Market Overview: Overview of the overall market, competition, and profit conditions, and

investment trends in capacity and technology investments over the last 2 rounds.

ROUNDS GLOBAL PROFIT % CHANGE

Round 1 286 190 -
Round 2 -370 935 -29.61%

ROUNDS USA PROFIT % CHANGE

Round 1 -81 190 -
Round 2 -543 770 -569%

ROUNDS ASIA PROFIT % CHANGE

Round 1 252 723 -
Round 2 137 590 -45.55%

ROUNDS EUROPE PROFIT % CHANGE

Round 1 114 657 -
Round 2 35 246 -69.25%

MARKET SHARE (ROUND 1-2)

MARKET SHARE (ROUND 1-2)

10
9
9.14
8 8.22 8.28
7
6 6.28
5
4
3
2.89
2
2.08
1 1.64
0.92
0
Round 1 Round 2

Global USA Asia Europe

Global Market Share (Round 1)
6.87
10.59

10.89
8.22
0.06
2.08
12.95
12.66

15.11 10.89

9.69

Green Red Blue Orange Grey Ochre

Pink Navy Yellow Olive Brown

Global Market Share (Round 2)

2.39
9.18
9.25 2.08
2.65

15.31 11.86

13.63 16.3

8.1 9.25

Green Red Blue Orange Grey Ochre

Pink Navy Yellow Olive Brown
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SHARE (ROUND 1 AND 2)

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SHARE (ROUND 1)

TECH 2
3%

TECH 1
TECH 2

TECH 1
97.33
97%

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SHARE (ROUND 2)

TECH 4
TECH 2 0%
22%
TECH 1
TECH 2
TECH 4
TECH 1
77.2
77%
 ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC OUTCOMES-

1) ROUND 1

After the first round got over, we secured a total market share of 8.22% globally.
(Figure 1, Round 1) In the first round, we had the seventh highest sales revenue
compared to our competitors. Our selling price/ pricing strategy was penetrative as
we aimed to provide lower pricing than our competitors and hoped to gain more profit
by doing that (Figure 2, Round 1).

We also spent heavily on Research & Development. Our strategy included buying
new technology and designs, adding new features for Tech 1 so that by the 2 nd round
we could offer more features than any of our competitors and at a cheaper price
compared to them. This strategy worked as by the end of round two, we had seven
features available for Tech 1. We planned to start investing in R&D for Tech 2 in the
second round.

For production, our capacity allocation percentage was 100% like most of our
competitors but our scrap percentage was pretty low. Our own in-house production
was being used for majority of the production, therefore it helped in keeping the cost
per unit of the product minimum and increased our profit for the round.

Talking about Sustainability, we wanted a balance between choosing a supplier(s)

who had good ethics, sustainability and where the unit cost was not too high.
Overall, we were second as compared to our competitors in Sustainability (Figure 3,
Round 1). Since sustainability standards of the chosen suppliers will affect the
perceived image of our company, we decided to pay high attention to social
responsibility issues as it would be more attractive to consumers.

Our HR report indicated that our HR efficiency multiplier was the third highest when
compared to all our competitors. We were also spending the fifth highest amount for
total monthly costs per employee as compared to all the other teams (Figure 4,
Round 1).

Coming to Sorting, we had the fourth highest equity ratio. We also had the fifth
highest operating profit before depreciation % (EBITDA) as compared to our
competitors. Our ROE, ROCE and EPS ratios are fairly in the middle in comparison
to all the other teams (Figure 5, Round 1).
2) ROUND 2-

In Round 2, the market outlook indicated that there would be an increase in demand
in Asian markets by 15-20%, hence we predicted our market growth to be 19%.
Similarly for USA market, we expected our market growth to be 14% and for Europe,
the market outlook indicated decline, hence, we predicted it to be 7% (Figure 1,
Round 2).

In this round, we adopted the growth strategy. In this, we spent heavily on the
Research & Development of Tech 1 and Tech 2 features (Figure 2, Round 2). We
went for this strategy in order to avail maximum seven to eight features for Tech 1
and at least 4 features for Tech 2 by the end of Round 2. So that in the upcoming
round 3, we could reduce sell our products in the Asian and European markets with
the cheapest selling price and highest number of additional features as compared to
all our competitors in order to increase our profit.

After the second round, we have a market share of 2.08% globally (Figure 3, Round
2). It’s significantly less than our competitors, but as stated above, we can afford to
bear this loss as part of our growth strategy.

Coming to out pricing strategy, we decided to increase our selling price for Tech 1 in
the Asia as we thought our competitors would do the same. The demand for Tech 1
was increasing in the Asian market as well. However, this strategy backfired on us all
the other teams kept their selling price very low and offered more features than we
did. We ended up losing our sales revenue, thereby decreasing our profit (Figure 4,
Round 2).

For production, our capacity allocation was again 100% as most of our competitors.
And we had the highest own production units which helped us in reducing the
production cost per unit because when the production units increase, the production
cost per unit decreases. Most of our production was in-house manufacturing,
however we also outsourced additional 1090 units from our suppliers in the form of
contract manufacturing. We planned ahead and to increase our production, we
invested in 2 and 1 plants in Asia and USA respectively.

For sustainability, it was the same as round 1. We procured suppliers(s) who had a
balance between good ethics and sustainability, and where the cost per unit was not
too high. We decided to stick with the same supplier(s) as round 1 and it helped us in
maintaining the second highest position when it comes to Sustainability as compared
to all our competitors (Figure 5, Round 2).

The Human Resource reports indicated that our HR efficiency multiplier in Round 2
was the fifth highest when compared to all our competitors. And we were spending
the fifth highest amount on total monthly costs per employee. Our personnel turnover
rate was also the fifth lowest due to our HR efficiency multiplier being good enough
for us to retain them in our company.

Lastly, our Cumulative Total Shareholder Return percentage was significantly lower
than our other competitors, standing at -26.06%, but we still performed better than 4
of our competitors (Figure 6, Round 2). Our ROE, ROCE and EPS suffered due to
the loss in sales revenue and decrease in profit. However, our Gross Margin
percentage was the second highest as compared to all of our other competitors.