Amazon Operational Management Strategies Term Paper

Amazon Operational Management Strategies - Term Paper Example Operations management is not confined to manufacturing alone but also encompasses services. Hence, operations management can be best defined as effective and efficient management of all operations of the organization that contribute to improving the systems that are aimed at creating and delivering quality products and services to the customers (Young, 2009). It involves designing, redesigning, overseeing, implementing, executing of the various business operations. Operations management has a twofold effect on the profit of an organization and hence it is vital for the overall success of an organization. Organization is benefitted from the improved effectiveness due to operations management and the created products and services are such that they meet the requirements and needs of the customers. In simple words, increased efficiency will result in increased revenue which results in a more competitive organization and increased efficiency will also reduce costs (Galloway, 1993). Follo wing are the 10 operational management strategies that an organization can apply: Product/ Service Design, Quality Management, Capacity Management, Location, Layout Design, Human Resources, Supply Chain Management, Inventory Management, Scheduling and Maintenance. This paper is aimed at analysing how Amazon.com has applied operational management strategies to succeed and gain competitive advantage in the market. Amazon.com Amazon.com is a multinational customer-centric American company. Headquartered in Seattle, Washington Amazon.com is an electronic commerce company and the largest online retailer in the world. It was founded by Jeffrey Bezos and incorporated in 1994. Even though it was incorporated in 1994, it went live in 1995. Started as an online book store, Amzon.com today has diversified and expanded its product and service line (Reuters, 2011). Today, Amzon.com sells numerous products from different categories. It not online sells books online but also sells computer softwar e, CDs, DVDs, food, furniture, video games, toys, electronic apparels, MP3 downloads, etc (Google Finance, 2011). Consumers, sellers and enterprises are three primary customer sets that the company serves. Apart from selling products online, the company also generates revenue from various other sources such as co-branded credit card agreements, third party selling, reselling and online advertising (Google Finance, 2011). For the following countries Amzon.com has separate websites: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, China and Japan (Amazon.com, 2011). Amazon has numerous software development centres, fulfilment and warehousing centres across the globe to meet the growing demands (Reuters, 2011). Amazon’s Product Categories: Books, DVDs, videotapes, music CDs, musical instruments, toys & games, software, consumer electronics, sporting goods, lawn and garden items, apparel, clothing, kitchen items, gourmet food, tools, baby products, beauty pro ducts, watches, jewellery, industrial & scientific supplies, groceries and health and personal-care items (Amazon.com, 2011). Amazon’s Services: Amazon Web Services, Amazon Publishing, Amazon Prime, AmazonBasics, Amazon.com exclusives, Amapedia, Subscribe & Save, AmazonLocal, Amazon Wireless, askville, Amazon Marketplace, Amazon Fresh, etc (Amazon.com, 2011

Land law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Land law - Essay Example In the current case, Stone Construction Limited is not bound by any covenant that Steve undertook with Joan. Moreover, a covenant can only take effect and be respected if the benefit of the covenant comes to the party bearing the burden of the covenant. Under Austerberry v Oldham Corporation2, any agreement between the covenantor and the covenantee only holds between the original parties and not between successors unless: such stipulations are mentioned in the covenant; such stipulations are passed onto successors with their full knowledge and acceptance. Hence, the burden of a covenant does not pass to the successor through title at common law. The burden can only be passed under equity if: the covenant is negative in effect; covenant benefits the covenantee’s land; the burden of the covenant was designed by the original parties to run with the land3; the succeeding party was provided notice of the covenant at purchase. Given the ruling under Tulk v Moxhay4, it is clear that Hans cannot be provided benefit under equity either since the covenant was not designed to run with the land and the successor, Stone Construction Limited, had not notice of the covenant. However, the burden of a restrictive covenant passes to the successor in title only under equity but not under law. In the current situation, Hans tends to be affected more by equity based rules rather than contract based rules. Under common law, Hans cannot be provided benefit of the covenant since he was not a party to the original contract. Acting in Hans’ favour using a contract law position would signal a disregard for common law so Hans cannot be given advantage. Alternatively, Hans could have been provided some benefit under Section 56(1) of the Land and Property Act (LPA)5 if he were named and described under the original covenant. However, this is not the case since Joan, the covenantee, had failed to describe or name Hans with the original covenantor Steve. On another note, Hans ma y receive some relief under Section 1 of the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act6 since Hans stands to benefit from the covenant along with other future land owners. In order to analyse the burden and the benefit of the covenant, it is pertinent to consider equitable rules. The benefit of the covenant could only pass in equity if: benefit of the covenant was attached to Joan’s land; benefit of the covenant was moved through express declaration of Joan to the successor in title Hans; the concerned land was part of a development scheme7. Alternatively, under the decision for P&A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group PLC8, it was provided that a covenant may pass at common law in case that the covenant concerns the dominant land so as to benefit any successors and the covenantee personally. However, under the judgement provided under Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board9 using Section 78 of the LPA, it would be necessary to provide or pro ve that Hans’ land is damaged by the actions of Stone Constructio