This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
BSG Final Paper
Team B Members:
Calvin Amos Momodou Drammeh Sheila Hutton Shanika Olivero Rebecca Wentworth
April 28, 2012
Instructor: Dr. Iaquinto
they significantly outperformed our company in the other individual comparison areas. goes to show that the BSG game and industry competition is all about doing relatively well in several areas rather than exceedingly well in a couple of areas. At first we simply were not manufacturing enough shoes to be competitive. there were areas we struggled with throughout the course of the game. The ultimate lessoned learned is that the BSG game and industry competition is all about doing relatively well in several areas rather than exceedingly well in only a couple of areas. with regard to the winning team (Team C). however more surprising is that two teams. With regard to the Best in Industry Standard. yet ultimately lost to us. exceeding the investor expectation in three out of five weeks. our company. In each of the other performance areas we did meet investor annual expectations at least once during the five year period. In all categories except for credit rating (which ended up being the same “A” rating). Of the five performance areas. EDSY and E-shoes. credit rating was the only area that our weighted average scores were above the investor expected standards. . though we certainly had some weeks that were better than others. ultimately came in second place in Year 15. whereby we came close. Although our Team B (One Step Up) ultimately came in second place in Year 15. with the exception of image rating. but never quite met expectations during any given annual performance period. 2) A second and important lesson that we learned was in regard to the Branded Production area. The fact that some companies did better than we did in certain graded areas. we did not end up with a performance that was on the same tier level as the winning Team C. Lessons Learned There were three significant areas of lessons learned that stood out to our team: 1) It is not surprising that the winning team did well on their EPS.Business Strategy Game Final Paper 1 Summary of Team B Performance Out of the competing six groups. who ranked behind us also did well on EPS. One Step Up. yet overall they rank below us. As a team we were pleased with our overall rank of second place. This is based on the fact that several companies graded better than us in certain areas.
3) Thirdly. proved to be the valuable decisions in the area of Branded Production. coupled with an industry lowest price. what we did not count on was Team A company. The significance of Team A’s last year strategy change was that it caused the industry average S/Q to shift upward to S/Q 7. The lesson learned is that you have to expect the unexpected. Although. This. allowed their company to siphoned off significant sales and market share from our company strategy in year 15. but did not think the overall S/Q and price average would change by much. our overall company performance was mixed at best and definitely has areas that need to be improved. However. Targets Summary Although we ended up in second place within the industry. credit rating was the only area that our weighted average scores were above the investor expected standards. with the exception of image rating. During year 15 strategy discussions. Team B Annual Performance vs. and the industry average price to shift significantly downward. our estimates and expectations were set to meet all investor and industry standards. going into the final week of the game. we discussed raising our S/Q to 7. along with aggressively increasing our spending on Best Practice Training. . Team A’s sudden S/Q 6 rating. would change its strategy on the last week of the game to become an industry average S/Q rating and industry low price leader (raising their S/Q by 4 points to S/Q 6 and dropping their retail price down to an industry wholesale price).Business Strategy Game Final Paper Fortunately. we felt like we learned a lot about operating within the industry. and we felt that we had a good understanding of the strategies being used by the other companies within the industry. in each performance area we did meet investor annual expectations at least once during the five year period. Of the five performance areas. This was generally evidenced by our continuing improvements from last place in year 12 to second place at the end of year 14. now equal to our own (which was now below the industry average). which clearly had a low S/Q and low price strategy through out the game (steadily dropping its S/Q down to S/Q 2). While knowing we could not beat the winning team C. based on the current position of each company. we caught on to the problem by Year 2 and increased production so we would not run out of product and lose sales. in case of something like this. and to watch what area your company may be most vulnerable to within the industry.
56). we happened to miss it by the smallest margins.43. . $0. Stock Price Results The chart below shows the annual target (in parenthesis) for Stock Price and our annual results below.Business Strategy Game Final Paper whereby we came close. which siphoned off significant market share. Although we failed to meet the expected EPS on those two years. (Team B Results in $) With the exception of year 14. we clearly missed investor expectation on EPS year after year. Credit Rating Results The chart below shows the annual target (in parenthesis) for Credit Rating and our annual results below. and actually exceeded expectations in year 14 at $41. i.50. primarily due to an unexpected strategy change by an unexpected company. The final year 15 saw stock our Team B stock price drop again to $24. (Team B results in $) With a final rated average of $2.59. but never quite met expectations during any given annual performance period. This will be discussed more in lessons learned. Details Earnings per Share (EPS) Results The chart below shows the annual target (in parenthesis) for EPS and our annual results below. In year 12. Our best performance on investor expected EPS were years 11 and 14.24 per share respectively.e.29 per share and $0. we failed to meet expected investor stock price. but bounced back somewhat in year 13 ($30. we had the lowest stock price in the industry.
