SG7003

Business Simulation with Professional

Development

Your name: ……………………..

Course / University: ……………………

Words: 3018
Contents

Executive Summary 4

1. Introduction 5

2. Organizational Appraisal 5

2.1. Vision 5

2.2. Strategy 6

2.3. Bring’s HR and Culture 7

3. Performance Review of Bring 8

3.1. Competition Analysis 8

3.1.1 Porter’s Five Forces Analysis 8

3.1.2. Market Share 10

3.1.3. Competitors Analysis 11

3.1.4. Internal Capabilities- VRIO framework 11

3.1.5. Industry Trends- Opportunities and Threats of SWOT 13

3.2. Simulation Performance Results 13

3.2.1. Profitability Ratio- Operating Profit Margin 14

3.2.2. Efficiency Ratio- Total Asset Turnover Ratio 14

3.2.3. Liquidity Ratio- Current Ratio 15

3.3. Performance Analysis 16

4. Future Plans and Recommendations 18

4.1. Summary of the Analysis 18

4.2. Changes to Current Strategy 18

4.3. Other Recommendations: 19

References 20

2
 List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Bring Strategy- contributing to competitive advantage 6

Figure 2: Porter’s five force analysis for Bring 9

Figure 4: Market share of Bring in some of world largest economies 10

Figure 5: Yearly global market share of Bring 11

Figure 2: Growth Strategy of Bring 16

Table 1: VRIO framework of Bring 12

Table 2: Opportunity and Threat analysis for Industry Trends 13

Table 3: Operating Profit Margin of Bring for six years 14

Table 4: Current ratio analysis of Bring 16

Table 5: Total Assets Turnover Ratio of Bring 15

3
Executive Summary

Decision making is undoubtedly one of the most critical tasks for business managers

since business success and its failure largely depends on decisions. Managers in today’s

business environments have to take in to account a number of internal and external factors

that affect their business performance, competitive strengths, profitability and sustainability.

So, business managers are increasingly strategizing their decisions. This report aims to

evaluate strategic business decisions made for Bring, a Mobile phone Venture, that is created

as a simulation business project under EduMundo.

This report will analyze how various decisions made for Bring have impacted its

marketing and financial performance. Product leadership and product differentiation are

adopted as its core business strategies, and with these strategies, Bring has become the second

largest in the market, and being able to sustain competitive advantages. Based on the

findings, this report suggests that diversification strategy will be further better for Bring to

achieve highest synergy and economies of scale in business operations.

4
1. Introduction

In today’s increasingly dynamic, volatile and complex business environment, it is

very challenging for senior executives and managers to make proper decisions on allocating

resources, organizing functional activities, determining performance standards, and

strategizing competitive directions (Brondoni, 2018). To succeed and survive in rigorously

competitive markets, exceptional managers do their best to create competitive advantages for

their businesses, by basing their decisions on performance response under different scenarios

at present, and in the future (Fraser, 2013).

This report aims to evaluate key decisions made in the business of Bring, a simulated

business under UEL Phone Venture, and the impacts of the decisions on business

performance for the last five years. This report aims to present strategy analysis involving

vision, mission, values, and HR, and performance review of the last five years, to support

recommendations for future business plans.

2. Organizational Appraisal

2.1. Vision

Bring is a global company that aims to manufacture and sell Smartphone devices and

accessories across the globe. Its vision statement is as following:

‘To connect the world, and transform human experiences, while ensuring high security for

personal data’.

This vision statement clearly illustrates what the company is doing, and what it wants to be in

the future (Pijl, Lokitz, & Solomon, 2017). Consumers in the Smartphone industry still

continue to face a serious issue of lack of security for their personal data (McCue, 2019,
5
Brewster, 2020), despite the fact that there are numerous companies making and marketing

mobile devices across the globe. Bring’s strength is mentioned in the above vision statement,

and about how it will be positioned in the market- a company that ensures high security for

personal data.

