ABSTRACT

INDIAN
INFRASTRUCTURE

The objective of this paper is to identify the possible

strategic groups that exist within the Indian
infrastructure industry by using statistical cluster
analysis techniques. Three clusters have been identified
with significant differences between the performances
of firms in each cluster. Findings of strategic group
analysis can be used to understand the current
strategic position of a firm within the competitive
environment and formulate strategies to shift to a
better performing cluster.

Group 3, Section B
Strategic Management
BATCH 2014-16

FIRMS
A Strategic Group Analysis

Table 1: Variable Selection and Classification ............................................................................................................. 4

Table 2: Means of Variables ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Literature Review......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Means of Variables of each cluster.......................................................................................................................... 6
CLUSTER ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Cluster 1- Toddler Closet ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Cluster 2- Im-all-right-Jack .................................................................................................................................... 7
Cluster 3- Big Daddies .............................................................................................................................................. 7
CONLCUSION ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
EXHIBITS .. .. ...11

List of Tables
Table 1: Variable Selection and Classification ............................................................................................................. 4
Table 2: Means of Variables ........................................................................................................................................ 6

1|Page

Introduction
All firms need to have a clear strategic perspective to achieve competitive advantage. The selected strategies
should remain in accordance with objectives, competencies, and competitive rules prevailing in the market.
It is clear that a number of companies that compete in the same industry may have similar
resources/competencies and develop similar strategic perspectives. The question is whether these
companies show similar performance or not.
This project attempts to address the questions about the clustering of firms by conducting a strategic group
analysis of a set of firms from the infrastructure industry in India. This paper analyzes a set of fifty firms from
the Indian infrastructure industry and finds evidence of the existence of strategic groups, each underlying a
distinct competitive strategy. Two important characteristics of the Indian infrastructure industry is that
infrastructure is highly responsible for propelling Indias overall development. Also, India's enormous unmet
infrastructure needs, combined with the public private partnership approach, offer an unprecedented
investment opportunity for the private players. The government estimates that $1 trillion of investments will
be required for developing India's infrastructure in the 12th plan period. Therefore, there seems to be a high
demand for services and products offered by infrastructure companies.
The report reviews the relevant literature on the competitive strategies and strategic groups with a specific
focus on infrastructure firms. It is followed by a description of the infrastructure industry in India and its
appropriateness as a research setting for the study of the different strategies of firms. A section on
methodology then outlines the research method of strategic group analysis, the sample and data collection
and selection of strategic variables. We then report the results and through an in-depth analysis of
representative firms of the strategic groups and assimilate the information to theorize the concept.

Literature Review
The basic premise of strategic groups is in fact that performance can be attributed to strategic groups and
not only to the idiosyncratic character of the individual firm. Hunt (1972), who was the first to formulate this
concept, observed significant differences in the strategies followed by firms in the U.S. home appliance
industry, even though many of them were pursuing similar strategies. Business combinations can therefore
facilitate the identification of different types of generic strategies followed. Hunt therefore defined a
strategic group as a group of companies within a sector, which are very similar in terms of cost structure,
degree of product diversification, formal organization, control systems and perceptions and preferences of
individuals.
Subsequently, many other definitions of strategic groups have been proposed. According to Porter (1979):
"An industry can be considered as composed of groups of firms, each group consisting of firms pursuing
similar strategies regarding key decision variables". The definition of Porter (1980) is certainly the most
commonly used: "A strategic group is a group of firms in an industry following a similar or identical strategy
regarding relevant dimensions. An industry may have a single strategic group if all firms follow essentially the
same strategy. At another extreme, each firm could be a different strategic group. However, there are
usually a small number of strategic groups, summarizing the essential strategic differences among firms in an
industry."
Mascarenhas (1989) highlights the importance of mobility barriers and argues that strategic groups may
exist only if significant mobility barriers exist between groups. Leask (2004) defines strategic groups as stable
intra-industry structures separated by mobility barriers in pursuit of different strategies that may be
expected to yield significant performance differences.
2|Page

