Micro world finalreport
-
Upload
roberto-zazueta -
Category
Education
-
view
935 -
download
1
Transcript of Micro world finalreport
MicroWorld This is a report done be the Executive Committee to evaluate the different aspects of MicroWorld to determine the overall performance; mainly being that of the executive committee, financial, and market. We will then report our results, and show our plans that will help guide MicrosWorld´s future.
08 Otoño
Final Report
W e b M a r k e t p l a c e B u s i n e s s S i m u l a t o r
MicroWorld Business Summary
Executive Committee
Isaac Rodriguez – President and VP of Accounting and Finance
Alma Espinoza – VP of Sales Management
Nikita Schupbach – VP of Marketing
Andrea Viridiana Perez Gonzalez – VP of Marketing Research
Edgar Pantoja – VP of Human Resources
Roberto Herrera – VP of Manufacturing
Mission Statement
Our mission is to produce state of the art products with the highest
technology to achieve complete customer satisfaction.
Vision
To become the world technology leader while providing the most reliable
products on the market and providing the best world-class service.
Overall Decision Making Politics
All important macro decisions pertaining to MicroWorld are made in
consensus by the entire directive team. Such decisions are made in
collaborative decision-making sessions where all members of the
Executive Committee jointly vote on overall directions of the company.
Each member brings a certain expertise to his or her decision-making
area, however we believe that mutual decision-making helps stream
operations and assure that the optimum choice is being made.
EVALUATION OF TEAM PERFORMANCE
Isaac Rodriguez
Roles Played:
Contributions Made:
Adjustments needed:
Alma Espinoza
Roles Played:
Contributions Made:
Adjustments needed:
Nikita Schupbach
Roles Played: VP of Marketing; alongside with the VP of Marketing Research,
executed the MicroWorld marketing campaign.
Contributions Made: Helped alongside with the other departments, design
brands, price them, and develop a marketing campaign for them. In the end the
contribution was significant due to the fact that MicroWorld outperformed
TecnoZone in terms of market performance, where we scored .69, which was .11
higher than TecnoZone.
In addition, attended all Executive Committee meetings, and did all necessary
work to maintain the integrity of MicroWorld.
Adjustments needed: Market Effectiveness was lower than the competitors. This
may be due to Ad-Copy judgments, which were significantly low. An
adjustment in advertising and its concept is needed.
Andrea Viridiana Perez Gonzalez
Roles Played:
Contributions Made:
Adjustments needed:
Edgar Pantoja
Roles Played:
Contributions Made:
Adjustments needed:
Roberto Herrera
Roles Played:VP of Manufacturing, alongside with the VP of Sales
Management, executed the whole process of manufacturing thru quarters.
Contributions Made: Helped alongside with the other departments, decide how
and when to produce, target and replenishment point, production rules, the
operating capacity, quality improvement, what to do with unwanted inventory.
My main contribution was to improve the production process and lower the
stock out rates, and being always trying to satisfy the demand of our products.
Adjustments needed: Mainly on the operation capacity, so we can satisfy the
demand and reduce stock outs.
EVALUATION OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION OF MARKET PERFORMANCE
I. Customer Opinion
Brand Deigns
During the course of eight quarters, MicroWorld has launched eight different
products. Four of those were discontinued due to poor market performance and
acceptance; two others were upgraded due to excellent market performance.
Our first brand that was unable to achieve an acceptable customer opinion was
our brand Da Vinci. Da Vinci was originally designed for our Innovator market,
but was unable to achieve a brand judgment score of more than 70. After the 4th
quarter we could not continue with a brand that did not attain the excellence our
company wished to portray.
Da Vinci than became Da Vinci Pro during the fifth quarter. We were able to
make some improvements to the product itself, but we were still unable to reach
at least a score of 70. With another failure, we decided it was best to design a
new product that would better fit our Innovator market.
MicroSeries+ was our answer to our Innovator market problem. We gave them
more for the same price. Unfortunately, MicroSeries+ performed worse than Da
Vinci Pro with a score of 44.