2.2. Strategy

According to Porter’s Generic Strategy, product differentiation, which is also termed

as product leadership strategy is the main source of competitive advantage for Bring. As

shown Figure-1 below, Michael E Porter’s generic strategy follows three distinct approaches;

low-cost leadership, niche, and differentiation (Flouris & Oswald, 2006).

Figure 1: Bring Strategy- contributing to competitive advantage

Low Cost Product Uniqueness

Broad: PRODUCT
Indust
DIFFERENTIATION
ry COST LEADERSHIP
Wide (Product Leadership)
adopted this strategy

Narro
w:
Market FOCUS FOCUS
Segme
nt (Low Cost) (Product Differentiation)

Source: Moon, 2010

6
 Among these three dimensions of Porter’s Generic strategy, Bring adopted product

leadership strategy, which is considered as an outcome of product differentiation (Kaplan, et

al, 2004). They pointed that the value proposition of product leadership emphasizes the

particular features and functionality that leading edge customers would tend to value more.

Companies with product leadership strategy aspire to become the first-to-market with its

innovative and enhanced features (Kaplan, et al 2004).

2.3. Bring’s HR and Culture

For Bring, human resources are most valuable, powerful and influential assets (Macky

& Boxall, 2007), and hence, extensive focus is given to motivate every employee to help

them become high performers (Dessler & Varkkey, 2009). They will are continually

motivated and inspired by a unique organizational culture that is founded on the principle of

high-performance work system (Yalabik & Chen, 2008), in which Bring will have the best

possible fit between the social system, comprising of people and their interaction, and

technical systems comprising of equipment and processes (Bohlander & Snell, 2009).

As a global company, Bring will employ people from around the globe based on geo-

centric global staffing approach (00), along with talent management being an important focus

(00). So, managing diversity will be an essential focus for ensuring superior work culture.

People from different cultures may tend to behave differently, as per Hofsetde’s cultural

dimensions (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2004). Some employees tend to be more individualistic

while others exhibit collectivist behvaiour (Dellner, 2014). Similarly, some cultures exhibit

more power distance between leaders or superiors and followers, while others show low in

power distance. Some cultures are high on uncertainty avoidance while others are low on it

(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2004). Cultures also differ in masculinity and femininity, and long

7
versus short term orientation (Varvouzou & Zasepa, 2013). So, while people from around

the globe work in Bring’s workplace, it is more likely to create issues of cultural differences

and hence, an important focus of HR management of Bring will be to promote cultural,

religious, ethnic and gender diversity in its workplaces.

3. Performance Review of Bring

This section will comprise of three parts; competition analysis, simulation

performance results, and performance analysis.

3.1. Competition Analysis

3.1.1 Porter’s Five Forces Analysis

Michael E Porter’s Five-Force analysis, depicted in Figure-3 below illustrates the

competitive rivalry facing Bring from its competitors within its industry, driven and

influenced by other major four forces, namely threat of new entrants, threat of substitutes,

bargaining power of customers and bargaining power of suppliers (Hill and Jones, 2007).

There is no significant barrier for new entrants in the global Smartphone industry, as

emerging technologies could enable technology companies to invest in the R&D and to

introduce and develop new design and model of mobile phones, with new features and

configurations. There are many small scale players in the Smartphone industry, but they

operate only locally. So, Bring faces moderate problem of threat new entrants, as it has global

presence, and that it could create a strong brand image and brand reputation, along with

continued expansion of its business operation towards more countries.

