Mgmt600 Week 8 Assignment: Business Model Canvas

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Initial Business Model Canvas developed in week 2
Summary
Theoretical and Behavioral Trends
Application of the Osterwalder/Pigneur Text
Recommendations for Improvement
Conclusion
References

In week two, a business model canvas of the U.S. army was developed. A business model canvas serves as a clear illustration of the business structure by identifying the various components, factors, and concepts in the business or organization (Robbins & Coulter, 2017). From week two, a summary of the business model canvas can be presented to facilitate analysis and assessment of the business effectiveness in terms of operations and the determining factors for continuous growth.

Initial Business Model Canvas developed in week 2

Customer segments: men and women from 17 to 24 years old, high school graduates, physically fit.
Value proposition: the organization offers recruits the opportunity to develop professional and personal skills and apply them to national and global security.
Channels: customers can be reached through various media channels, educational programs, and events.
Customer relations: the organization provides various benefits, fair remuneration, and invests in the development of personal and professional skills.
Revenue streams: the organization “generates revenues from the sale of goods and the provision of services for a fee” (U. S. Army, 2020, p. 42).
Key resources: the main assets of the organization are funding, property, and equipment (U. S. Army, 2020).
Key activities: the organization focuses on the conduct of military operations, as well as the processes associated with their effective implementation.
Key partnership: the organization’s partners are the governments and defense departments of the United States, Europe, and other countries, as well as manufacturers of military equipment (Wormuth, 2020).
Cost structure: this structure includes all expenses that are necessary to maintain the military and conduct military operations, including infrastructure, logistics, equipment, training, and other aspects.

Summary

Concerning customer segmentation, it was noted that men and women between the ages of 17 and 24 who have graduated from high school and are physically fit are the main participants targeted (U. S. Army, 2020). The U.S. army is geared towards effective service through military operations. It is, therefore, logical to have the customer segment capped at the age range 17-24 years as these are more productive and can quickly adapt to training. The potential for long-term service is also a factor leading to this choice of customer segmentation since they have to be in good health.

The organization’s value proposition allows recruits to acquire professional and personal talents and apply them to national and global security. This is more than what other businesses offer as it develops individuals and expects them to use their skills for national security. In many cases, they will be trained and deployed to different locations, which significantly aids in the diversification of skills. After retirement, most officers are most likely to start private security companies. Therefore, the U.S. Army’s value proposition follows that the value-added is not limited to national or global security; neither is it centered on personal development alone.

Customers can be contacted via a variety of media outlets, educational initiatives, and events. The U.S. Army primarily uses print media and other channels such as the T.V. to reach its target population to have a broad reach. In some cases, agents and officers may be sent to educational institutions to give clear directions to potential customers. Some of the benefits accrued to customers include fair pay and advancement of individual and professional skills and abilities. As shown in week two, the company’s main sources of revenue are sales and services related to its security activities (U. S. Army, 2020, p. 42). Through these income-generating activities, the organization funds its activities and keeps running.

The U.S. Army has some valuable assets that contribute significantly to its successful operations. The organization’s most valuable assets are finance, property, and infrastructure (U. S. Army, 2020). Essentially, the organization’s key activities are the execution of military activities and the processes that make them successful. Governments and military organizations from the U.S., Europe, and some other nations, along with military equipment manufacturers, are among the organization’s key partners (Wormuth, 2020). By developing its cost structure: this structure accounts for all costs associated with maintaining the military and conducting military operations, such as infrastructure, logistics, weaponry, training, and other factors.

Theoretical and Behavioral Trends

Over time, the U.S. Army has been established as an organization that effectively identifies talent from diverse populations and utilizes it to benefit individuals and the nation(s). As shown in week 5, the organization has been developing trends that continuously keep it running effectively. This section highlights some of the trends in the U.S. Army and their impact on its operations locally and globally.

Diversification

Diversification is a crucial element in every organization that defines the workforce’s range of skills and talents. The U.S. Army has focused on diversification during its recruitment and skill search. For this reason, it has been reaching out to potential customers irrespective of gender, race, and skin color- the only requirement is they meet the age and health standards set by the organization (Holmes & Skull, 2019). This way, the organization prides itself on national unity and equity. Week five highlighted how the U.S. Army operates through the structural frame to enhance operations, the human resources frame for recruiting, and the symbolic frame to ensure the legality of operations.

The human resource framework is a supplementary frame that could describe the U.S. Army’s business model. The United States Army places a high priority on human resources, because as the value proposition says that the organization allows recruits to develop professional and individual abilities. As a result, the human resource framework places a premium on guidance, support, and motivation (Holmes & Skull, 2019). As a result, the United States Army provides various perks, training, compensation, and opportunities for professional growth to its personnel. As a result, this framework enhances recruits, specialists, and officers and their demands.

