Comparison and Contrast of Two Innovative Business Professionals and Their Models: Customer Epicenter versus Paranoia Survival Jules Prendergast North Central University BTM7101-8 Activity 3

Author Note
This developmental paper is being submitted on May 26, 2013 for Professor Cozine’s BTM7101-8 class. The contents of this paper reflect the author’s perspective on relevant information provided through articles
Abstract
The main emphasis of this paper is two fold. First, the content is used to express the author’s perception through use of the compare and contrast writing methodology between two key businesses professional and their impact on the business practices. This is accomplished by preparing a summary of their professional contributions, discussion of their encounter and subsequent success from specific challenges, as well as a discussion of their similarities. The final portion of this paper emphasizes distinct differences between each and concludes with the key factors, which impacted their individual successes. The second key part of this paper is to address the learning and follow on use of appropriate APA (American Psychology Association) formatting and correct usage of paraphrasing. Keywords: customer, leadership, and APA format

Comparison and Contrast of Two Innovative Business Professionals and Their Models The world is built around sociological implementation of economic forward progression. Whether based upon socialistic, democratic, autocratic, or other modes of political streams, societies and their needs are the impetus of the national, state, and global markets. In this day and age, identifying and, subsequently, flourishing in this primus of wants, desires, and needs can be solely based on these social and economic foundations. These foundations can be the defining scope of a business’ existence in the present and the future if true forward strategic vision is not implemented. Understanding the formidable perseverance as well as the leadership capabilities of globally successful business leaders is one of the fundamental underpinnings of ensuring survival and future viability. Michael Dell and Andy Grove offer an amazing contrast as well as similarity into this investigation of business success and growth. Each man has made considerable contributions to not only their companies, but also to the technological business realm. Mr. Michael Dell was able to propel his entrepreneurship ideals from the platform of his college dorm room techno-lab at just the age of nine-teen (Krames, J. A., 2003). The fundamental base of his start up came from understanding that if the business is not going to deliver what the customers need, responding to what the customers vocalizes, and reinforcing the deliverance of those expectations back to the customer then the company will not have a platform from where to deliver their product (Krames, J. A., 2003). This is personified in Mr. Dell’s (Dell, M., 2013) vision that “…technology is about enabling human potential.” He has contributed a customer personalized product to the mainstream of technology hardware. In contrast, Mr. Grove, is fundamentally known as one of the main pioneers in the semi-conductor industry. For many people, the concept of semiconductor is as uncommon as a southeast Asian durian fruit. However, every one who owns or uses any piece of technology utilizes the fundamental of semiconductor theory. Mr. Grove’s initial involvement and management with the Intel Corporation as the Chief Operation Officer from its inception as leading the IT world in the development of semiconductors and subsequently microprocessors (Sydell, L., 2012). Both of these pioneers have started and lead their respective communities into the future. Part of being a leader in the technology arena is to understand how one must fail but learn from such mistakes. Both of these men have clearly faced resistance, but did not allow it to define or stop them from forging the future of themselves or their corporations. For Mr. Dell, one of the defining moments he encountered which made him pull back and realize he was not fulfilling his main impetus of customer realization development was when he developed the Olympic platform (Krames, J. A., 2003). The technology was a product, which was not actualized by any of his customers, thus was not in line with the company’s primary modus. Mr. Grove also pushed the perpetual rock up the hill when the realization that Intel’s semiconductor technological advances were far to late in being served to the community of need (Krames, J. A., 2003). Ultimately, this was recognized by Grove and his contemporaries as being latent in delivery of a strategically viable execution plan . Professionally, both of these men show similar characteristics in their drive for professional success and corporative alignment with customers’ needs. They both upstaged their competitors by targeting an area of the economic market which did not have a substantial champion. Dell utilized the internet to propel his customer need based product to the forefront. Grove was able to manufacture and deliver a technology, which, did not exist and became the foundation of current computer data technology. Though these two men had similarities, there differences are notable for the differing paths which they have had personally and professionally. Dell is an entrepreneur true and true. He was one of the first corporative leaders to fully utilize the internet to satisfy customer requirements, which is the backbone of his corporate strategy. Many of the management strategies which Grove has utilized seems to stem from his diligence of survival. Coming from a background of being a survivor of World War II (Krames, J. A., 2003) is very prolific in the management style by which he personifies. Though the semiconductor field was an area which was unexplored in the 1960’s, he was more reactionary to find the next technological step where Intel needed to tread which may have lead to their stationary technology pause. Both of these men have harbored greatness for their personal and professional values. Dell has shown explicit keenness to being in touch with the future forging of his corporation without sacrificing the primary intent of his corporation’s focus. Most likely this stems from having been able to watch his father’s experience in developing an enterprise. Grove, on the other hand, is a master manager. His experience with the Nazi’s and Russian Occupation shows a survival instinct to be reactive, but it seems his core being shows the relevance to have proactive actions as well. This pro-active nature in both of these men is the concrete from which both of them have been able to propel their professional and personal vigor forward.
References
Dell (2013). General Format. Retrieved from http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/ uscorp1/bios/michael-dell-bio?c=us&l=en&s=corp. Krames, J. A. (2003). What the Best CEO’s Know [Adobe Reader Version]. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ncent/docDetail.action? docID=10045327&p00. Sydell, L. (April 06, 2012). Intel Legends Moore And Grove: Making It Last. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2012/04/06/150057676/intel-legends-moore-and-grove-making-it-last.