Discussion Progression in Nursing Field Initial Post Nurse practitioners are faced with many barriers as healthcare evolves with different circumstances. As we all know, the nursing shortage has significantly increase especially since the start of this pandemic. Nurses are leaving the field because they are afraid of transmitting hospital exposed viruses to their love ones. Telehealth has been the Go-To way to assist patients with medical concerns. Nursing is now a high demand since we are the frontline workers. We spend majority of the time caring for the patients, while providing a SBAR to the physicians. RNs and NPs are similar. They must provide leadership and guidance to remove barriers to the high-quality care that they provide. Why should we be short-changed for all the hard work being rendered. Majority of the times, physicians do not like being bothered late night for orders. Allow the NPs to take over, they are truly capable to give precise orders. If more Practitioners are being utilized, the doctors will be able to assist with the care of more critical patients. Advanced practice RNs should be allowed to practice to the full extent of their education and training. Nurse Practitioners are not being able to be prescribed controlled substances without a DEA number. We as nurse practitioners are able to identify patients that can utilize controlled substance based on their diagnosis and symptoms. With most physicians having their own practices, it hard for patients to get the care they need when hospitalized or at home. Having a Nurse practitioner on site or on call will allow the doctors to safely care for the patients without being disturb. Nurse practitioners are able to properly assess patients and identify the appropriate medication that needs to be prescribed. NPs plays key roles in improving healthcare. They can operate healthcare clinics, doctors’ offices, etc. We are giving extensive training and education just like residents and able to ensure we safely practice nursing. We are not in competition with physicians, nevertheless, we as nurses spend more time with the patients and can identify the diagnosis without the physician’s input. Some patients prefer NPs over doctors because nurses are nurturers, we actual take the time to listen to patients concerns. The services that NPs provide; they should be given equal pay for equal services that the physicians deliver. State laws and licensure allows Nurse practitioners to evaluate, diagnosis, order medication and initiate and manage treatment. Even though each state has their own laws, we all take an oath to provide safe and effective care. It would be beneficial if NP’s and Physicians promote strong collaborative relationships within health care teams to achieve high-value patient care. With the use of electronic health records and direct billing for services provided by NPs, this will generate more data to evaluate the contributions NPs delivers to the patients, whereas they should be paid equally. The clinicians for policymakers will be able to see how much of asset nurse practitioners are. Significant progress has been made toward reducing scope-of-practice restrictions nationwide. As the health care environment continues to evolve and to demand more value-based care, the full contribution of APRNs and other health care providers is critical. As health care reform expands access to care, states with restrictive laws for NPs are limiting access and the potential for APRNs to contribute fully to health care and to the optimal functioning of the health care team. More states are allowing NPs full practice authority as primary care providers. Moving forward, more efforts are needed to work with a broader coalition of stakeholders and providers to converge around issues of scope-of-practice restrictions and advocate for legislation that supports full practice authority for APRNs. Reply 1 The increasing demand for healthcare services on all levels is placing great strain on healthcare systems throughout the world. Escalating demands combined with a shortage of General Practitioners (GPs) have forced politicians in many countries to reevaluate the distribution of work tasks and areas of responsibility between different healthcare personnel.1,2 Registered nurses’ (RN) roles and scope of practice have been expanded in many countries and the quality and cost-effectiveness of healthcare systems have improved.2,3 For example, a private nurse practitioner-run clinic opened in Brisbane, Australia4 in September 2011 with the aim to shorten patient waiting times for basic healthcare needs; in most parts of the world RNs now comprise the largest group of healthcare providers. Reply 2 For decades, evidence-based practice (EBP) has been an aspiration for health service providers. The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that healthcare provision should be based on the best available evidence. Healthcare professionals are expected to engage with evidence and practice in line with it. Professional regulatory bodies such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council include the expectation that nurses deliver EBP in all settings However, gaps still exist between research evidence, changes to practice and improved outcomes for patients Previous research, exploring nurses’ beliefs, skills and knowledge of EBP, has reported that nurses encounter various barriers to EBP implementation, resulting in a lack of engagement. Barriers frequently reported include lack of time, staff shortage, heavy