Optimum Resource Utilization

The main resources for U.S. Army are its skilled and professional workforce, military equipment, and infrastructure. The organization is known for its effective utilization of resources, which has minimized expenses and allowed it to expand its operations in many regions of the world. According to Fellmann et al. (2019), resource patterns deal with the transference of duties, roles, oversight, and authorization among organization members. As a result, resource patterns can be seen in the Army’s choices on critical missions, alliances, and cost structure planning and management.

Global Networking

Global networking has become crucial in every organization operating globally. The Army’s network modernization strategy continues to make progress to maintain military superiority. All of these initiatives will leverage the Global Agile Integrated Transport (GAIT) network design. This concept produces a global network mesh that gives higher data interchange, mission control, and network management between distributed units and the main station stably and safely. Lt. Col. Stuart McMillan, product manager for Mission Network, Project Manager Tactical Network, remarked that GAIT allows commanders to expand and implement their tactical system and accompanying service strategy systems internationally in a timely and operationally consistent way (U. S. Army, 2020). This trend has contributed to the diversified global operations of the organization.

The Leadership for Performance Framework

Every organization follows a particular framework and strategy in its performance. Humans are required for the existence of organizations, implying that a worker’s performance significantly impacts an organization. The employee’s behavior is not arbitrary, and specific elements influence employees’ ability to excel. These factors determine not only the behavior of individual employees but also the behavior of a group of employees. This research focuses on the effects of particular leadership abilities on the productivity of a company’s group effort unit.

With regard to its operational excellence, the U.S. Army operations can be explained by the leadership for permanence framework developed by Spangenberg and Theron (2013). The theory deals with management dynamics with a particular focus on transformational leadership and performance management. Pangenberg and Theron (2013) hold that an organization’s performance is determined by the quality of its leadership structure. In connection to the U.S. Army, leaders are selected based on merit, skills, and values, thereby building a strong leadership team that helps advance the organization’s mission and attain high performance.

A second significant framework applicable to the U.S. Army’s operation is the four-frame model developed by Bolman and Deal. According to Holmes and Skull (2019), Bolman and Deal’s framework suggests that organizational leadership and performance management can be categorized into structural, political, human resources, and symbolic frames. In view of the U.S. Army’s operations, the four frames intersect to enable leaders to direct essential operations within the company.

Focusing on military activities with a specification of the particular tasks, milestones, well-defined responsibilities, and training, the structural frame depicts the United States Army (Holmes & Skull, 2019). The organizational structure is depicted as a machine that is managed deliberately and objectively. In addition, the U. S. Army works towards complete organizational system performance and reliability. By coordinating strategy creation and an appropriate management structure, the structural framing reflects the success of interaction in the organization’s commercial model.

The human resources frame focuses a greater emphasis on the requirements of individuals. It seeks to offer employees the authority and motivation to do their duties well while also meeting their demands for human touch, personal development, and satisfaction at work (Holmes & Skull, 2019). The political and symbolic frames address the relation between workers, their jobs, and the public. The Political Frame covers the issue of persons or groups with sometimes opposing (sometimes concealed) agendas, particularly when resources are limited and difficult decisions must be made. To reinforce the leadership’s goals, this frame shows coalition-building, dispute resolution activities, and power-base development.

Lastly, the symbolic frame addresses the innate needs of individuals for personal satisfaction through developing a sense of belonging and purpose. For this purpose, an organization aligns its mission, vision, and agenda to fit within the expectations of its workforce. In the U.S. Army, this frame is depicted through the clear objectives and open recruitment processes. Besides, performance is boosted through fair remuneration and training activities (U. S. Army, 2020). The four-frame model allows leaders to identify their organizations’ challenges and apply the necessary modifications to the relevant frames.

Metaphor

In organizations, one may find that some concepts, terms, and functions are addressed figuratively. A metaphor is a figurative comparison used to create connections between two or more things in an organization. Metaphors are used as a form of connection, and when used in organizations, they shape the mission and goals. A metaphor can also be used in an organization to address challenges and restore the workforce on a particular course. In the context of the U.S. Army, the metaphor advanced by Morgan, “an organization is a machine,” is quite relevant (Tohidian & Rahimian, 2019). The metaphor compares an organization to a machine that uses all the raw materials in the most effective way to produce the desired product.

The machine metaphor refers to the structural and human frames that are responsible for resource organization. This metaphor applies to the U.S. Army as it denotes the logical and clear operational procedures followed by every member of the organization. Furthermore, the organization implies stringent and precise regulations, a firm stance, and a rigid hierarchical structure. Members of the organization with specialized duties are assigned responsibilities, and each person is held accountable to the U.S. Army’s common aim of regional and global defense. This metaphor enables leaders to identify gaps where efficiency is lacking and implement new techniques.

