Table of Contents

Sr.
No.
1
2

3
3.1
4
4.1

4.2

4.3
4.3.1
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.5
5.6
6
6.1
6.2
7.0
8.0
9.0

Particulars
Introduction
Team Formation
Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument
Team Profile
Creative Problem Solving and Entrepreneurial Thinking
The Kirks Space model
The Ingenuity Process
Phase 1 Define
Snapshot of Survey Result
Flow of thoughts to arrive at problem
Phase 2- Discover
Innovativeness vs. Success (Kleinschmidt and R. G.
Cooper, 1991)
Idea generation
Phase 3 Determine
Pugh Method
Rough sketch of the supply chain of In-Difference
Business Plan
Process Flow
Technology: 3D Imaging Software - An Unique Selling
Point
Size of Opportunity
Financial Plan
Profit & Loss Statement - Snapshot
Balance Sheet -Snapshot
Marketing Plan
Competitor Analysis
Investor Pitch
Returns to Investor
Summary of Financials
Conclusion
References
Appendix

Page
No.
2
2
3
4
4
5
7
7
7
9
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
15
15
17
19
19
20
21
22
24
24
25
25
26
29

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 1

INDIVIDUAL REPORT
1.0 Introduction
The entrepreneurial foresight which facilitates impulsive learning leads to an
entrepreneur being rewarded by unforeseen gains because of following a
latent feeling which is caused by alertness to opportunities. (Kirzner, 1973)
The Timmons Model explains entrepreneurial process as one that begins with
an opportunity (not business plan, money, team or networks) and then
carves the opportunity into a prospective venture by assembling a team and
accumulating the requisite resources to commence a venture that exploits
the opportunity. With these cornerstones in mind, we commenced on our
journey to form an enterprising venture (in-difference) that could help to fill
an existing gap in the market by using the Ingenuity Process. (Kirkham,
Mosey and Binks, 2013)

Some researchers argue that entrepreneurial projects are thought up by the

entrepreneur himself instead of sought by the market itself (White, 1999:93).
Although we recognized the role of imagination for the prediction of future
markets and believed some entrepreneurs can indeed cause the change
(Schumpeter, 1934), we tend to agree more with the ideas presented by
Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray. (2003) that the entrepreneurs imaginative work
includes identifying the needs of the market through watchful investigations
and resource apportionment.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 2

2.0 Team Formation

While some researchers argue that potentials of creativity exist in all
individuals (Taylor & Sacks, 1981; Torrance, 2000), others believe that
assessment of individuals & interventions such as instructions, trainings, etc.
can facilitate individuals to intensify their degree of imaginative potentials.
(Neethling, 2000; Selby et. al., 2004). In other words, most persons in the
class have diverse dominant thinking styles and a Herrmann Brain
Dominance Instrument (HBDI) survey was carried out in class in order to
identify the analytical (Type A), organized (Type B), caring (Type C) and
imaginative (Type D) kind of persons to enable us to form homogeneous or
heterogeneous teams (Treffinger & Isaken,1985).
Post the survey results, five participants of the MBA cohort formed a
heterogeneous team comprising of Sirsanath Banerjee (C,D); Alwyn Koay
Chee Hua (C,B); Kuah Shen Yang (B,A); Lim Shing Loo (C,D) and Lee Ling Kim
(D,C).
Following is a graphical representation of the HBDI scores of each team
member in the survey:

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 3

It was a logical decision made by the group to appoint the person with the
highest average score in all areas of thinking preferences the CEO of the
venture.
Our team had a natural blend of extremely talented individuals with varied
backgrounds and experiences which helped us tremendously in putting together the
nuts and bolts required to make this venture a success.