Hatten and Hatten (1987) argue that strategic groups are more than an analytical convenience only if true
group-level effects exist. Dranove et al. (1998) state that true effects (strategic group level) and spurious
effects (industry level) should be distinguished. They argue that a strategic group exists if the performance
of a firm in the group is a function of group characteristics. McNamara et al. (2003) argue that rivalry rather
than collusion may also exist within strategic groups.
Porter (1980) defines strategic group analysis as the first step in structural analysis of industries to
understand the strategies of all significant competitors. It is used to determine the different strategic
positions that rival firms occupy, intensity of competitive rivalry within and between industry groups, the
profit potential of the various strategic groups in an industry, and implications for the competitive position of
the firm under analysis.
Two research streams studied largely independently the strategic group concept, the first being derived
specifically from the industrial economy and the second from the cognitive approach to strategy. These two
approaches could be reconciled in order to achieve more conclusive results regarding the link between
strategic group and performance.
There is no universally accepted technique for carrying out strategic group analysis. The most common
method for identifying strategic group structures is through cluster analysis. Major challenges of cluster
analysis are: choosing the clustering variables, algorithms, number of clusters, and validating clusters. Cluster
analysis is criticized as it relies heavily on researcher judgment and it does not offer a test statistic that
supports results (Ketchen and Shook 1996).
There are a limited number of studies within construction management literature about strategic grouping
and its performance implications. Kale and Arditi (2002) argue that research on competitive positioning in
the construction industry appears to be unbalanced in favour of anecdotal or descriptive approaches. Only a
few construction management researchers (such as Jennings and Betts 1996) have conducted empirical
research studies in this area and explored performance implications (Akintoye and Skitmore 1991; ElMashaleh et al. 2006; Hampson and Tatum 1997).

3|Page

Methodology

The first step entails selection of sample space. Screening of companies was done from the
Bloomberg terminal. The companies selected have a minimum market capitalisation of INR 100
crores, from the heavy construction sector registered in India.
The market capitalization, revenue, operating expenses, profit, current ratio, sales revenue in
construction sector and sales revenue in India are the data fields chosen. (see Exhibit1)
The project and client information was obtained from secondary sources. The major types of
projects included were infrastructure, buildings and factories, industrial and others. The clients are
primarily of two types, namely government and private.
Variables chosen for the cluster analysis and the parameters that measure the variables are as
under: (see Exhibit1)

Table 1: Variable Selection and Classification

Sr. No
1

Variable
Differentiation
strategy:

Category
Category 1: price differentiation
Category 2: quality differentiation

Diversification
strategy

Internationalizat
ion
Type of projects

Category 1: only
construction/construction-related
sectors
Category 2: diversified in sectors
unrelated to construction
Category 1: Internationalized
Category 2: not internationalized
Category 1: infrastructure
Category 2: Housing + building
Category 3: industrial

Criteria for choosing the variable

Calculate profit/COGS ratio to find if the
company is a price differentiator of
quality differentiator
This measures the market-level
diversification of the companies

This measures geographical

diversification
Project type that has the highest
percentage
in total number of projects.
Measures project diversification.
Type of client
Category 1: government
client type that has the highest
Category 2: private sector
percentage in total number of projects
Defines target segment of the company
Financial
Working capital ratio
The decision to bid for a project will
capability
depend on whether the company has
enough funds. Working capital
management ensures a company has
sufficient cash flow in order to meet its
short-term debt obligations and
operating expenses.
Managerial
Return on capital employed for 2010 This measure the way the available
Capability
and 2014
capital is put to use at the level at which
strategic decision are taken.
The statistical tool used for cluster analysis is R. We use the data mining package Rattle of R. Each
field is Rescales using "transform" function such that the mean is 0 and standard deviation is 1.
The Name field was taken as "target". Hierarchical clustering was done with Euclidian distance and
Ward's method for agglomeration. A dendogram with 3 clusters was predefined and the cluster
data plot matrix of each factor with the other and the discriminant was plotted. This was done for
the data for the year 2014 and 2010.

