MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W92594187

Strategic Transformation of Ford Motor Company

2007· article· en· W92594187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sathyarayaran Jayagopi, Mitsuyo Yamamoto, David Hobstetter, John Gearen, Nikolaos Meissner, K. Putterman, Sarah Hines

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep Blue (University of Michigan) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategies and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessTransformation (genetics)ManagementProcess managementOperations managementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive Summary New Mobility is a relatively new term used to represent an exciting and imminent reality. Our individual and societal transportation needs are complex and rapidly-evolving, while being shaped, constrained, transformed, and defined by a host of global pressures and trends. Within this context, New Mobility offers a fresh understanding of how we can meet transportation needs for both people and goods through an integrated network of products, services, and information technology. As the concept of New Mobility begins to take root, certain human-induced trends are putting unprecedented pressures on our global society. “Megatrends” such as climate change, increasing social disparity, shifting demographics, urbanization, and congestion are affecting the rate and degree to which populations, regions, and economies can grow and prosper. This project builds on the work of previous groups, including the Canadian think-tank Moving the Economyi and a group of three University of Michigan graduate students who, in 2005, produced a report for Ford Motor Company entitled New Mobility: Future Opportunities for Ford as a Mobility Integrator. Our team consists of eight MS students at the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan. Through a combination of primary and secondary research, we surveyed the current and future potential for New Mobility products, services, and technologies in five global cities, vis-à-vis the growing urgency of addressing the aforementioned megatrends. Our results from each city combined a conventional Market Attractiveness Analysis with a progressive New Mobility Market Analysis. We then overlaid these results with Ford’s specific strengths, core competencies, and leadership potential in each of the five cities. In so doing, we have created a novel new approach to business project evaluation. Our results indicate that Bangalore, India is the most attractive New Mobility market, due not only to the overall market size, but also to the transportation infrastructure gap which is rapidly emerging as Megatrend pressures intensify. However, our Discussion & Analysis section identifies a number of other key factors for Ford to consider when selecting how, when, and why to assume a leadership role in the New Mobility Market.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeep Blue (University of Michigan)Same topicBusiness Strategies and InnovationFrench-language works237,207