We attempted to resolve the MicroSeries+ problem by upgrading it to
MicroSeries++; again giving more for less. Even with that, our brand judgment
score continued to drop, that to of 38. Curiously enough, it was performing
better in the Traveler market, with a low score of 55.
At the same time MicroSeries++ was being introduced, we also introduced our
new brand XSeries, which was initially designed for the Mercedes market.
XSeries was a success and failure at the same time. We failed to achieve an
acceptable performance with the Mercedes market (score of 68), but curiously
enough we managed to receive a score of 85 with the Innovator market. We had
accidently stumbled upon the correct product for the Innovator market.
As a result we had to discontinue MicroSeries++, and replace it with the new
and imporvedXSeries+, redirected to the Innovator market instead of the
Mercedes market. As seen in figure 1 below, we managed to receive a score of
88. However in the last quarter we made some improvements to the XSeries+
brand, and we were able to achieve goo market performance in the Innovator,
Mercedes, and Work Horse markets. XSeries+ turned out to be our most well
received product
Station Travel, was our longest standing brand; from the very first quarter
Station Travel achieved a good Brand Judgment score. We ran with the same
product until the very last quarter. Even during the last quarter, as seen in Figure
1, it continued to score well, with a score of 71.
During the very last quarter we also made some improvements to the Station
Travel brand, and launched Station Travel+, which proved to be even more
widely accepted by our customers, scoring a Brand Judgment of 76.
Brand Cost Cutter
Innovator Mercedes Work Horse
Traveler
Station Travel+
32 7 1 26 76
Station Travel
43 4 1 25 71
XSeries+ 19 88 71 72 22 Figure 1: Brand Judgment
*Note: All brands received the same score in Europe and the United States. The
last quarter where we entered the Canadian market has no purchased
information.
Prices
During the last quarter, we were left with only three existing brands: Station
Travel, Station Travel+, and XSeries+.
During the last quarter, we finally changed the price of our brand Station Travel
from $3,800 to $3,400; we decided to give our customer significant savings for
those who continued to show their loyalty to our old brand. Station Travel
received a score of 100 in its assigned market.
Station Travel+ was competitively priced at the same price as the previous price
of the Station Travel. This made our upgrade very affordable, the Traveler
market giving a score of 95, as seen below in Figure 2.
Due to the fact that XSeries+ received an upgrade during the last quarter, we
raised the price even more. It was outrageously priced to attract the Mercedes
market, and to cover costs. As a last quarter strategy we raised the price, making
it barely affordable by the Innovator market. The Mercedes market, however,
showed no concern due to the pricing strategy.
On top of everything, Microworld finished the eighth quarter with a reliability
score of 71, outperforming TecnoZone by one point.
Brand Cost Cutter
Innovator Mercedes Work Horse
Traveler
Station Travel+
58 100 100 84 95
Station Travel
65 100 100 94 100
XSeries+ 42 73 96 62 69 Figure 2: Price Judgment
Note* Table 2 shows United States statistics, however, Europe differs only by 1-
2 points in each category, which is not significant.
Advertising
During the eighth quarter, we had more ad-campaigns than in any other previous
quarter (6 different campaigns). During each quarter we had to change our ad-
campaigns, because they received very low scores. Even by our eighth quarter
we were unable to improve our Ad-Copy Judgment in any kind of significant
way. In spite of our low scores, we still created a high demand for our products.
II. Market Demand
By Company
At the moment, there are only two known companies: MicroWorld and
TecnoZone. Both companies participate in different markets. TecnoZone tends
to focus on the Cost Cutter and Work Horse markets, whereas, MicroWorld
tends to focus on the Innovators and Mercedes markets.
The only market where the two companies are in real competition, is the
Traveler market. As seen below in Figure 3, TecnoZone has the majority of this
market, with a total demand of 2,285, and MicroWorld with a total demand of
1,423.
As seen below, TecnoZone has a higher total demand than Microworld, with
total demands of 6,687 and 5,032 respectively.
Figure 3: Market Demand by Company
By Brand
By the eighth quarter we were operating in the United States, Europe, and
Canada. United States is where we consistently sell more, then Europe, and
finally Canada.
