Sabre Strategy Paper

Our competitive intelligence reports indicate that during Year 6 our company was offering the highest quality AC Cameras as well as UAV Drones, however our products were also the highest priced across the market. These reports also show that during the first year only one of our competitors (Group G) invested a great deal into sales promotions and advertising for the AC Camera segment. In retrospect this could very likely be one of the reasons why or how our competitors gained so much of the market share so quickly. As for the UAV Drone segment, all of the team's invested approximately around the same amount in search engine advertising and retailer discounts.

We evaluated our company’s position in the industry, and found ourselves in an excellent starting position to further develop our products and match them to the industry’s needs. Our market share is adequate and we can advance further with our strategy improve and reposition our products in the coming years. We have underutilized capacity, which we intend to improve, while increasing automation to reduce costs. We have plans to improve our promotion to improve product awareness and with the appropriate product lines we will increase price to improve margins and better align our high-end product image. Our current financial position is optimistic, showing our leverage (Assets/Equity) at 2.0, when our goal is to maintain 1.5-2.0 overall. By utilizing the analysis tools we are learning what elements are driving demand, how to effectively tailor our products through R&D, how best to adjust our marketing and pricing, while lowering input costs, in order to improve margins and to ensure our stakeholders are all satisfied.

In year 17 we totally changed our strategy. This time we were targeting an entirely different market. We brought down our models offered from 200 to 150, furthermore we raised our average S/Q rating by almost 40%. To increase the S/Q rating we had to dramatically invest in TQM and enhanced features. This did slightly did improve over market share but at the same time brought our net revenue down and we found ourselves struggling with cash towards the year end.

After analyzing the results from the previous quarter, it was determined that the prices set for each segment were not sufficient. Product sales priority were also not properly adjusted. With the R&D investments, sales priorities needed to be changed for the main focus to become the most profitable market segments. Prices were not competitive which in turned decreased revenue, market share, and profitability. To become more competitive we altered the prices in each market segment. The Workhorse product was the first to change, the price was lowered to $2500 in an attempt to increase sales; at this price Team 4 was still making a profit on this product, as well as making the price much more competitive. The Workhorse sales priority was also lowered to 3rd in Americas and 4th in APAC and EMEA. This product was not selling as well as we had hoped, and was no longer as profitable as it once was which led to this decision. Next, the Innovator product’s price was adjusted; this involved a price increase to $4100. This price was adjusted to include the new

How to operate on a day to day basis (Meet organizational objectives) and no business model whether revenues and costs make viable business sense.

All of the items in the list provided by marketing are impact descriptions of a risk event, i.e. the risk that would face the company if they lose their market leadership competitive edge. The marketing team is giving reasons for the company’s downfall in the effect that they lose their ground to the competitors. The marketing team in the list portrays an unattractive future for the company. The list testifies the company’s potential lose their marketing approach of ‘low-cost, high quality’ and inevitable ‘future layoffs.’ Also, as an impact on these results, the company will have to share their secrets with vendors with accurate proprietary information. According to the marketing team, Luxor will still possibly remain strong in applications

The sabre (cavalry sword) is the oldest crucible steel weapon in Eastern Europe, originating in the medieval period. However, it can be argued that it first appeared in the early crusades. The Cavalry sword was first documented in the 18th century (1686). It is still used by the Household cavalry. Hungarian light horseman (hurrsars) is the main cause that the cavalry sword became well known throughout Eastern Europe. Hussars derived the weapon from the Oriental Scimtar, which is a curved sword that originated in the Middle East with examples dating back to the 9th century.

They then put forward most frequent flaws and the lessons learned one by one. The first flaw is ‘the company cannot support the fast growth’. They take an example of product ‘Mosquito Magnet’ to discuss it. They state that it happened because company (American Biophysices) focus was not in right direction as it was more tilted towards product R&D. The result of this is when company realized that there product became a top selling product they decided to expand, their production and quality dropped, consumer went angry and product went off from the market. To avoid this flaw one should have comprehensive plan before hand to accommodate any certain and uncertain circumstances.