Managing our credit was one of the bright spot for our company.Business Strategy Game Final Paper (Team B Results) With the exception of year 12. (Team B results) Ending with a final weighted average of 66. Return on Equity (ROE) Results The chart below shows the annual target (in parenthesis) for ROE and our annual results below. which we abandoned after year 12. we exceeded investor expected credit rating in all the other years. Thus our results were very respectable with the exception of the final year 15 (at 12.2%).8%. Image Rating Results The chart below shows the annual target (in parenthesis) for Image Rating and our annual results below. This drop is primarily due to an unexpected strategy change by an unexpected company. we steadily improve each year to only missing it by two points (score 68) at the end of year 14. and ended with an overall "A" credit rating. which was based on our original internet strategy. which siphoned off significant sales and market share. starting in year 11 with a low of 59. which missed by 2. This was partly accomplished by paying off certain debts early and then borrowing strategically based on our company goals.4%. However. Although in the last year 15 we dropped by two points end the game at 66. . we missed our image rating goal every year. This will be discussed more in lessons learned. (Team B results in %) With a final weighted average of 14. we reach our expected ROE two out of the five years and missed it by less than 1. This is partly attributed to non-aggressive celebrity bids.3% on another two of the five years.
43. the Cosmos company. and thus eliminating any market share siphoning by any wholesale price lowballing companies in the last year of the game.Business Strategy Game Final Paper Team B Performance vs. When looking at Stock Price.76). We came in second with a 7.4 compared to Industry standard of 15. In all categories except for credit rating (which ended up being the same “A” rating). Our Year 13-15 average was 66 compared to the Cosmos Company’s score . with regard to the winning team (Team C). but always managed to miss it by a least a few points. However. In contrast. One interesting observation is that while normally having a strategy of above average wholesale pricing. ROE was another example of an area where the winning Team C dominated throughout the game ending with a average 16. we did not end up with a performance that was on the same tier level as the winning Team C. which appeared to have a strategy of high S/Q rating with industry low internet price and above average wholesale price. they significantly outperformed our company in the other individual comparison areas. which wound up in first place in Year 15 EPS of $4. exceeded the investor expected EPS four out of the five weeks we played the game. Best/Winning Company Summary Although our Team B (One Step Up) ultimately came in second place in Year 15. however we did managed to hold our own and in the end received a respectable average score of 14. In the area of Image Rating the One Step Up team struggled throughout the game to improve our rating.40) it holds up well compared to five of the six companies that played. Obviously this was an area the Cosmos team excelled in and the rest of our companies never found our stride.7% ROE. the winning Team C. by lowering its wholesale price to near the industry low. and the teams that came in third received a 5 (stock price $17. we were not typically very far off from the investor expected EPS. the Cosmos company blew every other team away with a final Game-to-Date Best in Industry score of 20 (stock price $73.76). Details We ended up with an average EPS of 2.41. if we examine our ending Game-to-Date Best in Industry score of 7 (stock price $24. correctly guessed the need to protect that wholesale market share during the game’s last year.
In year 15. A+. we performed at B and missed the expected rating.com/ . References BSG Footwear Industry Report (p.2 and p. In year 13. In year 12 investors expected a credit rating of B+.3) Retrieved from: http://www. but nowhere close to the winning team’s score. we outperformed the expected credit rating.A+ and A. we performed at A+. with a rating of A-. We ended up with a Year 15 Best in Industry and Game-to-Date Best in Industry crediting rating of A (the same as the winning team had. A. Industry Best A+ Credit Rating Summary Our team did quite well with regard to our credit rating. B. In year 14 investors expected a credit rating of B+.bsg-online. and had the highest credit rating of any group that year. group C had the best rating that year. and again. we never fell below a B and often received an A+. had the highest credit rating of any group. investors expected a credit rating of B+. with both of us receiving 19s). where as Team C credit rating was B-.A. We ended up having the exact same final credit rating of A. our credit rating was A-. we performed at A+. investors expected a credit rating of B+. With a credit rating of A.A and A. Team B Performance vs.Business Strategy Game Final Paper of 93. Details In year 11. With the exception of year 12. again our score was average compared to five out of six teams. Credit rating is the only area our Team B. investors expected a credit rating of B+. except year 12. we exceeded investor expected credit rating in all the other years. For each year of the game. we performed at A and tied with Group C for the best credit rating that year. either did better than or equal to the winning team C every year of the game’s performance period. Group A had the highest credit rating that year with a rating of A.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.