patient caseload, family commitments, limited knowledge of EBP and negative beliefs toward it, and limited academic skills Tesla Case Study Introduction Tesla has stated that its mission is to accelerate the world to sustainable energy. The company started its innovation of the automobile industry as a niche differentiator, offering marketdisrupting products in the form of luxury electric vehicles. Model S and Model X are examples of products that have disrupted the automobile industry through their environmentally friendly differentiation. Elon Musk and the company have since transitioned from a niche differentiator to a broad differentiator business strategy through the implementation of lithium battery products and the acquisition of the company SolarCity. Tesla’s investments in automation and research were a liability in early 2015, however, they became an asset in 2018–2019 due to their long term sustainable competitive advantage in terms of product quality. Their product differentiation comes in the form of customizable cars, regular software updates, solar panels, supercharging compatibility, and self-driving features. Built-in relationships with material suppliers have scored Tesla lithium deposits, decreasing the material costs of their highly automated assembly lines. Sales are an innovative factor in Tesla’s marketing division, offering online customizable orders. Marketing is organic, as Elon Musk’s twitter accounts for the majority of their earned media, with zero paid advertising. Their HR department prioritized productivity, and hence Tesla has an intense work culture and high-level TQM metrics. Tesla’s broad differentiation strategy is a long term play, with a focus on electric automobile automation, battery technology, and environmentally friendly products such as solar roof tiles. Comparison and contrast between conventional automobile sector and electric-powered automobile industry The conventional automobile sector and the electric car industry are similar in that they produce cars that externally appear the same. Also, they manufacture vehicles that serve the same purpose of transporting people and goods. However, the manner in which they are powered and all processes associated with that are entirely different. One of the major differences between these two industries is that the conventional automobile industry is relatively newer compared to the electric vehicle sector. The internal-combustion-powered engine was innovated in 1876 by Nicolaus Otto, who patented the four-cycle engine. Ten years later, Benz started the first commercial manufacturer of cars that functioned using an internal combustion engine. On the other hand, surprisingly, the electric car sector is older than the conventional automobile industry. The first crude electric vehicle was developed in 1832, and commercialization started in the 1870s when electric cars became practical. Another difference is that the conventional automobile industry is immensely blamed for causing global warming. The burning of fuel used to power the vehicles emits a significant amount of carbon as a byproduct [ CITATION Sin20 \l 1033 ]. This not only harms the environment but is hazardous to humans as well. On the other hand, the electric vehicle industry is praised for its efforts to utilize renewable sources of energy that do not harm the environment. On the same note, electric cars do not cause noise pollution because they do not emit any sound when moving, which is not the case with internal combustion powered cars, another aspect that increases the popularity of the electric vehicle industry. In terms of production, Tesla manufactures all of its vehicles in Fremont, California. Most recently, they have built a sort of “tent” or factory within the Fremont headquarters in order to accommodate the production of 5,000 model 3 vehicles per week. Additionally, they produce their own key components of each car including the electric motor, the battery pack, and the charger. Aside from its Fremont headquarters, Tesla manufactures its lithium-ion batteries in a subassembly factory in Nevada. They also buy necessary manufacturing parts across the U.S., Europe, China, and varying locations. For instance, Tesla often purchases its lithium supply from China and Australia. Furthermore, lithium prices have been steadily increasing as electric vehicles become more popular. Tesla now has a slight competitive advantage over various companies due to their secured relationship with a Ganfeng lithium supplier. Tesla is guaranteed 20% of their needed supply of Lithium throughout 2020 and possibly for years to come. Within the Five Forces frameworks, their production tactic of supply guarantees reduces the leverage of suppliers in addition to automation and in-house parts. Tesla minimizes the leverage of buyers by offering customizable automobiles via their production techniques. Within the SWOT analysis, Tesla replaces its previous supply chain weakness/threat (capacity limits) with a strength (automation) and sustainable competitive advantage. Whether it a mistake for Tesla to open it patents On 12th June 2014, Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, announced that the company was opening its patents, including its competitors, also striving to develop efficient electric cars. Musk argued that the major purpose of Tesla was to spearhead innovation aimed at attaining sustainable transport. If the company would establish patents to inhibit others from contributing to this technology, then Tesla would