Bring comes with a solution to the problems that customers in the market presently

experience; lack of security for personal data (McCue, 2019, Brewster, 2020). A company

8
 Competitive Rivalry:
Threats of New Entrants:
High competition due to that
No significant barriers for new Threats
there are too many players
entrants of New
that comes with right solution to customers’ problem surely holds a powerful competitive
Product leadership
Global presence of Bring Entrants Global presence
Continued expansion
advantage over the present market players (Parniangtong, 2017).
Brand image and reputation
Figure 2: Porter’s five force analysis for Bring
Competitive
Rivalry of Bring Bargaining power
Bargaining power
Mobile Venture of buyers
of Suppliers
Hence, switching costs for consumers will be high, and Bring offers superior quality of
Worldwide

Smartphones. So, Bring faces only a low threat of substitutes. There are large numbers of
Bargaining power of
suppliers, including technology companies and software developers (Ponciano, 2019), and
Threats of Substitutes:
Suppliers:
No other mobile companies Threats of
the manufacturers of other accessories. So, bargaining power of suppliers
Large numbers will be high. On the
of suppliers,
ensure highest security for
Substitute
personal data
other hand, bargaining power of customers willBargaining powerdue
be only moderate, of buyers
to that there are large
Switching costs are high products
Superior in quality Too many brands in the market,
numbers of Smartphone companies and brands, butbut
notcompanies thatdata
with personal ensure highest security
security

for personal data are very less (McCue, 2019, Brewster, 2020). To summarise, competitive

rivalry facing Bring will be only moderate, driven by high bargaining power of suppliers,

moderate bargaining power of customers, moderate threat of new entrants, and low threat of

substitutes.

3.1.2. Market Share

By 2025, Bring expands to 20 countries around the world, with considerably high

market share across the globe. As shown in Figure-4 below, Bring achieves more than 90 %

of the market share in Belgium, and more than 76% in Australia.

Figure 4: Market share of Bring in some of world largest economies

9
 Source: Market- Analysis- from Simulation

It will be able to hold a market share of 50.21% in UK, and 60.51% in USA. Similarly,

remarkable achievements will be marked by 2025 in China with a market share of 61.89%,

and in France with a market share of 64.97%.

One main reason behind this growth is that Bring’s Smartphone is very successful in

guaranteeing security for customers’ private data. As shown above in Figure-5, Bring marked

a slight decline in global market share in 2024 compared to that of 2023, and a slow growth

compared to the market share of 2020. However, its market share in 2025 has declined to

54.86% in 2025 from 82.45% in 2024, which marked a poor performance in terms of market

share. This decline was driven mainly by comparatively lower spending in marketing,

especially in marketing communication and promotion activities.

Figure 5: Yearly global market share of Bring

10
3.1.3. Competitors Analysis

The global Smartphone industry is fiercely competitive. As per the simulation, there are

mainly two competitors for Bring; Voati and Phoneme. Among these players, Bring

maintained the market leadership with 54.86% market share, followed by Voati and

Phoneme.

3.1.4. Internal Capabilities- VRIO framework

Resource based view of the firm, a theory developed by J. B. Barney, propounded that

competitive advantage of a company is derived from its tangible and intangible resources,

along with its capabilities and core competencies (Barney, 2011). In order for a firm to

achieve sustainable competitive advantage, Barney and Hesterly (2010) emphasized that its

resources, capabilities and competencies must be valuable, rare, inimitable and the company

has to be organised in order to be able to exploit these resources. Table -1 below shows the

VRIO framework of Bring.

Table 1: VRIO framework of Bring

Resources / Activity Valuable Rare Inimitabl Organised Outcome

11
 Yes Yes Yes Yes Sustainable CA
Product Leadership
Yes Yes Yes Yes Sustainable CA
Product Development
Yes Yes No No Temporary CA
Innovation & technology
Second largest in Global Yes No No Yes Temporary CA
Smartphone Industry
Yes Yes Yes Yes Sustainable CA
Human capital investment
Integrated Marketing Yes Yes Yes Yes Sustainable CA
Communications
Yes Yes Yes Yes Sustainable CA
Strategic Leadership
High performing workers-
highly qualified and Yes Yes No Yes Sustainable CA
motivated workers & reward
and recognition
Based on the VRIO analysis given above, it is found that Bring is able to sustain competitive

advantages through six key resources and competencies; that are product leadership as per

Generic Strategy, product development as per Ansoff matrix, HCI, IMC, strategic leadership,

and HPWS as per simulation. These resources and competences are not only valuable and

rare, but also inimitable for other competitors in the industry, and that Bring has well

organized and prepared for exploiting these resources and capabilities (Barney & Hesterly,

2010). However, its resources and competencies such as innovation and technology, and

second largest market share are not inimitable and not organised and hence they contribute

only to temporary competitive advantages (Barney & Hesterly, 2010).