The following table captures the backgrounds of each of the members of the team
and the roles allotted to each one of them in the venture:

We tried to leverage on our academic & work experiences to ensure that the
right person to handle the right job and this fusion of thinking predilections
brings out the best in all of us. Research supports creativity is promoted
through collective recognition by way of harnessing knowledge carried by
Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC
Page | 4

members; lively commitment

information (Sung & Choi 2012).

in

collective

learning

and

sharing

of

3.0 Creative Problem Solving and Entrepreneurial Thinking

Creativity is the capability to arrive at artefacts or ideas that are new,
valuable and have an element of incredulity. The three forms of creativity
include generating unusual combinations of usual ideas, forming exploratory
creativity and change of perception in the minds of people Boden, M.A.
(2004). While creativity has been said to be the result of a combinatorial
process Epstein, R., Skinner (1991), creativity also plays an important part in
the identification of an opportunity (Dimov, 2010).
An excellent example of the application of such creativity into
entrepreneurial thinking is that of Schumpeters entrepreneur. The
Schumpeters entrepreneur identified problems, turned them into
opportunities and created economic value by converting these opportunities
into businesses using creativity (Schumpeter, 1934).
However, the number of available opportunities are overwhelming and hence
it becomes important for filtration of opportunities from a range of
identified ones (Long and McMullan 1984) in order to ensure economic logic
(Schumpeter, 1934). This is where it is imperative to align the entrepreneurs
skills, knowledge, experience and other resources with needs of the market
in order to filter opportunities for committed pursuit.

3.1 The Kirks Space model

The Kirks Space model which is a component of creative problem solving
(Kirkham et al., 2011) is one such model which focuses on the initial stage of
any innovation process. The creative problem solving model was earlier
explained by Wallas G. (1926) on the foundations of preparation, incubation,
illumination and verification. Thereafter works such as Techniques of Producing
Ideas by James Webb Young and bisociation theory of how creativity works by
Arthur Koestler provided futher insights into the subject. The Ingenuity Model
Approach that we have adopted for the purpose of this venture is a more evolved
version of this model which separates divergent & convergent thinking, allows time
for reflection and prescribes three distinct phases: a) Define a
problem/opportunity, b) Discover alternatives, c) Determine the best choice
from the alternatives.

The Kirks Space model methodology is graphically described as follows:

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 5

Our team discovered more than 50 problems but listed only about 35 after
initial filtering of the problems we found to have merit. Most of the balance
15 problems that were not listed were global problems such as development
of transportation between India and Pakistan, disarmament of arms from
American households, etc. that would need research of more than 1 week
and were hence naturally beyond our scope.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 6

Cooper, R.G. (2001) suggests that the true innovation is different from the
standard new product development endeavors of conventional enterprises
and an essential value proposition is what the industry needs. However it is
very difficult to achieve in todays matured markets where most products are
commoditized. Therefore, we focused on finding the existing demands of the
market within these problems/opportunities in order to identify the idea
where we could add substantial value.

4.0 The Ingenuity Process

While it is a common perception that economists are in a position to offer
meaningful insights into the process of venture creation as firm (Evans
1949, Leibenstein 1968, Baumol 1968, Leff 1979) which is a very commonly
used unit for analyzing economic principles, Penrose (1980) argues that
economists are generally more concerned with the aggregate behavior of
firms instead of individual firms. Subsequently, both researchers of
entrepreneurship & organizations (Kirchoff 1991, Bull and Willard 1993, Low
and Macmillan 1988 and Katz & Gartner 1988) as well as economists (Nelson
& Winter 1982, Buchanan 1982, Loasby 1982, Kirzner 1979) have
emphasized on the need of further research in the process of venture
creation.
Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC
Page | 7

One such model was prepared by Kirkham et. al (2011) at The University of
Nottingham Institute for Enterprise & Innovation which was introduced to us
to be used as a tool for the venture creation exercise. The distinct phases
that this module follows are defining a problem, discovering potential
solutions and determining the best solution.

4.1 Phase 1 - Define

The problem of clothes that we buy online but do not fit us well was one
which appealed to all the team members as all of us had experienced this
problem in the past. While each member of our team agreed that ill-fitting
clothes is a real & continuing problem for online shoppers, the result of our
primary research (survey of over 67 respondents) revealed that 77% of the
respondents acknowledge the importance of fitting apparel when bought
online and 42% agree that it is difficult to find fitting clothes online.

