Artykuły Archive

0

10 największych flot. Polska za burtą

 

Wartość floty czołowej dziesiątki państw morskich wzrosła w ciągu 2018 r. o 17,6 mld dol. – obliczyli eksperci  firmy VesselsValue. Czołowa piątka dysponuje połową światowego tonażu, który w 2018 r. przekroczył 1,9 mld t nośności. Polska z flotą około 100 jednostek o nośności około 3 mln dwt znalazła się poza zainteresowaniem analityków.

W 2018 r. pojemność flota światowej zwiększyła się o kolejne 60 mln t. Wciąż utrzymuje się trend, że przyrasta tonaż we wszystkich segmentach z wyjątkiem statków do przewozu drobnicy i obsługi platform wiertniczych.  Na oceanach i morzach wciąż dominują trzy bandery. Armatorzy światowi najchętniej rejestrują  statki w Panamie, Wyspach Marshalla i Liberii. Kolejne kraje, które korzystają z tego, że są przyjazne dla armatorów, to  Hongkong SAR i Singapur, a w Europie – Cypr,  Malta, Luksemburg, Norwegia i Niemcy. Na inwestycjach tonażowych korzystają głównie stocznie  Korei Płd., które w 2019 r. odzyskały pierwsze miejsce na rynku pod względem portfela zamówień. Kolejne miejsca zajmują przemysły stoczniowe z  Chin i Japonii, które coraz silniej wchodzą na rynek jednostek specjalistycznych, promów i statków pasażerskich, w tym z napędem LNG. Około 80% rynku złomowania statków przejęły stocznie Pakistanu, Indii i Bangladeszu.

Grecy na topie. Greccy armatorzy  od wielu lat dominują na globalnym rynku żeglugowym. Na początku 2019 r. jej wartość przekroczyła 105 mld dol. Odpowiada to łącznej wartości 3 flot z drugiej piątki (USA, Niemiec i Korei Płd.). Wartość floty Grecji  budowana jest na coraz młodszych zbiornikowcach (36 mld dol.), silnej flocie masowców (35,75 mld dol.) oraz szybko rosnącej flocie zbiornikowców do przewozu LNG. Na początku 2019 r. Grecja zajęła pole position na rynku morskiego transportu LNG, bowiem dysponowała największą flotą do przewozu LNG na świecie. Armatorzy z Hellady tylko w ciągu 2018 r. zwiększyli wartość zbiornikowców LNG z 13 mld dol. na początku ubr.  do 18,4 mld dol. na początku 2019 r. Grecy wyprzedzili armatorów z Japonii, którzy zarządzają flotą statków do przewozu LNG o wartości  15,2 mld dol – informuje Court Smith, analityk VesselsValue.

Japonia  z flotą o wartości około 95 mld dol. utrzymuje drugą pozycję w rankingu krajów posiadających floty morskie. Niekwestionowanym liderem na rynku są japońscy armatorzy masowców, których wartość w ciągu ostatniego roku wzrosła z ponad 38,3 mld dol. do około 40,8 mld dol. na początku 2019 r.   Równie silną pozycję mają Japończycy na rynku zbiornikowców do przewozu ropy (ponad 19,4 mld dol.) oraz  LNG i LPG (19,3 mld dol.).

Chińczycy trzymają się mocno. Flota chińska rosła w największym tempie. W efekcie w ubr. odnotowała największy  wzrost wartości wśród 10 czołowych flot handlowych. Nowe zakupy statków przekroczyły  wartość 6,3 mld dol. w wyniku czego całkowita wartość statków zarządzanych przez armatorów z Chin  przekroczyła 90 mld dol. Z flotą masowców o wartości ponad 33,3 mld dol. Chiny zajmują 3 pozycję w rankingu. Natomiast flota zbiornikowców o wartości ponad 20,5 mld dol. plasuje Chiny przed Japonią. Z flotą kontenerowców o łącznej wartości około17,3 mld dol. Chiny są na tym rynku niekwestionowanym liderem. Armatorzy z Chin wciąż są w czołówce krajów z dużym portfelem zamówień na nowe statki w większości kategorii i zajmują drugą pozycję. Zwolniono natomiast tempo zamówień statków offshore, w wyniku czego Chiny znalazły się na piątym miejscu w świecie.