3.1.5. Industry Trends- Opportunities and Threats of SWOT

To explain industry trends, the external opportunities and threats parts of SWOT

analysis is presented below in Table- 2. Digital convergence, growing opportunities for

mobile device market, growing market share for this industry and improved connectivity are

major opportunity trends in the industry.

12
Table 2: Opportunity and Threat analysis for Industry Trends

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Ind
● Digital convergence ● Saturated Smartphone market in some
ust
● Growing opportunity for developed countries
ry mobile device market ● Rapid technological change

lev ● Growing market share ● Declining margins on hardware

el ● Better connection with production

customers ● Price wars with other players

On the other side, Smartphone market is becoming saturated on some developed

markets, rapid technological change, decline in hardware production, and price war are major

threats among the trends in Smartphone industry.

3.2. Simulation Performance Results

Some financial ratio analyses are shown below, to easily compare and contrast the financial

performance of Bring over six years.

3.2.1. Profitability Ratio- Operating Profit Margin

Table-3 below shows operating profit margin, which is one of the most important and

commonly used ratio analysis, that gives a measure of profitability by identifying and

evaluating how much revenue is left over, after Bring meets its cost of goods sold and

operating expenses (Gibson, 2008).

Operating profit margin is calculated by dividing operating profits by total revenues.

Table 3: Operating Profit Margin of Bring for six years

  2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

13
 Net Sales in £m 1089.1 2406.4 2483.9 6190 6427.9 2722.2

Operating Profit in £m 331.8 637.7 415 1596.9 967.2 168.6

Operating Profit Margin 0.305 0.265 0.167 0.258 0.150 0.062

OPM Ratio in % 30.5 26.5 16.7 25.8 15.0 6.2

As per the ratio analysis above, Bring reports steady decline in operating profit

margin, because a higher operating profit margin is considered favorable for a firm. By 2025,

Bring’s operating profit margin declined to 6.2% from 30.5% in the year 2020. So, the

profitability of Bring is found to steadily declining over five years from 2025.

3.2.2. Efficiency Ratio- Total Asset Turnover Ratio

Total assets turnover ratio is an important ratio analysis for measuring the efficiency

of a firm. It measures the ability of Bring to utilise its assets to generate revenues. Table-4

below illustrates the Total assets turnover ratio of Bring for 2020-2025

Table 5: Total Assets Turnover Ratio of Bring

  2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Net Revenues in £million 1089.1 2406.4 2483.9 6190 6427.9 2722.2

Opening Total Assets 521 903.3 1609.1 2025.6 3798.4 4808.9

Closing Total Assets 903.3 1609.1 2025.6 3798.4 4808.9 4777.8

Average Total Assets in £m 712.15 1256.2 1817.35 2912 4303.65 4793.35

Total Assets Turnover Ratio 1.53 1.92 1.37 2.13 1.49 0.57
14
 As shown in the table above, bring is able to utilize its assets very efficiently to

generate revenues and income. For instance, assets turnover ratio for 2020 is 1.53, which

indicates that each dollar spent in assets is able to generate revenue of 1.53 (Kimmel, et al,

2010). Based on this analysis, it is found that Bring performs far better in 2023, but quite bad

in 2025.

3.2.3. Liquidity Ratio- Current Ratio

Current ratio is another widely used tool for measuring a firm’s ability to meet its

short terms obligations (Kimmel, et al, 2010). It is calculated by dividing the current assets of

Bring by its current liabilities for each year. Table-4 below shows the current ratio of Bring

for six years. Current ratio must be above the value of 1. As per this requirement, Bring’s

current ratio for all six years were found above 1, and it indicated that Bring’s current assets

were sufficient enough to meet its short terms obligations. It means, Bring is found to have

sufficient working capital, so that it will be able to meet its day to day requirements and short

term obligations.