be acting contrary to their mission. It was not a mistake for Tesla to open its patents. This move boosted Tesla’s brand image and its strategic position as an innovator within the electric-powered automobile sector by embracing an open-source approach to its major technology. However, it is essential to note that Tesla did not compromise its competitive advantage by opening its patents. A considerable portion of automobile industry experts asserts that Tesla released a smaller patent portfolio in comparison to other major auto companies such as Toyota. The patents were majorly about the cooling and temperature management of its electric batteries, their configuration, and the systems for their management and monitoring. Tesla’s patent portfolio offered vague information on their batteries' chemistry, especially concerning the chemistry or design of lithium-ion cells. Thus, it is correct to say that Tesla did not entirely hand over its competitive advantage to its rivals because the chemistry behind its batteries was the most valuable technology at the moment. Another reason why it was not a mistake to release its patents to the public is the fact that this would enable other firms to utilize this technology, an aspect that will contribute to more innovation. Apart from the world benefiting from this disruptive technology, Tesla would also benefit because other companies will build supportive infrastructure such as charging stations that support Tesla vehicles [ CITATION Abr14 \l 1033 ]. This can help Tesla cut down on setting up such infrastructure because it will share the expenses involved with other major players in the electric-powered automobile sector. On the same note, this will help Tesla to increase its car sales because potential clients who were hesitant to purchase the cars manufactured by the company due to a fear of inadequate infrastructure might be persuaded otherwise. Furthermore, the release of patents was beneficial to Tesla was the best engineers were ready to be part of Tesla’s workforce, attracted by the company’s spirit of innovation, openness, and commitment to a social mission. Thanks to releasing its patents, Tesla was able to recruit engineers with strong skills in power electronics, electrical engineering, and software engineering [ CITATION WUP14 \l 1033 ]. Consequently, Tesla was better positioned to develop more advanced technology, while its competitors were trying to adopt and implement its shared patents Tesla’s strategy and the role of innovation in this strategy Tesla embraces a policy of continuous innovation. Within the automotive industry, Tesla has fueled innovation, mobilized competitors, and popularized electric vehicles. Partnering with established rivals such as Mercedes-Benz and Toyota has also helped widen the market for electric-powered automobiles. Tesla acknowledges that due to climate change, the world is gradually shifting to the use of renewable energy. As a result, Tesla has made significant developments and investments in solar energy by producing solar-paneled roofs and Tesla Powerwall batteries. The company’s appreciation of the significance of renewables and the need to advance battery technology was further affirmed when Tesla acquired SolarCity in 2015 [ CITATION Web17 \l 1033 ]. Virtually in all its partnerships and projects, the company has persistently encouraged technological development that does not have a negative effect on the environment, as an aspect that significantly contributes to the positive image of Tesla. This is because, as people demand greener and more sustainable commodities, Tesla’s mission of aiming to attain sustainable transportation resonates with consumers. This helps the company to tap a broader market of potential clients without depending on intermediaries or dealers who might distort Tesla’s visionary message. Tesla’s strategy is also executed at the system level, where it ensures that every aspect is in place to enable its customers to use their products. Based on this strategy, Tesla knew that inadequate infrastructure, especially few charging ports, hindered potential clients from purchasing its electric cars. Asa a result, Tesla built and continues to put up a comprehensive charging network for its vehicles around the United States. Responding to this need early enough enabled Tesla to be the only company whose cars could drive for long miles due to the infrastructure in place for charging. This distinct competitive edge might erode soon due to other automakers in the electric car industry doing the same or using Tesla’s existing dealership networks to offer more efficient service. However, at the moment, Tesla has the advantage and aims to widen it by developing inter-functionality with emerging networks such as EVgo [ CITATION Fur20 \l 1033 ]. Although the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, is a very innovative individual alongside other top-level leaders, Tesla would not have been known as a very innovative company today if it were not for its employees. To gain a competitive edge over other established competitors, Tesla embraced a corporate structure that upholds agility instead of the traditional corporate hierarchy. As a result, everyone within Tesla is free to voice their concerns or creativity. Also, employees are allowed to access the top-level leadership, enabling an exchange of ideas that may benefit the company. Musk knows that innovation is dependent on free and effective communication; thus, rigid hierarchies can avert the optimal flow