W ciągu roku armatorzy z Singapuru przesunęli się z piątego na czwarte miejsce rankingu. Stało się tak dzięki inwestycjom o wartości 3,1 mld dol. Wzrost wartości floty osiągnięto w wyniku zwiększenia się floty kontenerowców po utworzeniu aliansu ONE. Przeniesienie statków z Japonii do Singapuru sprawiło, że wartość floty kontenerowej wzrosła z około 5,4 mld dol. na początku 2018 r. do około 10,2 mld dol. w styczniu 2019 r.

Piąta pozycję w rankingu zajmują armatorzy z Norwegii z flotą o wartości około 48,9 mld dol. Potencjał budują armatorzy zbiornikowców do przewozu ropy (pond 12 mld dol.) oraz do transportu LNG i LPG (ponad 7 mld dol.) oraz oczywiście operatorzy platform wiertniczych i statków offshore AHTS oraz PSV (ponad 11,8 mld. dol.). Norwegia utrzymuje pierwsze miejsce pod względem aktywów offshore. Ich łączną wartość Vessel Value oszacowało na 20 mld. dol. Drugie miejsce na tym rynku zajmują Amerykanie, którzy dysponują na rynku offshore aktywami o wartości 17 mld. dol.

… więcej w: www.pgt.pl

„Polonia” z Wysp Bahama. Polscy  armatorzy dysponują flotą niespełna 100 jednostek o nośności około 3,3 mln t. Jeszcze 10 lat temu nasi operatorzy zarządzali flotą 120 jednostek, a 30 lat temu było ich dwa razy więcej. Dziś w Polsce działa kilku armatorów. Dominują Polska Żegluga Morska (61 statków o łącznej nośności 2,2 mln t, w tym masowce, siarkowce oraz promy), Chipolbrok (Chinese-Polish Joint Stock Shipping Company), który posiada 17 statków wielozadaniowych oraz Unibaltic z siedzibą w Szczecinie posiada 11 statków.

Dzięki Polskiej Żegludze Bałtyckiej i Unity Line (łącznie 12 promów) posiadamy w zachodniej części Bałtyku silną pozycję na rynku promowym. Pod polską banderą pływa tylko około 10% polskiej floty, bowiem nowe jednostki nasi armatorzy rejestrują pod obcymi banderami. Jednocześnie poza terytorium Polski zakładane są spółki zarządzające naszymi statkami.

Dla przykładu pływający w barwach Unity Line prom Polonia od chwili przejęcia przez polskiego armatora pływa pod banderą Wysp Bahama, a odebrany ze stoczni przez PŻM w ubr. m/s Solidarność nosi na flagsztoku banderę Liberii. Prom PŻB m/f Mazovia z dziobem pięknie ozdobionym motywami z łowickiej wycinanki pływa pod egzotyczną banderą Wysp Bahama.

W rankingu flot świata, w pierwszej 10. pięć miejsc zajmują floty państw europejskich i wcale nie tych najtańszych. Polska już dawno wypadła z czołówki krajów aktywnych na oceanach świata. Dar Młodzieży kończy rejs dookoła świata. Gdy odbywał swój pierwszy rejs dookoła świata w latach 1987-1988 pod polską banderą  pływało około 250 statków i można je było spotkać na wszystkich kontynentach. Dziś pozostał nam jedynie wspomnień czar.

