Case: Southwestern Ohio Steel

Company, L.P:
The Matworks Decision
Name(s):_Scott_Stampf________ Section: MBA64502__

This study source was downloaded by 100000852150298 from CourseHero.com on 09-17-2022 22:28:50 GMT -05:00
1.
Strengths
 Long standing, successful firm in the industry
 “Considered to be one of the industry leaders in technology and service”
 Value Added Processing allows SOSLP to fulfill almost any order
 Advanced market forecasting that aids in keeping input costs down
 Extensive logistics and distribution division for timely and efficient delivery 5 & 6. Alternatives and analysis (typically 3-5 alternatives)
 Highly diversified clientele protects against economic downturn + Options with show greatest support for Matworks
+ Employee satisfaction will increase due to excursion enjoyment
Weaknesses - Options are roughly 3% of annual sales from Matworks
 Owners and inactive in company functional management - Far over the stated lowest value for “out of line” activity (page 43)
 Sales are “top heavy” and not evenly distributed throughout its customers

5)
- Would decrease net working capital due to lowering of cash

or
 Industry is highly competitive, which leaves customers with options - Payouts of this magnitude on the radar of legal questionability

1,2
 SOSLP is limited to local business due to cost of transport

ns
+ Options still show support for Matworks

ptio
Opportunities + The cost is less than 1% of annual sales from Matworks

e. O
 Customers value loyalty within the industry + Employee satisfaction will increase due to excursion enjoyment

s (i
 With the industry dealing with customers in close proximity, it is + Golf-outings are not out of the realm of normal T&E expenses

ting
possible/easy to interact with customers in a face to face manner - Would decrease net working capital due to lowering of cash

Ou
 Customers prefer delivery scheduling, quick order response time, etc.

4)
- Payouts of this magnitude on the radar of legal questionability

E nd

or
- Choosing the least expensive option may be taken negatively by

s3
Threats

er-
Matworks Management

on
 Lack of consistency in order size can hinder revenue streams

pti
Hig
 Long-standing nature can sway SOSLP to value loyalty to greatly + No legal questionability

.O
ept

(ie
 Government restrictions have created grey-areas for “wining & dining” + No decrease in net working capital
Acc

ns
 Average profit margin is low, which makes fluctuation in sales detrimental + No “wasted” time due to employee absence

tio
Op - No increase in employee satisfaction
ng
- No support shown for Matworks
2. Problem recognition (symptoms)
uti

- Disrespect to long standing customer

dO

 SOSLP does not usually participate in promotions, er

th
En

especially of this magnitude e 7. Recommendation

og
er-

 Government Restrictions make possible choices la l t • Accept Lower-End Outing Options (ie. Options 3 or 4)
ow

questionable legal l
L

sa
pt

o
 With declining orders from Matworks, the need for op 8. Implementation/Loose ends
ce

Pr
Ac

compliance is questionable • Email Linda Lewis the response along with a thank you for the
ne
ecli invitation
3. Problem statement (question) D • Contact other steel supplier management representatives to
 How should SOSLP handle/answer the invitation to the confirm their acceptance/decline of the Matworks offer
Matworks promotional proposal? • Gauge success based on #4 parameters in the coming months

4. Evaluative criteria
• Continued orders from Matworks for the foreseeable future
• Increased yearly sales by at least 10% from the recent $672K
• No legal repercussions or tax deficits from chosen alternative 2
This study source was downloaded by 100000852150298 from CourseHero.com on 09-17-2022 22:28:50 GMT -05:00
 Back-Up Info
Cost-Benfit Analysis
Average Yearly Sales from Matworks $672,000 % of Yealy Sales
Cost of Option 1 $14,000 2.08%
Cost of Option 2 $25,000 3.72%
Cost of Option 3 $6,000 0.89%
Cost of Option 4 $5,000 0.74%
Cost of Option 5 $30,000 4.46%

This study source was downloaded by 100000852150298 from CourseHero.com on 09-17-2022 22:28:50 GMT -05:00
 Case grading
Element Points Possible
1. SWOT analysis (12 points total as follows)

- Strengths 3

- Weaknesses 3

- Opportunities 3

- Threats 3

2. Problem recognition 2

3. Problem statement 2

4. Evaluative criteria 2

5. & 6. Alternatives and analysis 3

- Qualitative 4

- Quantitative 4

7. Recommendation 2 4
This study source was downloaded by 100000852150298 from CourseHero.com on 09-17-2022 22:28:50 GMT -05:00
 Grading Key
Element
1. SWOT analysis

- Strengths: 0, Mentioned no relevant strengths; 1, Mentioned a relevant strength (but missed a key strength); 2, Captured some relevant strengths; 3, Captured most
relevant strengths

- Weaknesses: 0, Mentioned no relevant weaknesses; 1, Mentioned a relevant weakness(missed a key weakness); 2, Captured some relevant weaknesses; 3, Captured
most relevant weaknesses

- Opportunities: 0, Mentioned no relevant opportunities (listed only alternatives); 1, Mentioned a relevant opportunity (missed a key opportunity or confused
alternatives w/opps); 2, Captured some relevant opportunities; 3, Captured most relevant opportunities

- Threats: 0, Mentioned no relevant threats; 1, Mentioned a relevant threat (missed a key threat); 2, Captured some relevant threats; 3, Captured most relevant threats

2. Problem recognition: 0, did not summarize why mgr. must act now; 1, adequate bullet or bullets (but failed to fully address why mgr must act now); 2, captured why
mgr must act now well

3. Problem statement: 0, inappropriate or incorrect problem statement; 1, adequate problem statement (may be close-ended); 2, brief, open, articulate problem
statement

4. Evaluative criteria: 0, did not provide a relevant criterion; 1, captured idea, but not measureable/time-bound or ambiguous or inconsistent with problem statement; 2,
time-bound and measureable criteria that would assess success or failure of recommendation.

5. & 6. Alternatives and analysis: 0, alternatives were not appropriate for or consistent with problem statement or case data; 1, alternatives were appropriate but were
too limited or insufficient; 2, alternatives were adequate; 3, alternatives were well summarized, consistent with case data and appropriate..

- Qualitative: 0, non-numerical points were not logical, did not reflect case info, or did not support your ultimate recommendation; 1, you summarized 1 logical and/or
consistent advantage or dis-advantage of your alternative, other points irrelevant or illogical; 2, adequate analysis but lacked any insight or failed to address key points
made in case; 3, good qualitative analysis but missed key point(s) in case; 4, excellent and insightful non-numerical analysis, includes all relevant case information.

- Quantitative: 0, you did not complete any relevant quantitative analysis or simply copied information from the case materials without any analysis. 1, you attempted
some analysis – however the analysis was not relevant to the problem; 2, conducted minimal relevant quantitative analysis; 3, good relevant analysis of information,
although additional information could have been incorporated; 4, excellent use and analysis of numerical information to inform your decision.

7. Recommendation and consistency: 0, your recommendation is inappropriate or unrelated to the case; 1, your recommendation is relevant but did not incorporate
some key case information or is inconsistent with information presented; 2, sound recommendation resulting from consistent and logical analysis.

8. Implementation/loose ends: 0, you did not present any next steps, those that you did provide are not sensible or logical; 1, you present appropriate next steps.

Overall case consistency: 0 , there were numerous inconsistencies in your case analysis; 1, the case analysis was mostly consistent, with a few inconsistencies; 2, the case
analysis was consistent among the various components.
TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE ARE 34 X 3 = 102

This study source was downloaded by 100000852150298 from CourseHero.com on 09-17-2022 22:28:50 GMT -05:00
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)