of information and hinder creativity as well as innovation [ CITATION Web17 \l 1033 ]. Sustainability of Tesla’s competitive advantage and recommended changes in Tesla’s strategy or its management systems. Even though at the moment, Tesla’s competitive advantage is sustainable, experts argue that it might diminish with time. For example, considering the aspect of batteries, Tesla has made a few improvements by building scale and eliminating avoidable costs but has overlooked critical R&D breakthroughs associated with core battery technology. While Tesla’s established competitors are scaling up their electric vehicle production, it is forecasted that they might alleviate the batter cost curve, offering Tesla stiffer competition. On the same note, in the connected automotive and self-driving platform, big Silicon Valley firms such as Alphabet are striving to establish themselves as leaders in those fields by producing self-driving systems that other car manufacturers, Tesla included, can purchase. If such platform concepts are specialized by other companies and deployed on a large scale, then Tesla’s early lead in the space will be compromised. Furthermore, tax credits within the U.S. that Tesla is enjoying at the moment are about to end. For instance, the Federal tax credit of $7,500 starts to phase out after each manufacturer, Tesla included, sells the first two hundred thousand electric cars [ CITATION Tre18 \l 1033 ]. Since Tesla is about to clock this figure, it will be a disadvantage since new entrants to the electric-powered automobile sector will still have access to these credits. Conclusion and Recommendation In conclusion, Tesla is an epitome of the significance of innovation in business thanks to having a CEO who is open to taking risks and making a significant impact in the world. Tesla has been able to advance from a niche car manufacturer to spearheading significant innovations in sustainable technology, energy storage, and renewables. Tesla has so far been able to progress tremendously thanks to forging profitable partnerships, developing popular products, and persistently pursuing-self disruption. However, it is clear that the real innovations courtesy of Tesla’s business model will not be sustainable in the future. Therefore, in the meantime, it is recommended that the company should continue to progress by leveraging its competitive advantage in the short term while also persistently inventing and adapting to the dynamic industry it deals in to thrive in the longer term Google Case Study Corporate strategy In a broader sense, strategy can be defined as the plan for deploying resources. In a business perspective, strategy can best be described as the focus on achieving specific goals, and which involves allocation of resources and implies consistency, cohesiveness of decision making and integration (Wiley 2019). Corporate strategy focuses on competition as the most fundamental characteristics of the business atmosphere, with performance maximization as the primary goal of the strategy. For a strategy to be conducive and successful, it must have consistent and longterm goals. The business must always have a profound knowledge of the competitive atmosphere. It must also have an objective appraisal of resources, and effective implementation. Google’s corporate strategy Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational corporation headquartered I Mountain View, California. Alphabet Inc was created after the corporate restructuring of Google, which was completed in on October 2nd, 2015. This action led to Alphabet being the parent company of Google, and other Google subsidiaries. Currently, Alphabet is run by the two cofounders of Google, with Larry Page as the CEO, and Sergey Brin as its president. It is the world’s fifth largest technology company. The main goal of establishing Alphabet was the motivation to make the core Google Internet services business more accountable while at the same time giving a greater autonomy to its group of companies that operate in other businesses. Although Google’s initial business strategy focused on the search engine business, its success has surpassed this business niche. The company’s success stems from its business growth, which has been synonymous with the introduction of new products such as online productivity software, cloud computing services, online advertising technologies, social networking services and the likes. The company’s product and service offing also stretch across the provision of desktop services (such as web browsing, photo editing, and instant messaging) and the development of the popular Android operating system (Duthel 204). The provision of the browser-only Google chrome is also a key product that characterizes Google’s success. Recently, Google made a spirited attempt to venture into the production of communication hardware. This venture informs the company’s partnership with hardware production companies that have developed some of its latest brands such as its high-end nexus devices. Similarly, its 2012 strategic move to acquire Motorola forms part of the company’s strategy. Google’s scope in the technology market is massive. Duthel (20) estimates that the company runs thousands of data centers globally. Similarly, the company’s search engine capability is impressive as it processes about one billion search engine requests daily (Katz 3). From its expansive scope, observers are not shy to say Google is among the most visited websites globally (Katz 3). Similar Google websites that