 

Tonaż i ilość statków w świecie

Regiony 2013 2018
Tonaż statki Tonaż statki
(mln
dwt)
udział
(%)
(tys.) Udział w świecie
(%)
(mln
dwt)
Udział w świecie
(%)
(tys.) Udział w świecie
(%)
Świat 1 626 100.0 86 100.0 1 924 100.0 94 100.0
Kraje rozwijające się, w tym: 1 232 75.8 56 64.7 1 461 75.9 63 66.5
Afryka 223 13.7 6 6.8 240 12.5 7 7.0
Ameryka Płd 465 28.6 17 19.3 452 23.5 16 17.0
Azja i Oceania 544 33.5 33 38.6 769 40.0 40 42.5
Transition economies 9 0.6 4 4.3 11 0.6 4 4.1
Gospodarki rozwinięte 381 23.4 26 29.7 447 23.2 26 27.7

Źródło: Review of Maritime Transport 2018

 

0

McKinsey – Getting organizational redesign right

Companies will better integrate their people, processes, and structures by following nine golden rules.

Recent McKinsey research surveying a large set of global executives suggests that many companies, these days, are in a nearly permanent state of organizational flux. Almost 60 percent of the respondents, for example, told us they had experienced a redesign within the past two years, and an additional 25 percent said they experienced a redesign three or more years ago. A generation or two back, most executives might have experienced some sort of organizational upheaval just a few times over the course of their careers. One plausible explanation for this new flurry of activity is the accelerating pace of strategic change driven by the disruption of industries. As a result, every time a company switches direction, it alters the organization to deliver the hoped-for results. Rather than small, incremental tweaks of the kind that might have been appropriate in the past, today’s organizations often need regular shake-ups of the Big Bang variety.

Frustratingly, it also appears that the frequency of organizational redesign reflects a high level of disappointment with the outcome. According to McKinsey’s research, less than a quarter of organizational-redesign efforts succeed. Forty-four percent run out of steam after getting under way, while a third fail to meet objectives or improve performance after implementation. The good news is that companies can do better—much better. In this article, we’ll describe what we learned when we compared successful and unsuccessful organizational redesigns and explain some rules of the road for executives seeking to improve the odds. Success doesn’t just mean avoiding the expense, wasted time, and morale-sapping skepticism that invariably accompany botched attempts; in our experience, a well-executed redesign pays off quickly in the form of better-motivated employees, greater decisiveness, and a stronger bottom line.

Why redesign the organization?

Organizational redesign involves the integration of structure, processes, and people to support the implementation of strategy and therefore goes beyond the traditional tinkering with “lines and boxes.” Today, it comprises the processes that people follow, the management of individual performance, the recruitment of talent, and the development of employees’ skills. When the organizational redesign of a company matches its strategic intentions, everyone will be primed to execute and deliver them. The company’s structure, processes, and people will all support the most important outcomes and channel the organization’s efforts into achieving them.

When do executives know that an organization isn’t working well and that they need to consider a redesign? Sometimes the answer is obvious: say, after the announcement of a big new regional-growth initiative or following a merger. Other signs may be less visible—for example, a sense that ideas agreed upon at or near the top of the organization aren’t being translated quickly into actions or that executives spend too much time in meetings. These signs suggest that employees might be unclear about their day-to-day work priorities or that decisions are not being implemented. A successful organizational redesign should better focus the resources of a company on its strategic priorities and other growth areas, reduce costs, and improve decision making and accountability.

The case of a consumer-packaged-goods (CPG) company that chose to expand outside its US home base illustrates one typical motivation for a redesign. Under the group’s previous organizational structure, the ostensibly global brand team responsible for marketing was not only located in the United States but had also been rewarded largely on the performance of US operations; it had no systems for monitoring the performance of products elsewhere. To support a new global strategy and to develop truly international brands and products, the company separated US marketing from its global counterpart and put in place a new structure (including changes to the top team), new processes, new systems, and a new approach to performance management. This intensive redesign helped promote international growth, especially in key emerging markets such as Russia (where sales tripled) and China (where they have nearly doubled).

By Steven Aronowitz, Aaron De Smet, and Deirdre McGinty

More: https://www.mckinsey.com/

0

The Mix That Matters

Only one of Coca-Cola’s last six CEOs grew up in the United States. Deutsche Telekom set out to increase the representation of women in its management ranks in 2010, and now 40% of the people on its supervisory board are female. The Japanese beverage company Suntory didn’t promote an insider when it was looking for a new president to oversee a geographic expansion effort; it recruited the former chairman of Lawson, Japan’s second-largest convenience store chain.