Table 5: Current ratio analysis of Bring

  2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Current Assets in £ 000 835 1495 1878 674 4626 4642

Current liabilities in £ 000 52.5 121 123.4 301.2 345.6 146.9

Current Ratio 15.905 12.355 15.219 2.238 13.385 31.600

15
3.3. Performance Analysis

While looking at Bring’s growth strategy based on Ansoff Matrix (Johnson, et al,

2007), it is found that Bring has followed Product development strategy, as it proposes to

develop new mobile devices and related products, through differentiation strategy, and to

market them in the existing markets, that is global market for mobile phones.

Figure 2: Growth Strategy of Bring

Current Products New Products

Product Development

Current Market Penetration Strategy

Markets Strategy adopted this strategy

New Market Development Diversification

Strategy
Markets Strategy

Source: Johnson, et al, 2007

Rather than targeting new markets with existing products, or new markets with new products,

Bring followed product development strategy by developing new products for the existing

markets because:-

1- Global market for Smartphone will continue to emerge. By 2022, 68% growth is

predicted (Kohan, 2020)

16
 2- Consumers in the global Smartphone market presently face a serious issue of lack of

security for personal data (McCue, 2019, Brewster, 2020),

3- With help of technology and innovation, Bring will be able to ensure highest security

for personal data, thereby transforming human experience through new connectivity

worldwide.

This product development strategy is supported by following key performance indicators:-

KPIs supporting the Product Development strategy:-

1- Integrated Marketing Communication strategy, whereby all marketing communication

efforts and promotion activities will be integrated and coordinated in order to ensure

that there is consistency in messages communicated to customers (Belch & Belch,

2007)

2- Human Capital Investment, for extensively investing in improving skills, knowledge,

and talents of employees, so as to ensue high-performance work from them (Thomas,

Smith, & Diez, 2013)

3- Continuous growth in terms of profitability, solvency and efficiency ratios.

4. Future Plans and Recommendations

4.1. Summary of the Analysis

Bring, as a global company operating in nearly 20 countries around the world, will

have greater potential to become a successful company, and to achieve sustainable

competitive advantages. It is the second largest in the Smartphone industry. Focusing on

product differentiation strategy, and with extensive investment in innovation and technology,

17
it will be able to able to sustain competitive edge. However, the Smartphone industry is

fiercely competitive, and that the industry is getting saturated in some developed countries.

Hence, it is recommended that Bring has to diversify its operations and markets, while also

continuing to focus in the Smartphone industry.

4.2. Changes to Current Strategy

Diversification strategy is about introducing new products to new markets, according

to Ansoff Matrix. It helps a company diversify its operation and marketing efforts to more

industries than what it presently focuses in. Concentric Diversification strategy is

recommended to Bring for following reasons:-

1- It could enable Bring to attain synergy and economies of scale through exchanging of

resources, mainly including people and technology. When Bring operates in different

but related economies, it is possible to transfer technology, know-how, managerial

personnel, employees and other resources between its strategic business units (SBUs)

2- Smartphone industry is already becoming saturated in some developing countries. So,

by expanding Bring’s operation to producing and marketing related products such as

mobile-phone accessories, digital devices, wearable technology products etc, Bring will

be able to offset financial and other losses from Smartphone industry with the potential

profits from other industry.

4.3. Other Recommendations:

In order to maintain steady growth in financial position and market share, Bring is

recommended to give greater importance in decision making, because, its market share in

2025 has been declined only because of its lower budget in marketing. Budgeting is

undoubtedly the most important step in strategic planning. Secondly, Bring is recommended

18
to continuously evaluate its resources and capabilities in terms of their value, rarity,

inimitability and organization, so that Bring could maintain sustainable competitive

advantages in every investments and efforts the company makes.