Adding the savings that manufacturers would make on account of minimizing

returns and the effective cutting edge imagery technology to measure the
perfect fit of online shoppers, we had an interesting business case to work on
which got us all excited.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 8

Brainstorming on the red card as a team enables us to answer key questions

such as who has the problem, what is the problem, when does the problem
occur, if the problem is complex, can it be broken, can we have sub-goals to
the problem, what are the consequences of a partial solution, what is our
understanding of the problem, how does the problem manifest itself, what
are the root causes of the problem, what is the impact of the problem and
what are the criteria to succeed.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 9

4.2 Phase 2- Discover

The next phase focused on generation of multiple solutions to the identified
problem. During this stage, the ember card is utilized to explain the problem
& construct a strategy to tackle the same. We were expected to do broadbased thinking using analogies & non-obvious ideas.

We were given post-it notes and were asked to generate as many ideas as
possible within a stipulated timeline. This involved creative thinking and we
witnessed a point of saturation after crossing 60 possible solutions. It was at
this point of time when I proposed my team members (in the capacity of the
CEO of the venture) to mingle with colleagues of other teams to gather fresh
ideas which would benefit our venture immensely. It was also important to
Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC
Page | 10

promote a culture of tolerance and openness to all kinds of ideas as ours was
a whole-brain group.
This was in line with the arguments provided by Kleinschmidt and R. G.
Cooper (1991) that the worst performing ideas were ones that were
moderately innovative while the highly innovative as well as non-innovative
products performed relatively well:

We were soon appreciating divergent ideas in line with Koestlers (1975) view
on the subject which states that creative mind was that the most fertile area
of the human mind for incubation was somewhere between full awakening
and sleep. This is the region where the disciplined thoughts are not yet hard
enough to block the dreamlike fluidity of creativity.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 11

The following photograph captures some of our solutions put up on the wall
for further discussions:

Only when we were satisfied that we had produced adequate new concepts
to solve the problem and explored as many permutations & combinations of
these ideas as possible, we decided to move to the next phase.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 12

4.3 Phase 3 - Determine

In order to select the most suitable solution out of all the possible solutions
that we had listed, we decided to use qualitative & quantitative tools (such
as The Pugh Method). At this stage, the green card encourages us to
categorize the ideas, narrow down to few workable ideas, compare the
options & select the best-suited solution.
We narrowed down the list of possible solutions to the following before using
the Pugh method to select one:

The Pugh Method is typically used as tool for convergent thinking that
enables us to systematically remove flaws in the selected idea. We chose the
ranking matrix over the advantage/disadvantage matrix find the best
solution to the problem.

4.3.1 Pugh Method

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 13

From the above matrix, Solution 2 emerged as the clear winner based on the
criteria listed above.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 14

The above figures are the difference between the score of our venture vis-vis competitors & not score of the competitors by themselves.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 15

5.0 Business Plan

This section briefly covers the Business Plan of the new venture as presented
to the investor.

5.1 Process Flow

In-difference is thus an online aggregator that would use the online platform
to sell apparel from leading brands such as Zara, H&M, etc. to fit-sensitive
customers.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 16

5.2 Technology: 3D Imaging Software An Unique Selling

Point
The USP of in-difference is the use of a unique software that converts the
regular web cam of a computer/tablet/phone into a 3D imaging device that
captures accurate measurements of the online shoppers & shares the same
with the manufacturers. The online shopper simply needs to spin once in
front of the camera. This way online shoppers will be able to capture & share
their exact measurements from the comfort of their homes.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 17

This way, in-difference will create a database of measurements of our online

shoppers which they can share with the ones they love and shop on their
behalf too.

At the same time, manufactures will be convinced to invest in 3D printing

technology as customized apparel (within reasonable timelines) is the future
of apparel retail. This way the size of each apparel is customized for each
individual instead of forcing online shoppers to fit themselves into the
regular S, M and L sizes that are currently offered by manufacturers.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 18

5.3 Size of Opportunity

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 19

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 20

5.4 Financial Plan

We plan to work on a profit sharing model where the manufacturer pays us a
commission on each unit that is sold through our e-commerce website. This
way we do not mark-up any cost to the online shopper and work on a
commission based model.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 21

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 22

5.5 Marketing Plan

We plan to utilize the social media for our marketing efforts and introduce
innovative tools such as gamification, share your size on facebook, etc. to
enable robust growth within a few years of incubation our venture. The
introduction of the shop together feature which allows consumers and their
friends to share shopping information.