4|Page

The cluster wise average table of each field was drawn.

Analysis of one industry from each of the clusters was done based on our secondary research
findings.

Research Findings
The following results were obtained from our analysis. The analysis was carried for both 2010 and 2014. We
found that some firms migrated from one cluster to another. It indicates that some firms have overcome the
mobility barriers. This can be understood from the following plots.
Discriminant Coordinates data.csv
2

Discriminant Coordinates data.csv

222

33

22
22 222

3
3
3

3
1

3
1

3
1
1

3 3
3

3
1

222 2

Cluster Dendrogram data.csv

Cluster Dendrogram data.csv

Rattle 2015-Mar-14 00:07:32 Anuran Gayali

Rattle 2015-Mar-13 23:48:28 Anuran Gayali

28
19
1
43
41
37
36
3
52
38
24
15
45
11
21
51
40
35
9
50
42
47
49
30
14
17
29
12
20
32
39
25
18
53
7
5
31

Observation

Observation

1 1
1

1
1

1
1

3
1

3
3

10

Height

2010

5|Page

15

22 2
2

28
19
5
31
1
14
37
9
47
17
24
15
3
52
35
42
49
50
38
40
30
41
21
51
43
45
11
12
25
39
20
32
36
18
7
29
53
0

10

Height

2014

15

RRC_Managerial.Capability.10

0.6

RRC_Internationalization.14

0.4

RRC_Managerial.Capability.14

0
-0.2

RRC_Internationalization.10

-0.4

RRC_Type.of.Projects

-0.6

RRC_Differentiation.10

-0.8

RRC_Diversification...14

RRC_Type.of.Projects

RRC_Differentiation.14
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2

RRC_Type.of.Clients

RRC_Type.of.Clients

RRC_Working.Capital...14

0.8

RRC_Diversification...10

RRC_Managerial.Capability.14

RRC_Working.Capital...14

RRC_Differentiation.10

RRC_Type.of.Projects

RRC_Internationalization.10

RRC_Type.of.Clients

RRC_Managerial.Capability.10

RRC_Diversification...10

RRC_Working.Capital...10

RRC_Working.Capital...10

RRC_Internationalization.14

Correlation data.csv using Pearson

Correlation data.csv using Pearson

0.2

RRC_Type.of.Clients
RRC_Type.of.Projects

0
-0.2
-0.4

RRC_Diversification...14

-0.6

RRC_Differentiation.14

-0.8
-1

-1

The correlation matrix in above figure gave the variables that were redundant. Our analysis gave satisfactory
correlations which shows that the factors are consistent with the motives they were taken (a) are subject
to influence of top managers (b) collectively capture the strategy (c) reflects strategic choice more than
industry norms (4) allow for consistency of measurement across all firms in the sample.

Means of Variables of each cluster

Table 2: Means of Variables
Variables
Differentiation
Diversification
Internationalization
Working Capital
Type of Projects
Type of Clients
Managerial Capability

Cluster 1
0.67
1.00
1.00
2.72
2.58
1.79
11.99

2010
2014
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.03
0.13
0.95
0.79
0.99
0.94
0.81
1.00
0.80
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.72
2.05
1.36
0.84
1.34
1.00
1.67
2.61
1.07
1.48
1.00
1.53
1.83
1.07
1.33
16.45
17.51
3.83
10.39
16.31

The clusters 1, 2 & 3 formed for both the years 2010 and 2014 are listed in Exhibit2.

CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Cluster 1- Toddler Closet
This cluster has firms that are non-diversified, non-internationalized, dealing with industrial and real estate
with private companies as major clients.
One company that characterizes this cluster well is Jaypee Infratech Limited. Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) is
a infrastructure development company engaged in the development of the Yamuna Expressway and related
real estate projects. The Yamuna Expressway is a 165-kilometre access-controlled six-lane concrete
pavement expressway along the river Yamuna, with the potential to be widened to an eight-lane
6|Page

expressway. The company also has the right to develop 25 million square metres (approximately 6,175 acres)
of land along the Yamuna Expressway at five locations for residential, commercial, amusement, industrial
and institutional purposes.
JIL has not yet forayed into the international arena. It remains a company dedicated to one sector of the
infrastructure domain and even to a single geographic location within the country. It is imperative to note
that the scope of the projects undertaken is limited in this group. The main projects cater to the
housing/building sector and most of the clients are private players.
This in effect is the least profitable group and constantly companies are shifting out by crossing the mobility
barriers. The mobility barriers range from huge investment to entrenched players. But increasingly,
companies are jumping across to join more profitable groups.

Cluster 2- Im-all-right-Jack
It houses all the big domestic companies in the infrastructure industry that have yet to explore and exploit
the international market. These include firms whose clientele is mainly the government. Consequently, they
account for the large construction or construction-related projects in our country.
The company in this group that we have chosen for analysis is Gammon India Limited. Founded in the year
1922, it is Indias largest civil engineering construction company. It has executed notable projects for the
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and boasts of an expertise in building bridges and flyovers. The main problem
with firms in this cluster is that they have become complacent and do not want to move out of their comfort
zone.
It should be noted that most companies in this strategic group have had some international exposure, but
major section of their business still focuses only on the domestic market. It is interesting to note the
movement of companies from one strategic group to another. We know that every company would like to
move into a more profitable segment by crossing the mobility barriers. In our analysis, we deduced that
cluster 3 is the most profitable and likewise, we see companies like KEC, Ashoka Buildcon, Atlanta and GPT
move from cluster 2 to 3.
The firms in this cluster have the required to resources to expand and internationalize and slowly, were
observing a shift towards this phenomenon.

Cluster 3- Big Daddies

This group is characterized by large companies with diversified international operations dealing in various
types of projects with both private and government clients.
A good example of such a company is Larsen and Toubro. The company provides a wide range of advanced
solutions, products and services in the technology, engineering, construction and manufacturing sectors.
L&Ts businesses are supported by a wide marketing and distribution network. L&T has manufacturing
facilities in India, China, Oman and Saudi Arabia, with a global supply network in 10 locations across the
world including Houston, London, Milan, Shanghai and Seoul. The companys customers include major
players in more than 30 countries. It operates principally in Asia, the US, the UK, Europe and the Middle East.
The company follows these below initiatives on a regular basis- Widening new geographical areas for
augmenting its exports, exploring inorganic growth opportunities for the acquisition of specialized
engineering outfits abroad and bringing in high caliber resources in the areas of front-end marketing,
engineering, project management, risk management, contract administration, etc., to strengthen the
overseas operations.

7|Page

There is an increase in the number of companies in this strategic group from 2010 to 2014. This group has an
average market capitalization of around seventy billion INR. Also, from Table 2, we can see that this group
has the best average return on capital invested. Due to high profitability and greater opportunities,
companies want to join this group.

CONLCUSION
Through the research and findings, we have tried to establish groupings in the Indian infrastructure industry
through a strategic group analysis. It was noted that firms belonging to one group follow a similar strategy
and are exposed to similar resources. By in-depth analysis of representative firms in each cluster, we have
identified the strategy adopted by them and this in turn could be used to gauge a comprehensive
understanding of the industry and a new entrant could choose a given cluster based on its competencies and
position itself in the market accordingly.
For the firms already established, it could serve as a review tool by which the companies could analyse their
current strategy and review it in light of the changing scenario. With globalization penetrating every sector,
it is imperative for the companies to remain on their toes and continuously evolve in order to remain
profitable. From our analysis, we have found out that firms do shift from one cluster to another as time
progresses.
The report aims to identify critical factors in the success of firms operating in the infrastructure industry.
These drivers could be further exploited and exclusively addressed to alleviate specific problems, if any.