Our brand Station Travel outperformed Station Travel+ by a small amount, even
though Station Travel+ is the new and improved brand. Our brand XSeries+
made huge strides outselling any of our previous brands in previous quarters.
XSeries+ is by far the most demanded product made by MicroWorld
Figure 4: Market Demand by Product
MicroWorld
TecnoZone
United States
Europe
Canada
Total
Per Sales Person
MicroWorld has two different channels to sell their products: Sales Office
Channel and Web Channel. As seen below in Figure 5 our Sales Offices out-sale
our Web Chanel by almost 50%.
However, our two Web Offices only employ 8 people, giving average sales per
person of 216. Our Sales Office employs 48 people on its staff, giving average
sales per person of 67. Although the Sales Offices outperform our Web Offices
in terms of total sales, this analysis shows that our Web Offices are more
productive.
Figure 5: Sales by Channel
III. Competitors Tactics
Segments Targeted
As seen before in Figure 3, most of TecnoZone´s demand comes from their
Cost-Cutter market. They have obviously chosen to put most of their attention
into maintaining that particular market.
Their secondary market is the Traveler market, where they compete heavily with
MicroWorld. Here they have created a larger demand for their, whether it is
financially viable or not.
There last market, where they make any significant sales, is in the Work Horse
market. This is probably not a focus for them, but runoff from the Cost-Cutters
market.
Marketing Tactics
Web Office
Sales Office
During the first 7 quarters, TecnoZone had very few regional and local inserts.
By the eighth quarter, they had put more regional inserts than Microworld, but a
few less local inserts.
TecnoZone had 484 regional inserts, and 91 local inserts for three different
products. Their market performance and effectiveness was at .58 and .63
respectively. Their performance was lower than MicroWorld, but their
effectiveness was higher.
OPERATIONS REPORT FOR THE BOARD
I. Market and Financial Performance
Market performance: The next table represents the market share of the 2 existing
companies, TecnoZone and Microworld.
Company Cost Cutter
Innovator Mercedes Work Horse
Traveler Total Market Share
TecnoZone 99.7% 3.2% 0.1% 82.8% 61.6% 57% Microworld 0.2% 96.7% 99.8% 17.1% 38.3% 42.9%
Figure 6: Market Share
As we can see on the table, markets as CostCutter, Innovators, Mercedes and Work
Horse had a few competition level, CostCutter and Work Horse was attacked by
TecnoZone, meanwhile Innovators and Mercedes by our company Microworld. The big
competence was on Traveler segment, witch TecnoZone had the majority % of sales,
with 61.6% and our company 38.3%. The big difference is that our company focused in
the top 2 expensivemarkets, witch means large profits.
For the total Market Share, TecnoZone had the majority part, with 57%, and
Microworld (us) 42.9%, but as I mentioned above, we took the top 2 expensive markets.
We can say that our performance on the market was great, because we focused on
Innovators and Mercedes markets and we gain almost a 100% of that market.
II. Valuation of Firm
Figure 7: Cumulative Balance Scorecard
Cumulative Results for last four quarters ending in quarter 8
Minimum Maximum Average Microworld
Total Overall 8.66 21.89 15.28 21.99
Financial
Performance
23.98 24.26 24.12 24.25
Market Performance 0.58 0.69 0.63 0.58
Marketing
Effectiveness
0.63 0.66 0.66 0.63
Investment in future 2.27 4.35 3.31 4.35
Wealth 0.89 1.00 0.95 0.89
Human Resources 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Asset Management 1.05 2.58 1.82 2.58
Manufacturing
Productivity
0.35 0.41 0.38 0.35
Financial Risk 0.84 0.96 0.90 0.84
Financial Performance: Measures how well the executive team has been able to create
profits for its shareholders.A positive number is always desired and the larger the better.
As we can see, our financial performance is a good one; our lowest score was 23.98 and
the top 24.26.
This result means that 24.26isthe net profit from current operations per share of stock.
Market Performance: Is a measure of how well the managers are able to create
demand in their primary and secondary segments, if there are 3 firms, a good score
would be greater than 0.5. If there are 8 teams, a good score would be greater than 0.35.
