Cesim

PowerPoint Presentation

Cake | Extra | James | Sukree

Sukree1Agenda

Sukree2

Approach to CesimResultsApproach to CesimResultsResults Strategy LearningSukree4Approach to CesimResultsResults Strategy LearningSukree5Approach to CesimResultsResults Strategy Learning

Sukree6Strategy TimelineResults Strategy LearningSukree7Tech 1: low price, low feature focus on volumeTech 2: high price, max featureGradual shift from tech 1 to tech 2Wait for lower R & D price for tech 3 & 4

Approach to CesimInitial Strategy (Round 1-5)Results Strategy LearningSukree8Price WarRound 1: Loss $6,286, heavy investment in Tech 2 Tech 1: Production > Demand, lose out on priceTech 2: Production < Demand, badly underestimated demand for tech 2Tech2 outsource 500 from 2000, demand 1236; lost opportunity Round 2: Profit $237,277, rapidly increased tech 2 featuresTech 1: Production > Demand, every group lowers priceTech 2: Production > Demand, overestimated tech 2 growthRealized Price War had begunResponse: slightly lower tech1 price and higher tech2 price except Asia Die Hard wont enter price warRound 3: Loss $29,382, Die Hard finally No.1 (lowest loss)Tech 1: Production > Demand, price war + promotion war + bad economyTech 2: Production > Demand, more features + higher price + didnt meet target due to promotion attack from other groupsDie hard didnt participate in the price war, so managed to avoid heavy losses like all other groupsApproach to CesimOutcomeResults Strategy LearningSukree9

Stage 1: Reverse psychologyEveryone had a lossCoaching (believed that most groups would reconsider engaging in a price war)Expected higher priceStage 2: Die Hards responseCapitalize on everyones decision to increase prices by lowering prices heavilyOther groups response: Some groups increased price as expected!!! , others experimented with new TechsStage 3: Die Hards future strategyStay in Tech 1 and 2 + capture the market with fewer competitors + wait for new tech costs to dropApproach to Cesim1st CoachResults Strategy LearningSukree10Round4: Profit $156,102, Extreme price dumpingTech 1: Production< Demand, underestimated demand again (lost opportunity)Tech 2: Production>Demand, price too high for feature + other groups enter new techApproach to CesimOutcome After 1st CoachResults Strategy LearningSukree11Realized that profit potential of old tech was too lowProfit margin too lowRealized that market does not open up with fewer competitorsOvertaken by StatosApproach to CesimHigh Tech Strategy (Round 5-6)

Results Strategy LearningSukree12Round 5: Profit $27,660, met targets + groups move to new Tech as expected + falling behind Statos + Die Hard begins investing in new tech + start paying dividendTech1: Production DemandConservative with bufferHuge price war in AsiaTech2: demand > production, wanted to avoid losses from over-outsourcing

Approach to CesimOutcomeResults Strategy LearningRound 6: Profit $107,901, overtaken by many groups Tech 1: Production > Demand, consumer move to Tech 4Tech 2: Production < Demand, other groups moved out + Die hard allocated more outsource to tech 4Tech 4: Production >> Demand, promotion + first mover advantage of other groups resulted in lower demand for Die Hard Massive loss due to outsourcing 1600 while actual demand was 1100Sukree13Realized massive potential of Tech 3 (due to Scenario Analysis) + Decided to do low price Tech 3Die Hard decides to go for every tech to maximize utilization + profit Capacity constraint set higher price by having all 4 productsApproach to CesimDiversification Strategy (Round 7-10)

Results Strategy LearningJames14Approach to CesimDiversification Strategy (Round 7-10)Results Strategy Learning

Scenario AnalysisJames15Approach to CesimDiversification Strategy (Round 7-10)Results Strategy Learning

UtilizationJames16Round 7: Profit $140,651, + Begin investment in Tech 3 + stop invest in Tech 4 + Intense Data Analysis + Scenario AnalysisTech 1: Production > Demand, demand continues to fall except in AsiaTech 2: Production Demand, growing in Asia (but smaller profit potential compared to Tech 3), falling in Europe Die Hard moved to Tech 4 in USTech 4: Production Demand, set premium price in US and dump the rest in EU; Premium Price Dumping Strategy Created

Approach to CesimOutcomeResults Strategy LearningRound 8: Profit $341,774, Die Hard returns with a vengeance, Tech 3 drives profit Tech 1: Production > Demand (constrained due to production capacity)Opportunity to increase price Tech 2: Production > Demand, penetrated the US market at low price but the market was too smallTech 3: Penetration Pricing, Production < Demand in Asia; Production> Demand in EU due to lack of features compared to competitorsTech 4: Production Demand, Premium Price Dumping Strategy James17Round 9: (we thought this was the final round**Plant decision): Profit 519,630, found the way to maximize potential of all techs.Tech 1: Production