References

1- Barney, J B & Hesterly, W. S, 2010, Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage:

Concepts and Cases, Prentice Hall

2- Barney, J. B., 2011, Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Pearson Education

3- Belch, G. E and Belch, M. A (2007), Advertising and Promotion, An integrated

marketing Perspective, McGraw Hill Irwin

4- Bohlander G & Snell S (2009), Managing Human Resources, Fifteenth Edition, Cengage

Learning
19
5- Brewster, T., 2020, Exclusive: Warning Over Chinese Mobile Giant Xiaomi Recording

Millions Of People’s ‘Private’ Web And Phone Use, Forbes, Retrieved from

[Link]

chinese-mobile-giant-xiaomi-recording-millions-of-peoples-private-web-and-phone-use/

#2bc1f7831b2a

6- Brondoni, S. M., 2018, Competitive Business Management: A Global Perspective, Taylor

& Francis

7- Dellner, A., 2014, Cultural Dimensions: The Five-Dimensions-Model according to Geert

Hofstede, GRIN Verlag

8- Dessler & Varkkey (2009), Human Resource Management, 11th edition, Pearson

Education India

9- Flouris, T.G., & Oswald, S. L., 2006, Designing and Executing Strategy in Aviation

Management, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd

10- Fraser, C., 2013, Business Statistics for Competitive Advantage with Excel 2013: Basics,

Model Building, Simulation and Cases, Springer Science & Business Media

11- Gibson, C., (2008), “Financial Reporting and Analysis: Using Financial Accounting

Information”, Cengage Learning

12- Hill, C & Jones, G, 2007, Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach, Eighth

Edition, Cengage Learning

13- Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J., 2004, Cultures and Organizations: Software for the

Mind, McGraw Hill Professional

20
14- Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R., 2007, Strategy as Practice:

Research Directions and Resources, Cambridge University Press

15- Kaplan, R. S., Kaplan, R. S.A., Kaplan, R. E., Norton, D. P., & Norton, D. P., 2004,

Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets Into Tangible Outcomes, Harvard Business

Press

16- Kimmel, P. D., Weygandt, J. J., and Kieso, D. E., 2010, Financial Accounting: Tools for

Business Decision Making, Sixth Edition, John Wiley & Sons

17- Kohan, S. E., 2020, Mobile Commerce To Grow 68% By 2022 As More People Shop On

Their Phones, Forbes, Retrieved from

[Link]

2022-as-more-people-shop-on-their-phones/#73205656652d

18- Macky K & Boxall P (2007), The relationship between ‘high performance work

practices’ and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and interaction effects,

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Routledge, EBSCO Datbase

19- McCue, T. J., 2019, l Lock Down Your Smartphone: The New York Times ‘Privacy

Project’ Revelations, Forbes, Retrieved from

[Link]

times-privacy-project-revelations/#73a211e32bd6

20- Moon, H. C., 2010, Global Business Strategy: Asian Perspective, World Scientific

21- Parniangtong, S., 2017, Competitive Advantage of Customer Centricity, Springer

22- Pijl, P. V. D., Lokitz, J., & Solomon, L.K., 2017, Design a Better Business: New Tools,

Skills, and Mindset for Strategy and Innovation, John Wiley & Sons

21
23- Ponciano, J., 2019, The Largest Technology Companies In 2019: Apple Reigns As

Smartphones Slip And Cloud Services Thrive, Forbes, Retrieved from

[Link]

companies-2019/#3ae9659b734f

24- Thomas, H., Smith, R. R., & Diez, F., 2013, Human Capital and Global Business

Strategy, Cambridge University Press

25- Varvouzou, I., & Zasepa, M., 2013, National Cultural dimensions according to Geert

Hofstede and their meaning in Japanese and German Corporate Management, GRIN

Verlag

26- Yalabik Z.Y & Chen S (2008), High-Performance Work System and Organizational

Turnover in East and Southeast Asian Countries, Blackwell Publishing, EBSCO database

22
 Business plan template

Business Plan Year 1

Competitive strategy product leadership

SWOT Opportunities

● Digital convergence
● Growing mobile device market
● Growing market share in all major categories
● Better connection with customers

Threats

● Saturated smartphones market in developed countries

● Rapid technological change
● Declining margins on hardware production
● Breached patents
● Price wars with other players

Strengths

● Increasing number of mobile phone users

● Higher resale value compared to other mobile phone companies
● Easy to use
● Product innovation and design capabilities
● Strong innovative ability

Weaknesses

● Low brand image due to rising from a low cost OEM

● Ineffective marketing Communication
● Low profit margin
● Lack its own operating system and software

Vision
● Transform the human experience

● connecting the world

● Secure personal data

Targets ● Highest quality.

● Market leader in quality segments.

● Solvency

● The average age of inventory in days.

23
 ● Employee motivation.

Long-term goals ● being the market leader in the quality segment

Growth ● market development

Supporting analysis ● In the first year, the focus was given to two major markets, the UK and
Belgium. In this we selected Belgium as headquarters for added advantage. as
we decided to go with the product segment the quality market and customer
intensive market were given importance. We selected IDC as our supplier to
achieve efficiency. in human resources department education and employee
motivation were given importance but decided to give it a gradual growth. to
reduce workload we hired maximum people(25). we analysed each market
and predicted the sales we may get from each country. initially put more
money into research and marketing to get hold of the market share. invested
in innovation research and 33 percent done. company reached 2nd in the
scoreboard as market responded positively

Business plan template

Business Plan Year 2

Competitive strategy product leadership

SWOT Opportunities

● Digital convergence
● Growing mobile device market
● Growing market share in all major categories
● Better connection with customers

Threats

● Saturated smartphones market in developed countries

● Rapid technological change
● Declining margins on hardware production
● Breached patents
● Price wars with other players

Strengths

● Increasing number of mobile phone users

● Higher resale value compared to other mobile phone companies
● Easy to use
● Product innovation and design capabilities
● Strong innovative ability

Weaknesses

● Low brand image due to rising from a low cost OEM

● Ineffective marketing Communication

24
 ● Low profit margin
● Lack its own operating system and software

Vision
● Transform the human experience

● connecting the world

● Secure personal data

Targets ● Highest quality.

● Market leader in quality segments.

● Solvency

● The average age of inventory in days.

● Employee motivation.

Long-term goals ● being the market leader in the quality segment

Growth ● market development

Supporting analysis In the 2nd year we entered into 4 markets namely Uk, Germany, Belgium japan
and [Link] decided to invest 68% in innovation research and after this year
we would be able to launch a new product after the research progress became
100%and 32% in reliability research to increase reliability of the product . we
hired more people (25)

Business Plan Year 3

Competitive strategy product leadership

SWOT Opportunities

● Digital convergence
● Growing mobile device market
● Growing market share in all major categories
● Better connection with customers

Threats

● Saturated smartphones market in developed countries

● Rapid technological change
● Declining margins on hardware production
● Breached patents
● Price wars with other players

25
 Strengths

● Increasing number of mobile phone users

● Higher resale value compared to other mobile phone companies
● Easy to use
● Product innovation and design capabilities
● Strong innovative ability

Weaknesses

● Low brand image due to rising from a low cost OEM

● Ineffective marketing Communication
● Low profit margin
● Lack its own operating system and software

Vision
● Transform the human experience

● connecting the world

● Secure personal data

Targets ● Highest quality.

● Market leader in quality segments.

● Solvency

● The average age of inventory in days.

● Employee motivation.

Long-term goals ● being the market leader in the quality segment

Growth ● market development

Supporting analysis In the 3rd year we came in the 1st place in score as kwe entered into the
Netherlands,Belgium ,France ,United States of America,United Kingdom,
Australia, Germany, Japan, Brazil and [Link] product launched after
completion of innovation research.19% of reliability research progress was
achieved and again invested 100% for the same to achieve 82 percentage as a
whole. The problem occurred during the last year and will be solved with this
result.