REFERENCES
1. Dikmen, Birgonui and Budayan, 2009. Strategic Group Analysis in the Construction Industry.
2. Ravendra Chittoor and Sougata Ray, 2007. Internationalization paths of Indian pharmaceutical firms.
Journal of International Management 13 (2007) 338355.
3. Raphal Dornier, Noureddine Selmi and Thierry Delcolle. Strategic Groups Structure, Positioning of
the Firm and Performance: A Review of Literature. ISC Paris School of Management
doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n2p27
4. Databases used Bloomberg
5. Web tools to learn R : Quick R Cluster analysis tutorial www.statmethods.com ,
http://tryr.codeschool.com, https://www.coursera.org/ , http://www.r-project.org/

8|Page

EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1 DATA FOR CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Differenti
ation2014

Different
iation2010

Diversifica
tion - 2014

Diversifica
tion - 2010

Internatio
nalization
- 2014

Internatio
nalization
- 2010

Working
Capital 2014

Working
Capital 2010

Type of
Project

Type of
Client

Managerial
Capability2014

Managerial
Capability2010

LARSEN & TOUBRO

1.25

1.03

22.49

17

JAIPRAKASH ASSOC

0.75

0.61

8.61

GMR INFRA-SLB

0.50

0.42

0.81

ENGINEERS INDIA

2.57

2.12

59.16

28

IRB INFRASTRUCTU

0.97

0.80

2.63

15

JAYPEE INFRATECH

1.50

1.24

7.62

SKIL INFRASTRUCT

0.58

0.48

6.25

VA TECH WABAG LT

1.49

1.23

34.23

21

NATIONAL BUILDIN

1.37

1.13

32.70

32

KEC INTL LTD

1.03

0.85

27.12

17

GLOBUSCONSTRUCT

0.33

0.27

-5.06

SADBHAV ENGINEER

1.06

0.87

16.27

13

KALPATARU POWER

1.26

1.04

20.83

14

ASHOKA BUILDCON

1.03

0.85

17.60

18

HINDUSTAN CONST

1.11

0.92

9.24

12

PUNJ LLOYD LTD

1.01

0.84

9.19

12

NCC LTD

1.15

0.95

9.71

16

GAMMON INFRA

0.47

0.38

1.87

KOLTE-PATIL

2.40

1.98

8.53

ITD CEMENTATION

1.04

0.86

11.57

14

SRS REAL INFRA

1.64

1.36

7.20

DREDGING CORP

2.05

1.69

4.85

10

TECHNO ELE & ENG

1.91

1.57

11.37

27

SIMPLEX INFRASTR

1.08

0.89

9.75

16

J.KUMAR INFRAPRO

1.08

0.89

17.61

33

PATEL ENGINEER

1.24

1.03

9.49

13

SUPREME INFRASTR

0.94

0.77

18.14

17

MAN INFRACONSTRU

3.56

2.94

7.11

26

IVRCL LTD

0.80

0.66

2.34

19

IL&FS ENGINEERIN

0.93

0.76

9.97

-33

Name

ATLANTA LTD

1.22

1.01

14.14

20

GAMMON INDIA LTD

0.90

0.75

9.08

13

PRATIBHA INDUSTR

1.06

0.88

13.68

19

GANESH HOUSING

1.95

1.61

13.73

11

JYOTI STRUCTURES

1.23

1.01

14.93

28

AHLUWALIA CONTRA

0.92

0.76

9.71

45

ERA INFRA LTD

1.65

1.36

2.52

16

RAMKY INFRASTRUC

1.07

0.88

-22.98

23

KNR CONSTRUCTION

1.18

0.97

14.71

24

JMC PROJECTS

1.14

0.94

10.49

19

MBL INFRASTRUCT

1.44

1.18

18.43

21

MSR INDIA LTD

1.35

1.11

-0.62

VASCON ENGINEERS

1.39

1.15

-0.96

11

GPT INFRAPROJETC

1.06

0.87

10.22

24

GAYATRI PROJECT

0.54

0.45

12.22

15

UNITY INFRAPROJE

0.99

0.82

9.90

17

SPML INFRA LTD

0.77

0.63

16.35

19

SHRIRAM EPC LTD

0.51

0.42

-12.82

13

RPP INFRA PROJ

1.85

1.53

15.18

28

COROMANDEL ENG

1.04

0.85

0.34

BL KASHYAP&SONS

1.15

0.95

-4.10

12

C & C CONSTRUCTI

1.28

1.06

-0.81

15

MADHUCON PROJEC

0.48

0.40

14.45

1|Page

EXHIBIT 2A CLUSTERS OF 2010

CLUSTER 1 - Companies (2010)

Differentiation 2010

Diversification 2010

Working
Capital 2010

Internationalization 2010

Type of
Projects

Type of
Clients

Managerial
Capability 2010

JAYPEE INFRATECH

10.04

1.00

1.00

1.18

2.00

2.00

9.35

VA TECH WABAG LT

0.17

1.00

1.00

1.47

3.00

2.00

20.89

NATIONAL BUILDIN

0.04

1.00

1.00

1.11

2.00

2.00

31.57

GLOBUS CONSTRUCT

0.00

1.00

1.00

15.31

2.00

2.00

0.52

SRS REAL INFRA

0.02

1.00

1.00

1.40

2.00

2.00

4.81

DREDGING CORP

0.11

1.00

1.00

4.14

4.00

1.00

10.09

PATEL ENGINEER

0.53

1.00

1.00

3.51

2.00

2.00

13.30

IL&FS ENGINEERIN

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.11

2.00

2.00

-32.89

GANESH HOUSING

1.45

1.00

1.00

8.06

2.00

2.00

11.33

JYOTI STRUCTURES

0.04

1.00

0.99

1.48

3.00

2.00

28.08

JMC PROJECTS

0.03

1.00

1.00

1.21

3.00

2.00

19.12

MSR INDIA LTD

0.03

1.00

1.00

0.98

4.00

1.00

0.00

GAYATRI PROJECT

0.04

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.00

2.00

15.34

UNITY INFRAPROJE

0.06

1.00

1.00

1.75

2.00

2.00

17.08

SPML INFRA LTD

0.03

1.00

1.00

1.79

3.00

1.00

19.45

SHRIRAM EPC LTD

0.04

1.00

1.00

1.83

3.00

2.00

13.35

RPP INFRA PROJ

0.06

1.00

1.00

0.82

3.00

1.00

27.86

COROMANDEL ENGIN

0.03

1.00

1.00

1.34

4.00

2.00

6.23

BL KASHYAP&SONS

0.04

1.00

1.00

1.64

2.00

2.00

12.41

0.67

1.00

1.00

2.72

2.58

1.79

11.99

Mean Cluster 1

CLUSTER 2 - Companies (2010)

JAIPRAKASH ASSOC
IRB INFRASTRUCTU
SKIL INFRASTRUCT
KEC INTL LTD
SADBHAV ENGINEER
ASHOKA BUILDCON
NCC LTD

2|Page

Differentiation 2010
0.24
0.36
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.13
0.05

Diversification 2010
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00

Internationalization 2010
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Working
Capital 2010
2.18
2.36
4.16
1.46
1.33
1.17
1.35

Type of
Projects
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Type of
Clients
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Managerial
Capability 2010
7.29
14.73
0.21
17.05
13.09
18.02
16.36

GAMMON INFRASTRU
ITD CEMENTATION
TECHNO ELE & ENG
J.KUMAR INFRAPRO
SUPREME INFRASTR
IVRCL LTD
ATLANTA LTD
GAMMON INDIA LTD
PRATIBHA INDUSTR
KNR CONSTRUCTION
GPT INFRAPROJETC
MADHUCON PROJECT

Mean Cluster 2

CLUSTER 3 - Companies (2010)

0.11
0.01
0.20
0.11
0.09
0.01
0.33
0.01
0.35
0.08
0.06
0.03

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.48
2.29
1.70
1.83
1.67
1.56
0.95
1.12
1.64
1.41
1.73
1.31

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

7.83
13.61
26.87
32.74
17.04
18.64
19.55
12.80
19.23
24.01
24.05
9.42

0.12

0.95

1.00

1.72

1.00

1.00

16.45

Differentiation 2010

Diversification 2010

Internationalization 2010

Working
Capital 2010

Type of
Projects

Type of
Clients

Managerial
Capability 2010

LARSEN & TOUBRO

0.14

0.42

0.75

1.44

1.00

1.00

GMR INFRA-SLB

0.04

1.00

0.80

1.82

1.00

2.00

2.07

ENGINEERS INDIA

0.29

0.53

1.00

1.54

3.00

1.00

28.46

KALPATARU POWER

0.05

0.44

0.71

1.30

2.00

2.00

13.76

HINDUSTAN CONST

0.00

1.00

0.98

1.64

1.00

1.00

12.03

PUNJ LLOYD LTD

0.00

0.99

0.32

2.30

1.00

1.00

11.75

KOLTE-PATIL

1.08

0.55

0.55

3.49

2.00

2.00

5.49

SIMPLEX INFRASTR

0.03

1.00

0.75

1.13

1.00

1.00

16.40

MAN INFRACONSTRU

0.21

1.00

1.00

2.78

2.00

2.00

25.61

AHLUWALIA CONTRA

0.06

0.70

0.70

1.31

2.00

1.00

45.29

ERA INFRA LTD

0.10

0.85

1.00

5.24

1.00

1.00

16.11

RAMKY INFRASTRUC

0.07

0.98

0.98

1.22

3.00

2.00

22.61

MBL INFRASTRUCT

0.07

0.84

1.00

1.63

2.00

2.00

20.54

VASCON ENGINEERS

0.08

0.57

0.57

2.64

2.00

2.00

10.82

C & C CONSTRUCTI

0.06

1.00

0.93

1.29

1.00

2.00

14.58

0.15

0.79

0.80

2.05

1.67

1.53

17.51

Mean Cluster 3

3|Page

17.18

EXHIBIT 2B CLUSTERS OF 2014

CLUSTER 1 - Companies (2014)

Differentiation 2014

Diversification 2014

Internationalization 2014

Working
Capital 2014

Type of
Projects

Type of
Clients

Managerial
Capability 2014

JAYPEE INFRATECH

2.09

1.00

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.00

7.62

GLOBUS CONSTRUCT

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.33

2.00

2.00

-5.06

SRS REAL INFRA

0.01

1.00

1.00

1.64

2.00

2.00

7.20

DREDGING CORP

0.05

1.00

1.00

2.05

4.00

1.00

4.85

PATEL ENGINEER

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.24

2.00

2.00

9.49

MAN INFRACONSTRU

0.07

1.00

1.00

3.56

2.00

2.00

7.11

IL&FS ENGINEERIN

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.93

2.00

2.00

9.97

JYOTI STRUCTURES

0.00

1.00

0.65

1.23

3.00

2.00

14.93

RAMKY INFRASTRUC

0.00

0.80

1.00

1.07

3.00

2.00

-22.98

JMC PROJECTS

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.14

3.00

2.00

10.49

MBL INFRASTRUCT

0.05

1.00

1.00

1.44

2.00

2.00

18.43

MSR INDIA LTD

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.35

4.00

1.00

-0.62

VASCON ENGINEERS

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.39

2.00

2.00

-0.96

UNITY INFRAPROJE

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.99

2.00

2.00

9.90

SHRIRAM EPC LTD

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.51

3.00

2.00

-12.82

RPP INFRA PROJ

0.06

1.00

1.00

1.85

3.00

1.00

15.18

COROMANDEL ENGIN

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.04

4.00

2.00

0.34

BL KASHYAP&SONS

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.15

2.00

2.00

-4.10

0.13

0.99

0.98

1.36

2.61

1.83

3.83

Mean Cluster 1

4|Page

CLUSTER 2 - Companies (2014)

