ We had very specific needs that we needed to be fulfilled.” Teknion dna, a group of modular seating and tables, is applied in open areas to create casual seating and worksurfaces that allow an individual or a group to work on a very impromptu basis. The versatile Teknion dna product also permits quick and easy reconfiguration as needs change. Throughout the office, a variety of mobile seating and mobile and height-adjustable tables enable people to work together in different ways in break-out areas, at the workstation or in the private office—whether standing or sitting.

Flexibility

Given the pace of change at Samsung, the workplace must continually adapt to new technology, changing personnel and varied workstyles. Flexibility is “designed into” the offices with low-height workstations and private offices furnished with District systems furniture, which offers layered surfaces and compact storage augmented with custom mobile pedestals. Adjustable Projek task chairs provide a high level of comfort and support at the workstation (as well as in private offices and conference rooms) and all workstations and private offices are equipped with height-adjustable tables that encourage workers to change their posture. Stand-up meetings can take place. Or, employees can perform tasks while standing—thereby, stimulating circulation and renewing energy. With flexibility a priority, the Altos wall system was used to create private offices and meeting rooms. Modular, relocatable walls allow Samsung to change the dimensions of a room, to remove a wall in a private office and convert the space into a meeting room and to build meeting rooms whose dimensions can be altered at any time, with no further construction work. By enclosing offices and meeting rooms with Altos walls, Samsung maximizes the natural light that flows into the building from the perimeter and provides an acoustic shield. Altos walls also permit laminate, veneer and fabric fascias to be used when and where desired to maximize function.

Employee Health, Safety and Well-Being

Because “we think about people first, we made sure all of their ergonomic needs were met,” says Borcea. Samsung selected Projek seating for use in conference rooms, as well as workstations. At the reception desk, the visually and technically unique RBT chair immediately conveys the message that comfort, safety, support—and people—are important in this office. Livello height-adjustable tables get people out of their chairs and onto their feet in the private office and the variety of spaces in which to work also encourages employees to get up and move around—to converse in spaces furnished with Fractals lounge chairs, to take a break in the cafeteria, to gather in an idea room to create and innovate.

Branded Space

Color is used to work the unique character of the Samsung brand into the space—and creates a fresh and lively sensory environment. Vivid wall graphics are used to literally spell-out key ideas like “Inventing” and “Discovery Starts Here.” Ancillary seating—Fractals low- and high-back lounge chairs, Teknion dna modular lounge seating, Belize mobile chairs and Collaborative Ottomans—are upholstered in blue, red, green, pink and orange—bringing a sense of playfulness to the business of work. Within the workstations, bright blue cushions on credenzas add an upbeat pop of color against a neutral background. The striking use of color is being extended to each floor of the headquarters building, with each floor “named” for one of Samsung’s core values, each of which is assigned a color: People (violet), Excellence (blue), Change (red), Integrity (green) and Co-Prosperity (orange). The colors thematically identify each floor, but no floor is limited to a single color. Clusters of Collaborative Ottomans, for example, are upholstered in multiple cheerful colors.

Customization

Teknion supplied 95 percent of the furniture for Phase One of the Samsung headquarters project, including 300 custom pieces such as a CEO boardroom table, pedestals with customized dimensions and brackets to support the hardware of large display screens. Booths and enclaves are also custom designed and furnished. “The workspace and the furniture are work tools as much as anything,” adds Borcea. “We went a step further to create an environment for communication, productivity, job satisfaction and performance.” The client, Samsung, is very happy with the collaborative effort of figure3, Teknion and Office Max. “The new space is very well received,” concludes Borcea. “The first happy moment was when we saw the first mockups. We asked employees to come in and look. Everybody loved it. They all just settled down on it, immediately sat on it and were thrilled. We have had no bad feedback.”

In the new Samsung office, collaborative spaces take diverse forms, including casual open meeting spaces.  

Color is used to work the unique character of the Samsung brand into the space—and creates a fresh and lively sensory environment.   ​

Adjustable Projek task chairs provide a high level of comfort and support at the workstation, as well as in private offices and conference rooms.   ​

Case Studies

Harley-davidson, pandemic tech redemption, aside: quick reads, unique views.

description

Select files to download or share, note: you are sharing private content, please confirm to continue. share, download all.