In this point, we think that our market performance was just great, because we had 0.58
witch is better than the good score (0.5), this means that we were able to create enough
demand for our products in the primary and secondary segments of the market we
choose.
Marketing Effectiveness: Is a measure of how well the managers have been able to
satisfy the needs of the customers as measured by the quality of their brands and ads.
Customer perceptions of the firm’s brands and ads in its primary and secondary
segments are used to measure customer satisfaction. The two scores are then averaged
to obtain the indicator for marketing effectiveness. The score ranges from 0 to 1.0. A
good score would be greater than 0.8.
The marketing effectiveness that we scored is 0.63, witch means is not the best but is
not bad also, because the range is from 0 to 1.0 and we obtained 0.63, this means that
we weren’t able to satisfy the needs of our customers as far as quality of the brands and
ads, we satisfy the 63% of our customers needs. We just failed by 17% to achieve a
good score, we think that this happened to us because we also sold products on other
segments, like Work Horse and CostCutter, but their needs are totally different to our
product features.
Investments in the Firm's Future: Reflect the willingness of the executive team to
spend current revenues on future business opportunities. They are necessary but risky.
The score is always greater or equal to 1.0 and a good score would be greater than 3.0.
As we can see on the table, we had an excellent score, we reached the 4.35 and our
average was 3.31 witch is a good score, this means that our firm is willing to spend on
future business opportunities. This means that our firm is always trying to innovate and
create new products for the costumers.
Creation of Wealth: Is a measure of how well the executive team has been able to add
wealth to the initial investments of the stockholders.A value greater than zero and less
than one indicates the executive team is relying upon the initial stockholder's
investments to pay day-to-day expenses plus invest in the future. A value greater than
one indicates the firm is adding wealth to the stockholders.
On this point, we have a good score also, because 0.89 means that we are almost adding
wealth to stockholders, and we actually are paying our expenses and investing for
future, so in a few time we will be able to generate wealth.
Human Resource Management: Is a measure of how well the executive team is able
to recruit the best employees, satisfy their needs and motivate them to excel. Sales force
productivity and factory worker productivity are averaged together to obtain a single
score.The scores range from zero to 1.00 and a good score would be greater than 0.80.
On the Human Resource Management we achieve a score of 0.84, we are above the
good score witch is 0.80, this means that our enterprise has good employees, and we
actually take care of them by satisfying their needs and motivating them to achieve
more for the company.
Asset Management: Is a measure of the executive team’s ability to use the firm’s
assets to create sales revenue.Thus, a very good score would be 3.0
Our company score on this point is 2.58, we are below the good score but this doesn’t
mean is bad, because we actually achieve good profits meaning good sales, so maybe
we didn’t managed our assets on the best way we could but we did an excellent work on
other parts to create enough sales to achieve profits.
Manufacturing Productivity: Measures the executive team’s ability to efficiently
create reliable products. Reliable products are a high priority of all customers and thus it
is the first measure of manufacturing productivity.The score ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. A
very good score would be 0.80.
In this part, we achieved a 0.35 score, we had troubles on this part because we had to
change our product a few times and also had some stock outs because we didn’t
improve our operating capacity at time, but we had good results at the end, we increased
our production and achieved good results such as sales and profits.
Financial Risk: Measures the executive team's ability to manage debt as a financial
resource. The financial risk indicator is based upon the degree to which debt is part of
the capital of the firm. As debt increases relative to the total capital, then the financial
risk associated with the company increases. Conversely, as the proportion of equity in
the total capital increases, then the perceived financial risk in the firm decreases.A value
of 1.00 would indicate there is no debt and, therefore, no perceived financial risk.
On financial risk we scored 0.84, and our average was of 0.91, a great result, because
we are just below 1 by 0.16, meaning that our company has a low debt meaning a low
financial risk. A low financial risk in a company is a great indicator because means that
the company is doing great with its own resources.
As a conclusion our company did great during the quarters, we achieve good scores in
almost every aspect, and in those witch we didn’t achieve a good score weren’t so bad,
they never reached bad values. We can say that our firm is stable and valuable, because
it was able to earn good profits and show nice results.
III. Departures From Plan; Justification
PRESENT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE