Students Report

Mini Case Study: Wheels of Fortune – Maclaren takes off

The “Wheels of Fortune” case study and two-part examination question required candidates to firstly analyse the factors that led to Maclaren’s failure in 2001 and identify and discuss the reasons why the company is now successful (75%), and in the second part of the question to discuss what current vulnerabilities and threats may inhibit Maclaren’s future success (25%). Time management did not appear to be a major issue with very few not answering both questions, most candidates using analytical frameworks and sufficient exam preparation judging by the amount of prepared material. However, what was noticeable for such a straightforward case was the lack of discussion of significant issues or their implications following the analytical frameworks. This lack of developing the answer often gave the impression of pre-prepared work being copied into the answer book as if presenting a model was sufficient without drawing out and developing the issues the framework generates or attempting to orient it to the requirements of the question. Weaker candidates failed to genuinely analyse and evaluate and instead simply described and also struggled to create a structured answer.

a) Question (i) Analyse the factors that led to Maclaren’s failure in 2001?

(ii) Identify and discuss the reasons why the company is not

apparently successful (75%)

Responses to a (i) were generally the best answered. The better answers looked at how the company failed to respond to the external changes using material from the case. Most answers were structured around PESTEL factors and 5 forces issues e.g. new entrants, consolidation of buyer power and competitive rivalry with better answers including lifecycle issues for an integrated answer. Better answers discussed a lack of strategic position with summary issues in OT and SW for those that looked at internal issues. Regarding internal issues, the 7s framework was a popular choice with some using value chain analysis. a) ii was not typically answered as well, with the best answers making the linkage with the previous answer. Better answers used material from the case and discussed positioning through generic strategies, strengths relating to management, linkages between marketing and skills through the use of the value chain and value system issues.

(b) What current vulnerabilities and threats may inhibit Maclaren’s future

success (25%)?

This question was problematic for most students with a typical general listing of factors with little discussion. Better answers summarized ‘T’ issues stemming from previous PESTEL factors and 5 forces issues such as increasing competitive rivalry, or issues concerning the replicability of design and skill competences and management issues from value chain or 7s analysis.