Scribd
Upload
507 views11 pages

Andrews Analysis

The Andrews team adopted a cost leader strategy focused on the high tech and low tech segments. They aimed to gain a competitive advantage through low R&D, production, and material costs to compete on price. While they intended to introduce new high tech products every few years and retire low tech ones, they actually only developed 3 products and kept producing their Able and Adam models. A SWOT analysis found their high contribution margins and automation were strengths, but performance and size were below average weaknesses. Their strategies evolved over 8 rounds from focusing initially on their Able low tech model to phasing it out and increasing marketing for Adam and their Apple high tech product.

Uploaded by

api-334753705
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
507 views11 pages

Andrews Analysis

The Andrews team adopted a cost leader strategy focused on the high tech and low tech segments. They aimed to gain a competitive advantage through low R&D, production, and material costs to compete on price. While they intended to introduce new high tech products every few years and retire low tech ones, they actually only developed 3 products and kept producing their Able and Adam models. A SWOT analysis found their high contribution margins and automation were strengths, but performance and size were below average weaknesses. Their strategies evolved over 8 rounds from focusing initially on their Able low tech model to phasing it out and increasing marketing for Adam and their Apple high tech product.

Uploaded by

api-334753705
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 11

Andrews Analysis

Hyung Kyu An
Sachin Patel
Maribel Velazquez
Ashley Wade

Executive Summary
The Andrews team will adopt a Cost Leader with a Product Lifecycle Focus strategy,
concentrating on the High Tech and Low Tech segments. We will gain a competitive
advantage by keeping R&D costs, production costs, and raw material costs to a
minimum, enabling us to compete on the basis of price.

Vision Statement:
Reliable products for mainstream customers: Andrews brands offer value. Our
primary stakeholders are bondholders, stockholders, customers, and management.

Intended vs. Actual Strategy


Our Plan

Introduce High Tech product


every few years
Retire Low Tech products as
they fall out of the circle
Focus on Awareness and
Accessibility
Offer competitive prices
Analyze competitor strategies

What Actually Happened

Only developed 3 products


Kept producing Able and Adam
Products were priced higher
than some competitors
Focus on TQM and automation
Forecasted lower expected
sales
Analyzed our decisions and
results from previous rounds

SWOT Analysis
Strengths

Contribution margin and


automation levels were
very high
Cost awareness and cost
accessibility maintained
at 100%

Opportunities

Threats

Weaknesses

Performance and size


were lower than industry
averages
Sales budgets were high
for the amount of
products sold

Start producing products


earlier based on what
other companies were
producing
Increase automation in
order to increase
contribution margins

Lots of competitors in the


same market with very
similar products
Competitors have more
recognition for their
products

Strategies Throughout the Game


Round 1:

Able- Low Tech


Didnt produce
enough

Round 4:

Able- Low tech


Adam- Low Tech,
Apple- High Tech
Invested in TQM
Increased promo and
sales budget
Invested in recruitment
and training
Started transitioning
from Able to Adam

Round 8:

Able - Low Tech


Adam - Low Tech
Apple - High Tech
Continued investing
in TQM
Paid dividends
Increased promo and
sales budget for Adam
and Apple

Market Analysis and Competition


Baldwin - Cost Leader with Product Life-Cycle Focus
Chester - Overall Cost Leader
Digby - Differentiator with Product Life-Cycle Focus

Multiple products, low automation investment, continued repositioning of product

Erie - Differentiator with Product Life-Cycle Focus

High sales/promotion budget, constant repositioning, unusual high automation

Ferris - Differentiator with High-Tech Focus

High promotion and sales, little investment in production capacity, high R&D
expenditure

Market Share Growth

Round 1

Round 5

Round 8

Our Strategic Decisions

Began to phase out Able by not investing in R&D and selling capacity, but it
remained our top seller
Focused on what was successful for our team in the past, not competitors
Invested in automation for Low Tech products each round
Spent more on marketing than most of our competitors
Waited until Round 5 to pay any dividends
Invested the maximum amount for TQM each round

Stock Market Summary

Our Experience

After Round 1 we realized the importance of Production vs. Capacity


Early revision dates did not matter much as long as we met customer buying
criteria
Forecasting based off of our previous sales was key for every other decision
Financing through long-term debt helped with making investments
Taking more risks improved our performance

CAPSIM Evaluation

Game was difficult to adjust in the beginning but got easier to play each
round after practice simulation
Learning about different attributes was a good experience and knowledge
that can be used in the business world
No changes necessary with the CAPSIM

You might also like