Business Plan Year 4

Competitive strategy product leadership

SWOT Opportunities

26
 ● Digital convergence
● Growing mobile device market
● Growing market share in all major categories
● Better connection with customers

Threats

● Saturated smartphones market in developed countries

● Rapid technological change
● Declining margins on hardware production
● Breached patents
● Price wars with other players

Strengths

● Increasing number of mobile phone users

● Higher resale value compared to other mobile phone companies
● Easy to use
● Product innovation and design capabilities
● Strong innovative ability

Weaknesses

● Low brand image due to rising from a low cost OEM

● Ineffective marketing Communication
● Low profit margin
● Lack its own operating system and software

Vision ● connecting the world

● Transform the human experience

● Secure personal data

Targets ● Highest quality.

● Market leader in quality segments.

● Solvency

● The average age of inventory in days.

● Employee motivation.

Long-term goals ● being the market leader in the quality segment

Growth
● Penetration

Supporting analysis ● In the 4th year we entered Brazil,Belgium,USA, Canada,The Netherlands,

Singapore,Germany,UK,Australia,Japan,India,Malaysia,France and China
Keeping 1st position in the market. we hired 25 [Link] in

27
 reliability research 19 % and 89 %in quality research… to tackle the
competition reduced price to 699

Business Plan Year 5

Competitive product leadership

strategy

SWOT Opportunities

● Digital convergence
● Growing mobile device market
● Growing market share in all major categories
● Better connection with customers

Threats

● Saturated smartphones market in developed countries

● Rapid technological change
● Declining margins on hardware production
● Breached patents
● Price wars with other players

Strengths

● Increasing number of mobile phone users

● Higher resale value compared to other mobile phone companies
● Easy to use
● Product innovation and design capabilities
● Strong innovative ability

Weaknesses

● Low brand image due to rising from a low cost OEM

● Ineffective marketing Communication
● Low profit margin
● Lack its own operating system and software

Vision ● connecting the world

● Transform the human experience

● Secure personal data

Targets ● Highest quality.

● Market leader in quality segments.

● Solvency

28
 ● The average age of inventory in days.

● Employee motivation.

Long-term ● being the market leader in the quality segment

goals

Growth ● Penetration

Supporting In the 5th year we decided to enter Brazil,Belgium,USA, Canada,The Netherlands,

analysis Singapore,Germany,UK,Australia,Japan,India,Malaysia,France,China and
[Link] 25 people invested 100% in innovation to launch new products in the
6th year. hold the market position which is 1st all the targets were achieved and
kept the position which was 1st in the simulation low profit because of high
marketing cost and low sale compared to last year because of chinese sale ban
issue (news)

Business Plan Year 6

Competitive product leadership

strategy

SWOT Opportunities

● Digital convergence
● Growing mobile device market
● Growing market share in all major categories
● Better connection with customers

Threats

● Saturated smartphones market in developed countries

● Rapid technological change
● Declining margins on hardware production
● Breached patents
● Price wars with other players

Strengths

● Increasing number of mobile phone users

● Higher resale value compared to other mobile phone companies
● Easy to use
● Product innovation and design capabilities
● Strong innovative ability

Weaknesses

● Low brand image due to rising from a low cost OEM

● Ineffective marketing Communication
● Low profit margin

29
 ● Lack its own operating system and software

Vision ● connecting the world

● Transform the human experience

● Secure personal data

Targets ● Highest quality.

● Market leader in quality segments.

● Solvency

● The average age of inventory in days.

● Employee motivation.

Long-term being the market leader in the quality segment

goals

Growth
Product development

Supporting We will be focusing on cutting costs.

analysis expected to achieve the long term goal
”Highest overall reserve” . 1st position in the
market ..highest market share..

30