Differentiation 2014

Diversification 2014

Internationalization 2014

Working
Capital 2014

Type of
Projects

Type of
Clients

Managerial
Capability 2014

JAIPRAKASH ASSOC

0.00

0.17

1.00

0.75

1.00

1.00

8.61

IRB INFRASTRUCTU

0.19

1.00

1.00

0.97

1.00

1.00

2.63

SKIL INFRASTRUCT

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.58

1.00

1.00

6.25

SADBHAV ENGINEER

0.02

1.00

1.00

1.06

1.00

1.00

16.27

GAMMON INFRASTRU

0.04

1.00

1.00

0.47

1.00

1.00

1.87

ITD CEMENTATION

0.01

1.00

1.00

1.04

1.00

1.00

11.57

J.KUMAR INFRAPRO

0.08

1.00

1.00

1.08

1.00

1.00

17.61

SUPREME INFRASTR

0.04

1.00

1.00

0.94

1.00

1.00

18.14

IVRCL LTD

0.00

0.98

1.00

0.80

1.00

1.00

2.34

GAMMON INDIA LTD

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.90

1.00

1.00

9.08

AHLUWALIA CONTRA

0.02

0.98

1.00

0.92

2.00

1.00

9.71

KNR CONSTRUCTION

0.07

1.00

1.00

1.18

1.00

1.00

14.71

GAYATRI PROJECT

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.54

1.00

2.00

12.22

MADHUCON PROJECT

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.48

1.00

1.00

14.45

0.03

0.94

1.00

0.84

1.07

1.07

10.39

Mean Cluster 2

CLUSTER 3 - Companies
(2014)

Differentiation 2014

Diversification 2014

Internationalization 2014

Working
Capital 2014

Type of
Projects

Type of
Clients

Managerial
Capability 2014

LARSEN & TOUBRO

0.06

0.45

1.00

1.25

1.00

1.00

22.49

GMR INFRA-SLB

0.00

1.00

0.87

0.50

1.00

2.00

0.81

ENGINEERS INDIA

0.33

0.61

1.00

2.57

3.00

1.00

59.16

VA TECH WABAG LT

0.32

1.00

0.37

1.49

3.00

2.00

34.23

NATIONAL BUILDIN

0.07

0.02

1.00

1.37

2.00

2.00

32.70

KEC INTL LTD

0.01

0.90

0.90

1.03

1.00

1.00

27.12

KALPATARU POWER

0.02

0.48

0.74

1.26

2.00

2.00

20.83

ASHOKA BUILDCON

0.06

0.79

1.00

1.03

1.00

1.00

17.60

HINDUSTAN CONST

0.00

1.00

0.45

1.11

1.00

1.00

9.24

PUNJ LLOYD LTD

0.00

0.92

0.38

1.01

1.00

1.00

9.19

NCC LTD

0.00

0.93

0.93

1.15

1.00

1.00

9.71

5|Page

KOLTE-PATIL

1.04

1.00

1.00

2.40

2.00

2.00

8.53

TECHNO ELE & ENG

0.15

0.82

1.00

1.91

1.00

1.00

11.37

SIMPLEX INFRASTR

0.01

0.99

0.84

1.08

1.00

1.00

9.75

ATLANTA LTD

0.21

1.00

1.00

1.22

1.00

1.00

14.14

PRATIBHA INDUSTR

0.01

0.94

1.00

1.06

1.00

1.00

13.68

GANESH HOUSING

0.32

1.00

1.00

1.95

2.00

2.00

13.73

ERA INFRA LTD

0.00

0.79

1.00

1.65

1.00

1.00

2.52

GPT INFRAPROJETC

0.01

0.69

0.69

1.06

1.00

1.00

10.22

SPML INFRA LTD

0.00

0.70

0.70

0.77

3.00

1.00

16.35

C & C CONSTRUCTI

0.00

1.00

0.89

1.28

1.00

2.00

-0.81

0.13

0.81

0.85

1.34

1.48

1.33

16.31

Mean Cluster 3

6|Page