When companies undertake efforts to make their management teams more diverse by adding women and people from other countries, industries, and companies, does it pay off? In the critical area of innovation, the answer seems to be yes. A study of 171 German, Swiss, and Austrian companies shows a clear relationship between the diversity of companies’ management teams and the revenues they get from innovative products and services. (See “Study Methodology.”)

Study Methodology

The study comes at a time when diversity’s business benefits have become a topic of intense discussion. In the past, the indirect benefits of diversity were sufficient—an expansion of the job candidate pool at all levels, or an increase in social and political status for the company. Direct financial benefits weren’t needed to justify diversity initiatives—no one could even say for sure if such benefits existed. This study shows that they do.

BCG and the Technical University of Munich conducted an empirical analysis to understand the relationship between diversity in management (defined as all levels of management, not just executive management) and innovation. (See “How Diversity and Innovation Are Defined in This Report.”) Although the research is concentrated in a particular geographic region, we believe that its insights apply globally. The following are the major findings:

  • The positive relationship between management diversity and innovation is statistically significant, meaning that companies with higher levels of diversity get more revenue from new products and services.
  • The innovation boost isn’t limited to a single type of diversity. The presence of managers who are female or from other countries, industries, or companies can cause an increase in innovation.
  • Management diversity seems to have a particularly positive effect on innovation at complex companies—those that have multiple product lines or that operate in multiple industry segments. Diversity’s impact also increases with company size.
  • To reach its potential, gender diversity needs to go beyond tokenism. In our study, innovation performance only increased significantly when the workforce included a nontrivial percentage of women (more than 20%) in management positions. Having a high percentage of female employees doesn’t do anything for innovation, the study shows, if only a small number of women are managers.
  • At companies with diverse management teams, openness to contributions from lower-level workers and an environment in which employees feel free to speak their minds are crucial in fostering innovation.

Five Work Environment Factors That Amplify Diversity’s Impact

Our study provides clear evidence that having a diverse management team is a valuable asset when it comes to innovation. But as with any valuable asset, it needs to be developed to reach its potential.

Diversity has the greatest impact on innovation at companies that reinforce diversity through five conditions in the work environment:

  • Participative Leadership Behavior. When managers genuinely listen to employees’ suggestions and make use of them, diversity’s benefits multiply. Swarovski, the Austrian manufacturer of cut crystal, uses what it calls nudges to remind executives that their meetings will be more productive if attendees actively participate instead of deferring to those who are more senior. The nudges take different forms, including posters in hallways and whiteboard reminders in conference rooms.
  • Openness to Cognitive Diversity. This describes a dynamic in which employees feel free to speak their minds. The German cable company Unitymedia, which participated in our survey, supports openness to cognitive diversity by encouraging opposing ideas and “constructive conflict,” in discussions both among peers and between employees and managers. A culture where change starts with a question, not a decision, “allows us to capture the potential of diversity,” an HR executive at Unitymedia told us in a follow-up interview.
  • Strategic Priority. At some companies, diversity has considerable top management support. An example is France’s Airbus Group, whose Balance for Business initiative (aimed at increasing gender diversity at the largely male aeronautics company) has been endorsed by the top executive team, including the company’s CEO.
  • Frequent Interpersonal Communication. When companies find ways to facilitate dialogue between people with different backgrounds, it can provide a creative spark and bolster innovation. Google does this through its cafés, which allow for spontaneous conversations among people who may have different educational, work, and national backgrounds, as well as vastly different levels of expertise.
  • Equal Employment Practices. There’s nothing new or complicated about this concept, but it is still not universally implemented. Some companies are further ahead than others, however. The US apparel company Gap, for example, has won praise for eliminating the pay differences between its female and male employees. The apparel company’s commitment to gender diversity is also evident in the number of women on its senior leadership team and in the fact that a majority of its store managers are female.

