Core Insights - The article emphasizes the importance of a strategic approach to operations rather than merely executing tasks without a clear understanding of goals [4][34] - It highlights that many companies fail to recognize the systematic nature of operations, treating it as a cost center instead of a growth engine [24][25] Group 1: Strategic Framework - Operations should be viewed as a multi-layered system, starting from strategy at the top, followed by tactics, systems, methodologies, and finally, specific tools and methods [6][11] - Companies often overlook the higher layers of this framework, focusing only on execution, which leads to ineffective results despite significant spending [13][15] Group 2: Operational Goals - The article stresses that the purpose of using tools like video platforms should align with specific business objectives, such as brand awareness or customer acquisition [17][22] - It mentions that by 2025, the e-commerce conversion rate for video platforms is projected to be around 2.5%, indicating the need for strategic optimization [22] Group 3: Case Studies and Examples - The case of GamebeeStudio illustrates how a company transformed its operations from a cost center to a growth engine by implementing a data-driven approach and improving channel efficiency, resulting in a 30% increase in conversion and a 25% rise in ROI [25][29] - Another example involves a community supermarket that adjusted its product offerings based on operational analysis, leading to a 30% increase in monthly sales [31] Group 4: Future Directions - The article concludes that companies must clarify their strategic goals before adopting new tools or methods, as blindly following trends can lead to failure [34][36] - It encourages businesses to shift from tool dependency to strategic-driven operations, emphasizing the need for a thoughtful approach to operational management [36][38]

Core Viewpoint - Despite the high vacancy rates in cities, developers continue to acquire land and build, driven by the need to support local economies, meet growing housing demands, and ensure their own survival in the market [1][3][5][7]. Group 1: Economic Impact - The real estate industry is deeply embedded in the local economy, and any slowdown in land acquisition and construction by developers could significantly impact local economic development and related industries, which provide numerous job opportunities [3]. - Developers must maintain a certain pace of land acquisition and construction to ensure economic and employment stability in the regions they operate [3]. Group 2: Housing Demand - There is a growing demand for improved housing, particularly from young couples who initially purchase smaller homes but later seek larger, more comfortable living spaces as their financial situation improves [5]. - Urbanization is driving significant housing demand as many rural residents move to cities, further increasing the need for new housing developments [5]. Group 3: Market Dynamics - The perception of oversupply in the housing market is misleading; the issue lies in a small number of individuals hoarding properties without renting or selling them, which wastes resources and creates challenges for genuine homebuyers [7]. - Developers continue to acquire land and build to address the needs of first-time homebuyers, despite the high number of vacant properties [7]. - The high vacancy rates in the housing market are concerning, with first-tier cities at approximately 20-25%, second-tier cities at around 25%, and third and fourth-tier cities exceeding 30% [7].

Core Points - The recent trade agreement between the US and Japan has significant interpretative discrepancies, particularly regarding the nature of a $550 billion investment plan and profit distribution [1][2] - The US claims that Japan's investment is a "signing bonus" for reducing tariffs from 25% to 15%, while Japan insists that risk and contributions must be shared [1][3] - The agreement was hastily reached during a 70-minute meeting between Japanese chief negotiator Ryosei Akazawa and President Trump, following a significant electoral loss for Japan's ruling party [2] Investment Structure Discrepancies - US Commerce Secretary Ross described the agreement as project financing, with 90% of profits going to US taxpayers and 10% to Japan, suggesting a clear financial benefit for the US [3] - Conversely, Japan's explanation indicates that part of the $550 billion investment may involve US government-owned assets, with funding supported by both countries and leased to the private sector [3] - There are ongoing discussions about the details of the plan, indicating unresolved differences between the two parties [3] Concessions and Actual Benefits - Japan made substantial concessions, such as allowing the import of US cars without additional safety tests and reforming subsidies favoring hydrogen fuel cell vehicles over electric cars [4] - Although Japan agreed to purchase more US rice, the import quota of 770,000 tons remains unchanged [4] - Analysts suggest that the agreement lacks inspiring elements, with uncertain commitments regarding the actual level of Japanese investment [4] - Overall, Japan appears to have secured a favorable deal at a minimal cost, setting a precedent for other major exporting countries [4]