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 23

5.6 Competitor Analysis

We searched for enterprises in similar business and found the following to be
our closest competitors:

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 24

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 25

6.0 Investor Pitch

This section briefly captures the key interests of the investor.

6.1 Returns to Investor

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 26

7.0 Conclusion
It was through relentless combined efforts of the team that we were able to
succeed in the business pitch of in-difference. I personally felt that the
Ingenuity model ignited the virtue of creativity in all team members
irrespective of their position in the HBDI survey. A firm believer of
entrepreneurship being a quality since birth, I was often skeptical about
studies that claimed that various methods can be used to alter personal
values suchas creativity (Schwartz & Inbar-Saban, 1988; Ball-Rokeach,
Rokeach, & Grube, 1984). However, this assignment compelled me to think
that the reasonably stable dispositions of individual value systems can still
be disrupted by challenges such as these which spark the virtue of
entrepreneurial innovation in all of us.
Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC
Page | 27

8.0 References

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial

opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business
venturing, 18(1), 105-123. URL: ftp://ns1.ystp.ac.ir/YSTP/3/E-%20Book
%201%20(G)/E-%20book/Magazine/4/6.pdf [Last Accessed on 13 March
2015]
Ball-Rokeach, S., Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. (1984). The great American
values test. New York: Free Press.
Baumol, W.J. 1968. Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American
Economic Review 58:64-71. &-Bearm, A.S., Schiffel, D.D., and Mogee,
M.E. 1975. The venture capital market and technological innovation.
Research Policy 380408.
Buchanan, J.M. 1982. The domain of subjective economics: between
predictive science and moral philosophy. In I. M. Kirzner,ed., Method,
Process and Austrian Economics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Bull, I., and Willard, GE. 1993. Towards a theory of entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing 8(3): 183-195.
Cooper, R.G. (2001) Winning At New Products Accelerating the Process
From Ideas to Launch. Basic Books.
Dimov D. (2010), Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emergence:
Opportunity confidence, human capital, and early planning, Journal of
Management Studies, 47, 1123-1153.
E. J. Kleinschmidt and R. G. Cooper, "The impact of product
innovativeness on performance," Journal of Product Innovation
Management8 (1991): 240-251
Epstein, R. (1991) Skinner, Creativity and the Problem of Spontaneous
Behaviour. Psychological Science. Vol 2(6) pp.362 - 370.
Evans, G.H., Jr. 1949. The entrepreneur and economic theory: a
historical and analytical approach. American Economic Review 39:336355.
Herrmann, N. (1998). The Theory behind the HBDI and Whole Brain
Technology.URL: http://www.hbdi.co.za/documents/Theory-Behind-TheHBDI1.pdf [Last Accessed on 27 March 2015]
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving. The
Basic
Course.
New
York:
Bearly
Limited.
URL:
https://www.cpsb.com/research/articles/creative-problem-

