Management

Simulation
TEAM 8
Mahesh Patel

20135033

Mruganda Shah

20135038

Namrata Ramtri

20135039

Palash Acharya

20135045

Suman Rathod

20135055

Submitted to:
Dr Tanushri Banerjee
Associate Professor & Chairperson- MBA(G)
SPM, PDPU
School of Petroleum Management
Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University
Raisan, Gandhinagar- 382007

Product Line
GAME 1
Mini

Mid-Size

Compact H

Small E

GAME 2

Capacity & Competitors

GAME 1
Capacity

GAME 2
Capacity

1. Mini- 1x

1. Mini E- 1x

2. Mid-Size- 1x

2. Compact- 1x

3. Compact H- 3x

3. Sub-Mid Size- 2x

4. Small E- 1x

4. Sub-Mid Size H- 1x

Competitors

Competitors

1. Mini- 3

1. Mini E- 3

2. Mid-Size- 2

2. Compact- 2

3. Compact H- 2

3. Sub-Mid Size- 1

4. Small E- 3

4. Sub-Mid Size H- 1

Overall Strategy
GAME 1

GAME 2

Well-defined Strategy

The strategy in Game 2

for every car, viz.

Cost Leadership in
Compact H.

was neither polarized

towards
Cost
Leadership,
nor
Differentiation.

Financial Analysis
Parameter

Game 1

Game 2

Retained Earnings

1050 million

1175 million

Return on equity

11%

13.09%

Change in cash

231 million

270 million

Debt ratio

44.13%

38.35%

Share prices

Rs. 155

139.26

Due to new issue of share thrice and buying back

shares, a major impact was seen on share price
by bringing it to the lower range.
However, in Game 1 due to liquidation of one of
our product plant, there was a negative impact on
revenue growth.

Strategic Positioning
GAME 1
Efficiency Improvement

Costs: 0
Staff Expenses: 0
Material Cost: 0
Demand: 0

Product Innovation

Costs: 0
Material Cost: 0
Cust. Satisfaction: 0
Demand: 0

Dealer Training

Costs: 0
Staff Expenses: 0
Cust. Satisfaction: 0
Demand: 0

Dealer Credit

Demand: +6.40%
Receivable Days: 42

GAME 2
Efficiency Improvement

Costs: 16,519KRs
Staff Expenses: +1.60%
Material Cost: +1.60%
Demand: +3.60%

Product Innovation

Costs: 8699 KRs

Material Cost: +1.60%
Cust. Satisfaction: +9%
Demand: +2.52%

Dealer Training

Costs: 19,551 KRs

Staff Expenses: +4%
Cust. Satisfaction: +32%
Demand: +2.56%

Dealer Credit

Demand: +6.40%
Receivable Days: 42

Cost Structure
GAME 1

GAME 2

Material

Cost extremely Material Cost relatively low

because Strategic Positioning
high
because
no
investment was made and
investment was made in
Sustainability
initiatives
Strategic Positioning and
reduced the material costs
investments
in
the
by 10%.
Sustainability
Initiatives
were not the ones which CO2 premium relatively low
because of small product
reduced material cost.
portfolio.

CO2 Premium High.

Cost per unit low, because
of greater efficiency
higher production.

&

Cost per unit high because of

small product portfolio and
competition from Java lead to
smaller market share.

Internal Analysis
(Game 2)

Internal Analysis
(Game 2)

Product Related
Strategy &
Performance

Good decisions
Selection of products
Invested in multiple sectors
Lowest marketing cost
Lower Cost per unit as compared to competitors
Good speculation
Upsized at the right time
Reduced Debt-Equity ratio by paying Long-term
dept using Excess Cash.

Prospective Better
Decisions
We could have increased capacity of an existing
high revenue generating product rather than
invest in more number of products in Game 2.

We

could have refrained from liquidating

Compact H off, in Game 1, in the last quarter.
That led to reduction in our revenue growth.

Learning
Upsizing is always a better option to increase market share
than new investments

Re-launching a product is better than Liquidating it at Decline

stage

Overall business performance is judged on the basis of various

parameters like share price, debt structure, employees etc.

Decisions pertaining to strategic positioning should be taken

very wisely considering their impact on our product demands

Effective management of staff leads to efficient way of doing

business

Lower Debt-equity ratio does not guarantee a good market

position