Our research draws attention to some of the decisions that were made in the previous years and point out the important information that can be extracted from them about the company, the market, and the companies’ competitors. Moreover we will resent why those decisions were made and what was the rationale behind it. The strategy used and why we chose this strategy as well as references to other companies who have been using this strategy from our market and from outside of it will be discussed in this report.
We will start by discussing the types of strategies and how Emergent or Prescriptive was more useful than the other. The analysis methods used in our research were P5F and SWOT analysis with short reference to PEST and VRIS. Porters’ strategies will be presented as well as they have given us a good idea about how to achieve our aims and was a good idea to take them in consideration.
Discussion: * Strategy: * Our first decision was whether to use a prescriptive or an emergent approach. To plan and try to stick to it or to observe our competitors and just react to them, like a solution to an equation. After a close look at their advantages and the disadvantages we decided to go with the prescriptive approach because this would give us a direction, would allow us to have a commitment for our plan and keep our team strong. It was easier to coordinate and to control the business and most important it allowed us to be the first in the market with a certain decision, it allowed to aim for market leaders. For those who would have gone with the emergent approach, preferring opportunism, flexibility, learning from others and their mistakes we used the following quote to argue the prescriptive approach “ Those who plan do better than those who don’t plan even though they rarely stick to their plan” Winston Churchill. * Porter gave us a few ideas about how our main strategy might look like, by looking at his generic strategies we could observe their advantages and disadvantages and decide which one to use or which to two to combine and experiment with. The low cost leadership was the first idea that could come to one’s mind but that would be difficult to sustain, plus that our competitors could copy us and force us to go low enough to make profits very small. Still price was the winning factor in Asia and a qualifying factor in USA and Europe so we had to consider it and keep it in our minds continually. We decided to keep the price as low as possible for and because of how much it mattered for the market segments we used the low-cost leader strategy but this would not be enough. We still needed something to make us different and hard to copy. Due to the nature of the market was impossible to keep competitors from copying us but we could make things harder for them, by being first in an expensive and late technology, like tech 4 we could take advantage of the learning curve. This way we would use the differentiation strategy and if we were to be copied it would be easier for us to have a lower price than our competitors. This also mean that we would take a risk because of the possibility of someone else using the same idea and it mean that we would stick with tech 1 for a while which we don’t think it was a bad idea as tech one at the beginning was in large demand and only later its market share and price dropped very low. * In order to maximise the learning curve potential and to have enough production to satisfy customers we started early to invest in plants. We assumed that if we succeed with our plan we will need more plants but in the same time we didn’t want to buy to many due to the life cycle of a product idea, but fortunately and unfortunately we had a greater success than expected and in the last two years we couldn’t produce enough to satisfy customers. * Development: * We started with a strong market