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 28

solving/Creative-Problem-Solving-Gifted-Education.pdf [Last Accessed

on 27 March 2015]
Katz, J., and Gartner, W.B. 1988. Properties of emerging organizations.
Academy of Management Review 13:429-441.
Kirchhoff, B.A. 1991. Entrepreneurships contribution to economics.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 15:93-I 12.
Kirzner, Israel.(1973) Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kirzner, I.M. 1979. Perception, Opportunity and Profit: Studies in the
Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kirzner, Israel.(1982) "Uncertainty, Discovery, and Human Action: A
Study of the
Entrepreneurial Profile in the Misesian System." Chapter 12 in Kirzner 's
(ed.). Method, Process, and Austrian Economics. Lexington, Mass: D. C.
Heath and Company.
Kirzner, Israel, "Austrian School of Economics," in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate,
and P. Newman (ed.) The New Palgrave: a Dictionary of Economics,
London: Macmillan, 1987.
Kirzner, Israel, The Meaning of the Market Process: Essays in the
Development of Modern Austrian Economics, London and New York:
Routledge, 1992.
Kirkham, P., Mosey, S., & Binks, M. (2009). Ingenuity in Practice: A
Guide for Clear Thinking. University of Nottingham, Institute for
Enterprise and Innovation.
Kirkham, P., Mosey, S., & Binks, M. (2013). Ingenuity. Haydn Green
Institute of Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Koestler, A. The Act of Creation. London: Picador, 1975. (First published
1964.)
Leibenstein, H. 1968. Entrepreneurship and development. The
American Economic Review 58:72-83.
Leff, N.H. 1979. Entrepreneurship and economic development-the
problems revisited. Journal of Economic Literature 18:46X4.
Loasby, B.J. 1982. The entrepreneur in economic theory. Scottish
Journal of Political Economy 29(3).
Long, W., and McMullan, W.E. 1984. Mapping the new venture
opportunity identification process. Proceedings of the Babson Annual
Entrepreneurship Research Conference. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Low, M.B., and MacMillan, I.C. 1988. Entrepreneurship: past research
and future challenges. Journal of Management 14139-162.
Margaret A. Boden, (2004), The Creative Mind, Second Edition, Taylor &
Francis e-Library, 2004
MarketLine Industry Profile: Online Retail in Asia-Pacific, Reference
Code: 0200-2344 , Publication Date: December 2014

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 29

Maria Popova. 2012. The Art of Thought: Graham Wallas on the Four
Stages
of
Creativity.
[ONLINE]
Available
at:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/08/28/the-art-of-thought-grahamwallas-stages/. [Accessed 27 March 15].
Neethling, K. (2000). The beyonders. In E.P. Torrance (Ed.), On the edge
and keeping on the edge (pp. 153-166)
Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S.G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Penrose, E.T. 1980. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York:
M.E. Sharpe.
Schumpeter, J., (1934). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper
& Row, New York.
Schwartz, S., & Inbar-Saban, N. (1988). Value self-confrontation as a
method to aid in weight loss. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 396404.
Selby, E.C., Treffinger, D.J., Isaksen, S.G., & Lauer, K.J. (2002). VIEW: An
assessment of problem solving style. Technical manual and users
guide. Sarasota, FL: Centre for Creative Learning.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge
management on the creativity and financial performance of
organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 118(1), 4-13.
Taylor, C.W., & Sacks, D. (1981) Facilitating lifetime creative process - a
think piece. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 116-118.
Timmons, J.A. 1990. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship in the
1990s. Homewood,IL: Irwin.
Timmons, J.A., Muzyka, D.F., Stevenson, H.H., and Bygrave, W.D. 1987.
Opportunity recognition: the core of entrepreneurship. Proceedings of
the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Wellesley,
MA: Babson College.
White, L. H. [1976] (1990) Entrepreneurship, Imagination and the
Question of Equilibration, in Stephen Littlechild (ed.), Austrian
Economics, volume III, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, pp. 87-105

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 30

9.0 Appendix
Sales Assumption
otherwise defined)
Year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6

Growth
197%
100%
100%
75%
43%
August

Year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6

(units unless

January

February

March

April

May

June

20%

5%

4%

4%

4%

10%

July
5%

30

100

500

1,000

20,000
40,000
80,000
140,000
200,000

5,000
10,000
20,000
35,000
50,000

4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000

4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000

4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000

10,000
20,000
40,000
70,000
100,000

5,000
10,000
20,000
35,000
50,000

October

November

September

4%

4%

10%

December

10%

20%

5,000

10,000

2,000

5,000

10,000

4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000

4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000

10,000
20,000
40,000
70,000
100,000

10,000
20,000
40,000
70,000
100,000

20,000
40,000
80,000
140,000
200,000

Total
100%
33630
100000
200000
400000
700000
1000000

Margin
($)
33630
100000
200000
400000
700000
1000000

Detailed Financial Analysis

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Parameters
(Rs.in Lacs)

2015
Provisio
nal

2016
Project
ed

2017
Project
ed

2018
Project
ed

2019
Project
ed

2020
Projecte
d

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 31

No of months
Total operating income (TOI)

12
33630.00

EBIDTA

106333.0
0
-316.2%
11500.00
400.00
118233.0
0
0.00
118233.0
0
94586.40

EBIDTA/TOI (%)
Interest
Depreciation
Operating Profit (OP)

Non-operating Income
PBT

PAT

PAT/TOI (%)
Net Cash Accruals (NCA)

-281%
94186.40

Gross fixed assets

300000.0
0
290000.0
0
50000.00

Net fixed assets

Paid up share capital
Tangible Networth (TNW)
Exposure in subsidiaries /Group
Cos.