By Rocío Lorenzo , Nicole Voigt , Karin Schetelig , Annika Zawadzki , Isabelle Welpe , and Prisca Brosi

More: www.bcg.com

0

Will AI connect brands to consumers or create a chasm between them?

Some brands won’t survive the rise of AI. Others will use it to form a much deeper relationship with consumers.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already transformed multiple industries to the benefit of consumers. Yet when it comes to how consumers actually experience the world, AI is still in its infancy. Today we can talk to our phones or smart devices around the home, but it’s often a frustrating experience, and the functionality is limited. Nonetheless, even in these early stages of the AI revolution, it’s clear that the way consumers engage with brands is going to change fundamentally. The question is, how?

Five implications for consumer products companies

  1. Brands can win from the rise of direct to consumer (D2C), if they invest in the right infrastructure. AI will become a significant bridge between brands and consumers. This is a huge opportunity for brands that can sell direct to consumers. To take advantage of it, they need to build infrastructure, especially fulfilment logistics and customer services.
  2. Companies will form unexpected alliances to master last-mile fulfillment. Future consumers will expect fulfillment to happen in a way that suits them, at no extra cost. Brands will have to work with logistics firms, retailers and other suppliers to aggregate the delivery of goods and services. Without these alliances – some of which could involve competitors working together or directly with “brand ambassadors” – it will be impossible to satisfy the consumers’ fulfillment expectations at a profit.
  3. Everyone can become a brand ambassador, and be rewarded for their influence. Smart companies will value future consumers not just by how much they spend, but by their ability to influence other people. Today, brand ambassador roles – and the benefits that come with them – are limited to celebrities and social media stars with obvious influence. In future, brands will be able to measure and engage the influence-power of every consumer. The ability to mobilize a mass of micro-influencers will be key to marketing success.
  4. Brands will have to choose how they play in a world where shopping and buying are different activities. Future consumers will trust their chosen AI platform to buy most of what need; they’ll only consciously “go shopping” for a select few products and services. Future consumers will expect whatever they purchase to meet their exact needs and expectations, even when their AI bot is doing the buying. Engaging a human shopper and meeting the purchase criteria of an AI bot will require very different business models. The former is about premium services and immersive brand experiences that reflect the values and purpose of the target consumer. The latter is about the strength of the algorithm, the best value proposition, efficient fulfillment and minimal marketing or packaging costs. One brand can’t thrive in both spaces.
  5. Subscription models will grow. Consumers will likely buy fewer goods “on demand.” Instead they’ll prefer subscription services. Products may become secondary to the services or experiences that frame them. To play in this space, companies will need to give the consumer end-to-end support for the lifespan of their relationship.

By Helen Merriott, EY UK&I Consumer Industries Advisory Leader

More in: www.ey.com/

0

Machines increasingly complement human labor in the workplace

Automation and artificial intelligence (AI) are transforming businesses and will contribute to economic growth via contributions to productivity. They will also help address “moonshot” societal challenges in areas from health to climate change.

At the same time, these technologies will transform the nature of work and the workplace itself. Machines will be able to carry out more of the tasks done by humans, complement the work that humans do, and even perform some tasks that go beyond what humans can do. As a result, some occupations will decline, others will grow, and many more will change.

While we believe there will be enough work to go around (barring extreme scenarios), society will need to grapple with significant workforce transitions and dislocation. Workers will need to acquire new skills and adapt to the increasingly capable machines alongside them in the workplace. They may have to move from declining occupations to growing and, in some cases, new occupations.

This executive briefing, which draws on the latest research from the McKinsey Global Institute, examines both the promise and the challenge of automation and AI in the workplace and outlines some of the critical issues that policy makers, companies, and individuals will need to solve for.

  1. Accelerating progress in AI and automation is creating opportunities for businesses, the economy, and society
  2. How AI and automation will affect work
  3. Key workforce transitions and challenges
  4. Ten things to solve for

More: McKinsey Global Institute

Authors: James Manyika is chairman and director of the McKinsey Global Institute and a senior partner at McKinsey & Company based in San Francisco. Kevin Sneader is McKinsey’s global managing partner-elect, based in Hong Kong.