Changing security environment is more critical and dangerous for the UK and national interests. No country is capable to tackle all the challenges alone. Strong partnership is always more important. The Strategic Defense security Review fixes the vision to secure the United Kingdom with the international influence. We create strategic relationships with the countries and act a leader in global organization such as NATO and the UN. The SDSR -15 express the most critical atmosphere where threats to the UK are growing. The main pressure is instability, violence and the deteriorating of the rules based global order leading it harder to achieve. It created three principles that are;

Jim Collins and his research team of 20 compared and contrasted how many companies made the leap to greatness and how other companies didn’t. Based on bundles of evidence and a large quantity of data, he and his team uncovered how

Luxor Technologies saw their business almost quadruple between 1992 and 1996. The company’s success was largely attributed to its technical community’s strength that was second to none at that time. Luxor was the technology leader and that came with its benefits. However, by the fall of 1996 Luxor’s fortunes began diminishing. Competition was increasingly catching up quickly due to major technological breakthroughs. The Marketing team estimated that, Luxor would become a technology “follower” rather than leader by 1998. Luxor realized that it was facing a risk of market loss and leadership loss saves to the loss of revenue. The company became aware of the risk and that something should have been done. They hired a consultant in risk analysis

My strategy seemed to work well for the first two years but then it became evident that I was losing market share in the NiMH business. I decided to cut down R&D in that division too early and that caused me to miss my sales targets. As I lost market share in my core business, the volume effect from my decision to lower NiMH prices did not compensate enough to allow that division to remain profitable. Suddenly, I had a very tight R&D budget to work with (as it was based on sales projections) and limited cash could be allocated to the improvement of the ultracapacitors business. I also reacted too late to the shift in customers’ demand for Power Packs products from Power Tools products, which caused late and lower-than-needed investments in other products’ features such as self-discharge (high priority for both NiMH and ultracapacitors).

The Security Strategy of the United States has marked similarities and differences to the Security Strategy of Europe. This can be effectively traced to the similarities and differences between the two cultures themselves, particularly in the cultural factors of religion, modernization, ethnicity/nationalism, and geography. The US and Europe have different responses to the modernization of warfare from traditional (ships, armies, tanks, aircraft) to

Accordingly, “major new-product development activity was replaced by incremental product line extensions” (p.56) that resulted in a major revenue stall. The premature core abandonment cause is illustrated with the Kmart example. While the company was investing in a range of unrelated businesses searching for growth, Wal-Mart developed effective distribution and inventory systems. Kmart’s management failed to monitor and match these systems and fell far behind its rival. Hitachi’s example illustrates the talent bench shortfall. One of the leading causes of the stall was the company had executive management that lacked capabilities.

Hence, it is hard for me to recover in that situation. I only reached the cumulative profit of -10.48M for the first time I played. Reasons contributed to the results are many. Firstly, I did not have clear position at first and did not stick to my long term plan; I managed to innovate in both the NiMH and also the UC technology. External environment changes also affect the sales and profit significantly. For example, the Lithium-ion battery producers made the price deduction influenced the price I offer to my customers. The other difficulty I faced is that customers preference changes are hard to predict. For instance, the customers’ increase of importance of recharge time has led to my investment in desired energy density not generating deserved customer preference. Even worse, the constant price reduction request made my company profit shrink. The challenge is that it is almost impossible for me to innovate in the two area to try to maximum my sales for all the customers. Clayton Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory also explains my failure experience, that is: every company that has tried to manage mainstream and disruptive business within a single organisation failed. The next time I play, I will nurture the disruptive UC technology in an separate entity and try sticking to a long term plan. I should manage the two technologies separately. Another important lessen learnt was that once decide a plan or a strategy, keep sticking to the strategy