run in non-English languages also feature among the most highly visited websites. Lastly, other Google-owned websites, such as YouTube and blogger rank as the most visited websites in the world. A brief history of the corporate In 2015, Google Inc. formulated plans to create Alphabet Inc as a new public holding company. The idea was to narrow Google’s scope by restructuring that involved moving subsidiaries from Google to Alphabet. The result was a company that would consist of Google and other businesses. Such businesses under Alphabet include CapitalG, DeepMind, Calico, Fiber, Chronicle, GV, Makani, Jigsaw, Verily, Loon, Wing, Sidewalk Labs, Looker, X, and Waymo. To achieve this goal, Google Inc. was first structured as the original owner of Alphabet. thus, to reverse the roles, a fake subsidiary was first created for the ownership of Alphabet, a subsidiary which would later merge with Google (Wiley 2019). The result was Google’s stock being converted into Alphabet’s stock. These moves were deemed lawful, given that under Delaware law, a reorganization of a holding company such as the case study can be achieved without a vote of shareholders. Currently, Alphabet retains Google Inc.’s stock history, and still trades under Google Inc.’s ticker symbols. Google’s strategy Google’s main strategy was to go the opposite of what other major corporations were doing, which was brand consolidation. Instead, Google created a pure house of brands with Alphabet Inc. acting as the silent holding company. The main advantage of such a strategy is that a house of brands structure allows a corporate brand to be essentially invisible to the external domains, becoming only relevant to senior employees and investors. This move is of a sound strategic sense in several ways. When a firm starts a business, the strategy of single brand has far more advantages than its cons. First, there is a single marketing budget, one employer brand, one organizational culture, and a single senior leadership. But as a company grows so does the complexity of running the corporation and the ever-increasing scale of the corporation Chen (Chen 2017). This is the case with Google. Its growth has diversified the size and scope of its mission, thus demanding enough and structured approach. Another added advantage that Google’s house of brands brings is added complexity of mergers and acquisitions. Over the years Google has bought big brands such as DoubleClick and YouTube among others. The new architecture creates a more suitable structure for buying and selling companies, as it allows the company to buy and sell brands without allowing the parent brand to shadow the client perception of the newly acquired company (Varada 2010). The newly acquired entity also does not have to suffer the stress of integration into a branded house. A house of brands also accelerates and encourages innovation, a vital factor for the success of the company. With one dominant brand, the company risks stifling different corporate plans and organizational sub-cultures (Chen 2017). The creation of Alphabet therefore allows Google to operate in its usual domain and way, while other brands that thrive on innovation like Nest are allowed the freedom to do their own thing. Because a house of brands promotes independence, it provides another advantage of risk reduction. Alphabet is now at a much lesser risk of impropriety and scandals. Over the years, Google has endured negative brand association, including international secrets, and tax evasion schemes. by creating Alphabet Inc., the company separates corporate risk from brand equity, a move that greatly reduces any potential effect of corporate misdeeds on its consumer brands. The last advantage is succession planning. By moving to the holding company, the two cofounders can enjoy the full control of the company without much responsibility. The move sets a chain reaction which creates a set of CEOs working under them, from which they can select replacements. From the above corporate strategy, it is evident that Google has a clear vision of what it entails to be. As technology advances and changes keep coming, Google has evolved from planning to making opportunities for the future, while fostering strategic innovation and expanding its market place (Wiley 2019). To do so Google has adopted the house of brands model to separate corporate risk from brand equity. Alphabet also allows Google to operate as a separate entity while allowing other acquired brands to chat their own path. Porter’s five forces of competition framework Using Porter’s Essential Test, we can analyze the impact of Google’s corporate strategy on competition and industry profitability. i. Bargaining power of suppliers The bargaining power of Google’s suppliers is at its minimal. This is not only enjoyed by Google but with other companies in this industry, as traditionally, the industries’ suppliers have had low bargaining power (Chen 2017). Mainly a software and online services company, many of the services are built inhouse using Google’s advanced technologies giving suppliers limited role in the company. Google does not have to spend vast amount of resources sourcing raw materials. ii. Bargaining power of buyers There are billions of people using Google’s product and services such as Google search, Chrome, and Gmail, which boast of the largest market share in the world. The company is also the dominant force in digital advertising. For this reason, the bargaining power of individual buyers becomes very low (Wiley 