Investments

Loans and advances

Adjusted TNW (ATNW)
Other non current assets
Long term debt (LTD)
Short term debt (STD)
Working Capital Bank Finance

29000.00
10000.00
10000.00
0.00
39000.00
10000.00
300000.0
0
16000.00

TOL/TNW
TOL/ ATNW
Total Current Assets

110000.0
0
426000.0
0
-10.92
-7.69
459000.0
0
-15.83
-11.77
20000.00

Total Current Liabilities

159000.0

Total Debt
Total Debt /ATNW
LTD/ ATNW
Total Outside Liabilities (TOL)

12
100000.
00
63710.0
0
-63.7%
8625.00
400.00
72735.0
0
0.00
72735.0
0
58188.0
0
-58%
57788.0
0
300000.
00
288000.
00
50000.0
0
112812.
00
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
102812.
00
10500.0
0
159188.
00
25000.0
0
110000.
00
294188.
00
2.86
1.55
316188.
00
2.80
3.08
20500.0
0
157000.

12
200000.
00
11031.0
0
-5.5%
6468.75
400.00
17899.7
5
0.00
17899.7
5
14319.8
0
-7%
13919.8
0
300000.
00
285600.
00
50000.0
0
98492.2
0
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
88492.2
0
11025.0
0
162157.
80
35000.0
0
110000.
00
307157.
80
3.47
1.83
329157.
80
3.34
3.72
21025.0
0
167000.

12
400000.
00
126415.
90

12
700000.
00
333607.
49

12
1000000.
00
540518.2
4

31.6%
4851.56
400.00
121164.
34

47.7%
3638.67
400.00
329568.
82

54.1%
2729.00
400.00
537389.2
4

0.00
121164.
34

0.00
329568.
82

0.00
537389.2
4

96931.4
7

263655.
06

429911.3
9

24%
97331.4
7

38%
264055.
06

43%
430311.3
9

300000.
00
282720.
00
50000.0
0
195423.
67
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
185423.
67
11576.2
5
54448.8
0
45000.0
0
110000.
00
209448.
80
1.13
0.29
230448.
80
1.18
1.24
21576.2
5
176000.

371843.
20
351107.
20
50000.0
0
259078.
72
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
249078.
72
12155.0
6
53338.6
0
52000.0
0
110000.
00
215338.
60
0.86
0.21
236338.
60
0.91
0.95
22155.0
6
183000.

804347.7
0
779464.5
0
50000.00
688990.1
1
10000.00
10000.00
0.00
678990.1
1
12762.82
40000.00
65000.00
110000.0
0
215000.0
0
0.32
0.06
236000.0
0
0.34
0.35
22762.82
196000.0

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 32

Net working capital

Current ratio
ROCE (%)
ROE (%)
Interest cover
Term debt/ NCA
DSCR
Average DSCR
Inventory Days
Debtors Days
Creditors Days
Without considering non
current liabilities
Ratio
Total Non current Liabilities
Total Debt /ATNW
Term debt/ NCA
Leverage
Particulars
TOL
TNW
ATNW
TOL/ TNW
TOL/ ATNW
Other Ratios
Particulars
Sales / TNW
Current Assets / TNW
NWC / TNW
ROCE
Movement of NWC
Particulars
Long term sources
Long term uses
Surplus / deficit