Application of the Osterwalder/Pigneur Text

A business model generation has been cited as an essential tool for assessing and evaluating businesses for continuous improvement. In their text, Osterwalder, and Pigneur (2013) address business model blocks for enterprises and organizations following homogenous features. Applying this text, it is evident that Quality service, compliance, and risk factors are, in fact, key patterns in the U.S. Army’s business model. According to Fellmann et al. (2019), these patterns solve the difficulty of offering high-quality operations while still adhering to legal norms and guidelines. Risk patterns, for example, are used to ensure the safety and security of personnel and the system during U.S. combat operations.

The tasks and responsibilities, as well as the distribution of human resources among the U. S. Army’s resource patterns, are essentially the key patterns. Resource patterns, according to Fellmann et al. (2019), are concerned with the transfer of duties, roles, oversight, and authorization between members of an organization. As a result, resource patterns can be seen in the United States Army’s decisions on critical missions, alliances, and cost structure monitoring.

Recommendations for Improvement

The U.S. Army has maintained a top position among organizations focusing on leadership development and quality service delivery. Through its diversity and inclusion strategies, it has recruited and maintained skilled professionals for its global operations. However, there is a need to adopt new strategic measures and close the gaps in its business model. The future of military operations needs proactive and highly-trained personnel because the roles are also changing fast (Mishra, 2017). Highlighted below are some of the steps that can be taken to make the U.S. Army better prepared to handle and adapt to future developments.

Smart Military Approach

The future of war may not need a large number of fighters but wits and technological power. Conflicts are bound to arise at the regional levels at any time and for any reason. Leaders need to be trained to handle such issues smartly and diplomatically to keep peace in the regions while maintaining the organization’s integrity. For this reason, the U.S. Army may have to prioritize regional cooperation over combat. The expected outcome of this approach is faster and effective conflict resolution and leadership development within the U.S. Army.

Technological Advancement

Business operations are changing daily as technology advances at various levels. For this reason, technology will play a significant role in military operations in the near future, limiting the need for large battalions (Mishra, 2017). Fighter jets, robots, and other artificial intelligence systems will be essential for the U.S. Army. Therefore, the organization should develop a strategic plan for training its personnel to deal with these smart tools and machinery. The virtual space is becoming more common too, and the organization should invest a lot of effort in this sector to ensure that its personnel is ready to move with the technology. The outcome will be developing a skilled group equipped with the necessary tools for military operations now and in the future.

Promoting Accountability, Equality, and Inclusion

Accountability is being promoted. This is accomplished by keeping everyone in the firm responsible for their decisions and conduct. Many people do not like to be praised for their failures, but they are delighted to be applauded for the valuable input. In this step, all of the organization’s managing bodies must be aware of the firm’s success and problems. It all comes down to the larger picture of promoting consistency, consequently attaining the organization’s goals. Again, prioritizing the development of leaders who can adapt to changing work settings and collaborate with individuals from all origins and cultures ought to be a top priority (Mishra, 2017). The outcome of this strategy will be developing responsible and accountable leaders with diverse backgrounds and inputs for the organization’s growth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the U.S. Army is an organization whose model and development are dependent on its leadership and structure, as with every other organization. Therefore its business model canvas highlights its customer segmentation, channels, value proposition, resources, and revenue and cost structure as elements that support its operations. Borrowing from week two, it is evident that these elements provide a basis for evaluation and recommendation for improvement. Through diversification, maximum utilization of resources, and global networking trends, the organization has improved its operations and remained relevant in a changing world.

The Leadership for Performance Framework and Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model reveal how the U.S. Army’s business model is structured in terms of human resources, political, structural organization, and symbolic aspects. The organization has been compared to a machine in Morgan’s metaphor which depicts the need for effective and efficient systems for productivity. Lastly, the organization should improve on its leadership development aspect through enhanced training and accountability. It is important to note that the future of combat is changing, and therefore the U.S. Army should invest in technological development and intelligent military operations.

References

Fellmann, M., Koschmider, A., Laue, R., Schoknecht, A., & Vetter, A. (2019). Business process model patterns: State-of-the-art, research classification, and taxonomy. Business Process Management Journal, 25(5), 972-994. Web.

Holmes, W. T., & Skull, W. R. (2019). Reframing organizations through leadership communications: The four-frames of leadership viewed through motivating language. Development and Learning in Organizations, 33(5), 16-19. Web.

Mishra, P. (2017). Green human resource management: A framework for sustainable organizational development in an emerging economy.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(5), 762–788.

Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. (2013). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game-changers, and challengers. Wiley.

Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. A. (2017). Management. Pearson.

Spangenberg, H., & Theron, C. (2013). A critical review of the burke-Litwin model of leadership, change, and performance. Management Dynamics, 22(2), 29-48. Web.

Tohidian, I., & Rahimian, H. (2019). Bringing Morgan’s metaphors in organization contexts: An essay review. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1). Web.

U. S. Army. (2020). United States Army Annual Financial Report: 2020 Fiscal Year[PDF-file]. U. S. Army.

Wormuth, C. (2020). The role of allies and partners in U. S. military strategy and operations[PDF-file]. RAND Corporation.

Click Here To Order Now!