Led Light 3d Model Free NEW! Download

Once seen as just a defensive tactic used by underperforming companies, asset-light strategies and business models are now becoming an essential tool to fuel growth and strengthen an ecosystem of partnerships. Recent Ernst & Young LLP research indicates that regardless of market position, an asset-light approach can help companies achieve higher total shareholder returns (TSR),1 among other financial benefits.

The current COVID-19 crisis has prompted companies to conduct a comprehensive review of business portfolios and make long-overdue operational changes. Companies are also adopting an asset-light model to navigate market conditions.

Led Light 3d Model Free Download

Download 🔥 https://urllie.com/2y3D9Q 🔥

In a February 2021 Ernst & Young LLP asset-light strategy webcast poll, with responses from more than 1,000 C-suite executives, 31% said digitization and technology shifts have prompted them to consider asset-light strategies, 25% said the trigger is imperatives to meet customer demand, and 21% said capital requirements to fuel growth are driving them to consider such strategies.

However, an asset-light business model is by no means exclusive to supply chain areas such as manufacturing and distribution assets. It can help extract value from other value chain areas such as the front office, including R&D, sales and field operations, as well as more traditional back-office functions such as information technology, infrastructure and procurement.

Ernst & Young LLP research of US Fortune 500 public companies across several sectors shows that asset-light companies achieved a greater total shareholder return when compared with their asset-heavy peers. We define asset-light companies as those that have a five-year property, plant and equipment (PPE) to sales ratio average lower than their respective sector mean. On average, the asset-light companies outperformed their asset-heavy peers by four percentage points in the last five years of total shareholder returns. Sample selected sectors are highlighted in the graphic below.

Companies typically begin their asset-light journey by identifying which assets and capabilities are core to delivering value to their customer base right now. For example, sellers may find a path to greater operational agility by transitioning their manufacturing operations to a contract manufacturer rather than carving out an entire business unit and disposing of a valuable brand.

Others, due to their experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, may look to build redundancy in key business processes but choose an asset-light path, including joint ventures (JVs) or other partnerships that avoid a balance sheet impact. Still, other companies that are intensely focused on reducing costs may want to reduce complexity and release capital by transitioning key pieces of their support operations, such as inside sales, to an external partner.

Capability-level analysis for the chosen product category can help determine the right focus areas, what is possible for that capability set and the right partnership model (e.g., JV, spin-off, partnership, sale-leaseback). Capabilities are assessed in terms of the relative strategic value delivered to the customer and the company. We have observed four primary dispositions:

In the Ernst & Young LLP February 2021 webcast poll, 34% of executives said enabling functions would be most suitable for an asset-light strategy, followed by middle office at 22% and front end at 24%.

A typical asset-light journey can take 12 to 18 months. However, a rapid four- to six-week effort to short-list target capabilities can place companies on the right path to conduct an ecosystem scan for potential partners and build a business case that demonstrates the benefit.

February 2021 webcast participants also shared their biggest challenges related to executing an asset-light strategy, with 31% saying finding the right partner is the biggest challenge, 27% saying structuring the deal or partnership, and 25% saying aligning internal stakeholders.

Every company seeks to pursue its strategy with the lowest possible level of asset ownership, but determining the optimal level is challenging. Executives face a tough dilemma when considering asset weight. Asset-heavy, vertically integrated models offer superior control, but they tie up significant capital and frequently prove less flexible in a fast-changing environment. By contrast, asset-light business models confer greater flexibility, but it can be tough to manage them, and the risk of leaking intellectual property (IP) or becoming less valuable is greater.

Higher Scale-Driven Cost Savings. Asset-light models can help companies achieve scale without having to invest capital. For instance, the production of semiconductors typically requires multibillion-dollar capital investments, which very few companies have the scale to justify. Intel owns its own fabrication plants, but Apple takes the asset-light route, buying many of its chips from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, as do many smaller companies that aim to minimize the amount of capital tied up in fixed assets.

Being asset light can also help large companies avoid the diseconomies of scale that arise from owning many small shops in many locations. For instance, it is far more efficient for a mobile-phone company to franchise its smaller retail outlets than to operate thousands of small stores. An added benefit: franchisees run the stores as owners, not employees, so they have a stake in the business and are highly motivated to succeed.

Outsourcing involves buying products or services from external providers instead of producing them in-house. Widely used in the manufacturing industry, the model works best when the IP involved is either protected (through patents and a willingness to litigate) or is not a source of differentiation. For example, Vizio became the U.S. market leader in LCD TVs after realizing that LCD panels were not themselves a source of differentiation. The company was able to keep costs low by buying the panels from multiple sources and taking advantage of temporary surpluses.

Zara relies on an integrated design, manufacturing, and distribution process to give it the flexibility to respond to changing fashion trends. This business model enables it to act faster and more decisively than its rivals, yielding both fewer stockouts and fewer markdowns.

A number of companies have tried to become asset light but have encountered problems in, for example, coordinating suppliers and maintaining critical know-how. Aligning economic incentives with suppliers is another challenge, as Lego found when it outsourced the manufacturing of its high-margin toy products to Flextronics in 2005. Lego needed high-quality products in quantities that could not be predicted far in advance. This need conflicted with the incentives it was offering Flextronics to keep costs low. Lego ended the partnership in 2008.

In later stages of the business life cycle-when profitable growth is waning-reintegration can be a winning strategy. For instance, yogurt maker Yoplait owned its factories in France, but it took an asset-light approach to international expansion, establishing franchises in 70 countries. Seeking further growth, the company opted for a strategy of vertical integration and began adding production facilities, beginning with a plant in Sweden in 2006 and subsequently acquiring its own franchisors in critical markets. This strategy proved a good way for Yoplait to grow its top line and increase brand control while remaining in its core business.

In our experience, companies can go asset light and still retain the benefits of vertical integration by improving coordination and knowledge sharing with their partner organizations. This smart-control approach involves six management techniques.

Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place.

Founded in 1935 by John W. Speaker, J.W. Speaker Corporation is focused on developing innovative, high-performance vehicular lighting solutions for OEM and aftermarket customers around the world. We specialize in LED & other emerging lighting technologies and proudly design, manufacture & assemble our products in Germantown, Wisconsin.

I have a house model with two instances. a skull, a single point light in my scene as well as some terrain and a skybox. I noticed that when applying some rotations to my models, the illumination provided by the point light was rotating with it. After some reading it became obvious that I am doing all of my computations in my shaders in model space but my light position/directions are in world space.

When I don't do the transformation it looks almost right (though not perfect which I'm betting is b/c of the different spaces). I render a small lightbulb model at the location of the light and the tops of the houses and the terrain all illuminate as I expect relatively well.

I am passing the model-view matrix from my vertex shader into my frag shader then doing an inverse transpose to convert the world space coordinate of the light position into model space. I figured that would be it but obviously I'm either missing something or I've done something wrong.

However, you also need to convert the normal vector from model space to world space:

(see Why transforming normals with the transpose of the inverse of the modelview matrix?

and In which cases is the inverse matrix equal to the transpose?)

Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they travelthrough the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This has threemain problems: There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energywithout also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring ofdistant objects which is not observed.The Compton shift in particular does notwork. The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation ofthe redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear totake 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. 2351a5e196