Opening balance

Closing balance

Cash flow
Particulars
Cash from operating activities

Changes in working capital

0
139000.0
0
0.13
-35.94%
-189.17%

00
145975.
00
0.13
-3.74%
-28.64%

00
154423.
75
0.12
41.33%
193.86%

-7.19
-3.36
0.00

00
136500.
00
0.13
-20.88%
116.38%
-5.70
-3.19
-2.14

-1.15
-14.16
-0.27

21.06
1.02
2.59

0.00
108.53
349.85

0.00
36.50
23.38

0.00
18.25
10.09

0.00
9.13
2.73

2015
0.00
-10.92
-3.36

2016
0.00
2.86
-3.19

2017
0.00
3.47
-14.16

2018
0.00
1.13
1.02

2019
0.00
0.86
0.40

2020
0.00
0.32
0.24

2015
459000.0
0
29000.00
39000.00
-15.83
-11.77

2016
316188.
00
112812.
00
102812.
00
2.80
3.08

2017
329157.
80
98492.2
0
88492.2
0
3.34
3.72

2018
230448.
80
195423.
67
185423.
67
1.18
1.24

2019
236338.
60
259078.
72
249078.
72
0.91
0.95

2020
236000.0
0
688990.1
1
678990.1
1
0.34
0.35

2015
-1.16
-0.69
4.79
-0.36

2016
0.89
0.18
-1.21
-0.21

2017
2.03
0.21
-1.48
-0.04

2018
2.05
0.11
-0.79
0.41

2019
2.70
0.09
-0.62
0.89

2020
1.45
0.03
-0.25
0.67

2016
202000.0
0
199500.0
0
2500.00

2017
5369.80
14844.8
0
-9475.00

2018
99811.4
7
108260.
25
-8448.78

2019
267111.
06
273532.
22
-6421.16

2021
752227.3
2
78302.01

139000.0
0
136500.0
0

136500.
00
145975.
00

145975.
00
154423.
75

154423.
75
160844.
94

2020
434058.
59
446450.
86
12392.2
7
160844.
94
173237.
18

2016

2017

63710.00

11031.0
0
0.00

2018
126415.
90

2019
333607.
49

2020
540518.
24

-1000.00

0.00

0.00

00
160844.
94
0.12
88.99%
527.31%

0
173237.1
8
0.12
67.18%
859.82%

73.57
158.68
0.40
0.24
5.55
7.96
3.38
0.00
0.00
5.21
3.65
1.62
1.15

673925.3
1
173237.1
8
0.00

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 33

Cash from investing activities

11000.00
14547.00
60163.0
0
1100.00

Cash from financing activities

59563.00

6501.05

Net cash generated

Opening balance

500.00
10000.00

Closing balance

10500.0
0

525.00
10500.0
0
11025.0
0

102560.
56
551.22
11025.0
0
11576.2
2

2015
-35.9%

2016
-20.9%

2017
-3.7%

Income tax
Total Cash from operating
activities

Return on Capital Employed

Particulars
ROCE (%)

-3579.95
7451.05

24232.8
7
101183.
03

65913.7
6
267693.
73

107477.
85
433040.
39

1475.00

1928.75

69366.0
1
197748.
87
578.84
11576.2
5
12155.0
9

429365.
06
-3067.60

607.73
12155.0
6
12762.7
9

2018
41.3%

2019
89.0%

SWOT Analysis of In-difference:

STRENGTH

Team with empathy for the problem in hand

Boundary less (global location)

Time saving

Price/product comparison

No time constraints

Cost effective

Direct communication with consumer

Improved customer interaction

Flexible target market segmentation

Simple and easier exchange of information

Lowers transaction cost

Easy arrangement of products

Faster buying procedure

No physical company set up

Easy and interractive shopping experience

Low operating cost

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 34

Mobile platform

With FA on board (patent), reduces rivalry

No physical contact for measurements

WEAKNESS

Security

Fake websites

Fraud

Fewer discounts and bargaining

Long delivery timing

No idea about quality and physical condition of the product

Limitation of products Lack of personal services

More shipping cost

Limited exposure

Limited advertising

Customers satisfaction

Opportunity

Diverse array of apparel brands

Unique product category

With globalization, expands reach of customers and retailers

Growing number of population

increase in spending power

Changing trends

New technology

Wide business growth

Cut down on local competition

Advertising

Threats

More e-commerce emerging

Online fraud cases

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 35

Global internet breakdown/ virus

Online data security breach

Revolutionin current technology in image capturing

Global economic downturn

Changes in environment, law and regulation

Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC

Page | 36