2019). Another reason for low bargaining power of individual buyers is because Google’s products are highly differentiated, making their substitutes very limited. This gives the company the bargaining power of buyers. iii. Threat from substitute products Google faces low threat from substitute products. First, there are very limited companies offering similar products and services as Google. Second, its products have a better quality as compared to its rivals. Also, the company is a highly innovative brand, making its products not only better in quality, but also more suitable in terms usage. Google’s main threats come from Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon, the four big technology brands (Chen 2017). While Microsoft is considered the leading competitor in search, Google still holds the vast share of the market share. It also holds the vast share in the digital advertising market, even though it faces stiff competition from Facebook. Google faces the greatest threat in the cloud industry. Here, the main dominant forces are AWS and Azure which offer a wide range of alternative products, and currently have a larger market share than Google. Google therefore needs to diversify more in this area. iv. Threat from new entrants Google faces very low threats from new entrants. It’s simply impossible for a new player in the industry to gain a market share. Google only faces competition from other leading players such as Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook. Any new player will have to risk a large capital investment, and will have to endure a lot of frustration because of the intensity of gaining a significant share. Human resource also plays a bigger role in market competition. Big companies such as Google are quite aggressive about protecting their market dominance and leadership positions (Wiley 2019). They therefore support legislations that make it impossible for new players to gain meaningful market share in their fields. v. Level of competitive rivalry in the industry Google faces a strong level of competitive rivalry in the sector it operates. Even though the number of leading players competing directly with Google is low, the fact that they are mainly the largest players in the industry, makes for a fierce battle for market share, a battle that grows daily (Wiley 2019). Currently, Amazon is the leading spender on research and innovation in the entire industry, with other companies also investing aggressively in research and development. For Google to be able to maintain its market share it will have to also invest in research and development. Google also faces a fierce battle in the cloud industry, an area where Microsoft, and Amazon are the leading players. Google’s bargaining power As already demonstrated by Porter’s essential test, Google enjoys a higher bargaining power in the technological industry. Although Google faces stiff competition from other big tech companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook, the company has perfected the art of niche market. In the search sector, Google still has the largest share of the market. It also enjoys massive share in digital marketing platform (Varada 2010). The only sector that it faces a stiff challenge is in cloud industry. From this analysis, Google still enjoys a lot of bargaining power in the technological sectors it specializes in. Google’s rivalry Although Google Inc. enjoys a lot of monopoly in different sectors of the tech industry, it still faces major competition, especially from big tech conglomerates. In search, Google faces competition from Microsoft, which has enjoyed a steady rise in the search sector. In digital advertisement, Google faces competition from Facebook, one of the big Tech firms. In the Cloud technology, Google is lagging in the market share, which is widely enjoyed by Amazon. As is evident, all of Google’s competitors are in the top five corporations in the world (Wiley 2017). The implication is that Google must come up with a better strategy to outwit the corporations, whom like Google have the financial resources to invest in new innovations, new technologies, development, and buy other startups, which may considerably harm Google’s share of the market. Under the house of brand strategy, Google has been able to invest in other subsidiaries that, although no longer operating under Google, do offer considerable competition to the rivals, such as Twitter, which is a big competitor of Facebook. With Googles new corporate strategy, the company do not need to refocus. With the creation of Alphabet Inc., the company can acquire other subsidiaries while at the same time giving Google the opportunity to operate with much flexibility. Google no longer must deal with risks associated with the umbrella company as before when it had issues associated with impropriety and scandals. Other subsidiaries therefore operate independently of Google, allowing them to thrive in their various fields such as Fiber, Calico, and Nest. The independence of such companies gives them the autonomy to diversify and innovate without affecting Google’s corporate strategy. Such a strategy allows Alphabet to continue growing. On the other hand, Google need s to look at its subsidiaries that are not doing well and does not project any growth in the foreseeable future, such as Wing. Reselling such subsidiaries allows Google to consolidate its profitable companies thereby maintaining a steady rise in the tech world. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment