CASE SUMMARIES FOR STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT CLASS

Lecture 2:Corporate Strategy:- Expansion, Integration, Diversification

A) Arauco Ltd Forward integration or Horizontal expansion? In early 2004, Mr. Perez, the president of the Chilean forestry company: Arauco ltd. was about to present his recommendations to the board of directors on a $ 1b investment in a modern pulp plant. The plant will increase the firms capacity by 800,000 tons to 3.2 MT, thus making it the largest pulp producer in Latin America. Two years back the board approved about US $ 150m investment in the current plant, increasing the firms capacity to current 2.4 MT. The current plant has a life of about 30 years. The major sales pitch for Perez was the downward trend in pulp prices for last three years, which worked in advantage for Arauco, as cheaper pulp prices meant that integrated makers now may start outsourcing. In addition Arauco was a major wood products manufacturer, such as plywood and fiber wood panels, for which pulp was a raw material. So far the % Capacity utilization factor (CUF) for Arauco was 100%. Roughly 50% of the firms revenue came from pulp sales to paper making firms, the other 50% went into two products: plywood, fiber boards. 90% of global pulp production as at 2004 came from wood, the other 10% from alternative raw materials like straw bamboo, bagasse, flax, hemp and cotton. However of late concerns of global warming resulted in stiff opposition from environmentalists on cutting down forests for pulp making and alternative greener sources were gradually becoming popular, although they were not that cost effective like wood based pulp. However in future, better technologies may make pulp making from alternate sources more viable and that day was not very far away. Given European Unions commitment to generating 20% of its energy requirements from green sources by 2020 and replacing the current internal combustion engine with fuel cell/battery powered vehicles, the idea of a green planet with low carbon emissions was gaining ground in USA, CANADA and in Latin America and the opposition to cutting down forests was rising day by day. Perezs toughest challenge was to convince the board about his commitment to increase capacity by another 800,000 tons to become the largest producer of pulp in Latin America and one of the largest in the world. The board, given the green concerns and declining margins was more in favor of a strong willed forward integration into paper manufacturing. Thus the strategic choices for a billion dollar investment were two:a) Move up the value chain to become an integrated paper manufacturer with a captive pulp plant like most of the current paper firms and invest in green technologies and alternate

materials. However this choice was fraught with unknown financial consequences, as the paper market was highly fragmented and given the highly segmented demand for a very large variety of paper products, economies of scale was difficult to achieve. Also the payback period for investing in green technologies was not known, although everyone in the back of their minds knew that the future lies there. b) Horizontally expand into pulp production to obtain further economies of scale, thus become the Worlds cheapest and one of the largest manufacturers of wood based pulp. Here the major concern was declining pulp prices in the global market, due to industry saturation and rising capacities. However Arauco was already the cheapest pulp producer in the world and the increase in capacity will make it even cheaper, thus making it tough for competitors. Although the major paper makers like Kimberly Clerk were integrated manufacturers, there were numerous small, nonintegrated paper makers in USA and Latin America, as well as in Asia, who were Araucos main customers for 50% production. The global pulp and paper industry The industry can be segmented into five major activities along the value chain. The first was forestry, followed by pulp, paper and paperboard production came next, followed by distribution and conversion of basic paper into glossy material for packaging. The last stage had the highest profit margins, as it was a highly creative task and customers like FMCG firms paid high prices for creative paper designs. Most of the industry players were involved in two or more activities in the value chain. The industry saw a number of acquisitions and mergers in 1990s, as most of the paper and pulp makers struggled with rising costs. The overall global demand for paper depended on economic activity and China and India were slated to be one of the largest consumers of paper in coming years. There was a rising opposition to paper consumption in EU, in tandem with global warming issues and all EU members were actively campaigning against increasing paper consumption. The trend was to have paperless offices and truly move into the digital age. In USA, almost all the major newspaper agencies were losing market to the digital medium and they themselves were moving online gradually. However Asia still continued to consume more and more paper. The emphasis was more on paper recycling and in USA alone 42% of the paper came from recycled paper. However, there is a limit to which paper can be recycled, typically times. After which the fiber in the paper becomes too short for recycling and costs rise significantly with each recycling. The industry analysts were divided in their opinion on future of paper usage. One camp felt that the whole world will be one giant and interconnected paperless workplace by 2020. The other camp felt that such utopian visions are far from realistic and paper consumption will increase, although not like past and the double digit growth rates of past will not be witnessed again. The global paper market in 2004 was 330 MT, with an annual growth rate of 4%. As at 2004, 183 MT of pulp was produced. Out of which 142 MT was produced by integrated paper makers like Kimberly Clerk, which was the 4th largest paper producer in the world then.

The largest being International paper Co, which was also a US based firm. The rest 41 MT was produced for small and nonintegrated paper makers, by firms like Arauco which operated in open pulp market for 50% of its pulp production. At that point of time Arauco was producing 2.4 MT and was proposing to increase its capacity to 3.2 MT. the global open pulp market was growing at the rate of 4% per annum, an identical growth rate with paper market. The global pulp prices touched a peak of 710 US $/ton in 2000, and fell to 400 by 2002, to recover to the present 510 as of 2004. A brief word on Araucos internal strengths:The firms gross margin rose from 41% to 43% between 2000 and 2004, although the pulp prices in this period went down and then recovered. In 2000, the gross margin was 41%, in 2002 the firm maintained the gross margin rate, with good cost control and efficient production, although the pulp prices fell drastically during this period. Many of the competitors retrenched people, but Perez desisted such drastic moves and retained all his employees in 2002. In 2004, the gross margin rose to 48% with increase in pulp prices. Good employee relations were one of the major strengths of the firm. The NPBT in 2004 was 30% and PBDIT was 44%. Strategic issues:a) The declining prices works to the advantage of the firm, as integrated paper makers may start outsourcing from Arauco, the cheapest pulp producer in the world. However the declining pulp prices also reduces operating margins. As at 2004, the general outlook was a stable pulp price in the global market for next five years. b) As of now, Arauco is not dependent on integrated manufacturers for its income. 50% of its revenue comes from the 41 MT global markets, and the other 50% from value added wood products. If pulp prices fall drastically in future, and then integrated paper makers may start outsourcing from Arauco in large scale, thus Arauco may become a B2B firm from its current B2C business model, which may not bode well for its long term future. On the other hand if prices remain stable, then Arauco may continue to enjoy the excellent financial performance. c) Increasing environmental concerns may work against wood based pulp makers in future and then Araucos large and new 800,000 ton plant will be a major target for environmentalists. As of now, green and alternate technologies for pulp production have not gained ground, due to higher costs of production, but no one knows the future! A disruptive technology in another five to seven years may surface, thus not giving Arauco the time to recover its billion dollar investment, the estimated payback for which is around 10 years at current pulp prices. d) On the other hand, a move into becoming an integrated paper manufacturer (when the entire global opinion is moving against paper consumption) is also fraught with risks, as this market is highly fragmented and varied. There are five to six different types of paper consumption, the basic being newspaper, followed by books, office stationery, legal

documents, packaging material and pamphlets. The last two are the most lucrative segments. The first three categories are already under onslaught from digital media and environmentalists. Thus moving up the value chain represents a stiff task and above all developing a NEW CORE COMPETENCE. The alternative is to develop technological competence for green pulp manufacturing, the payback for which is once again uncertain.

HENCE THE BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION WHERE TO INVEST THE SUM AND HOW? Theoretical lens to examine the case From Economies of scale and scope to Economies of collaboration and information. Questions for the case: ARCO Ltd. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Where were the economies of scope for diversification into the RMC business for EGL? If the initial forecasts were made after a lot of discussions, what went wrong later on? Analyze the internal operational issues using the IFE matrix? Do you think that after the forecasts go wrong, drafting a revised feasibility report is a good idea? What were the key errors made with the customer in drafting agreements? Highlight the errors made in planning working capital? Do you think that the top management of ARCO ltd was really interested in the project? Analyze, whether the diversification was a sound strategic move?

Lecture 3: Mergers and Acquisitions Case: Takeover battle for a Spanish Electric Utility firm The Takeover drama Acciona is a global infrastructure and renewable energy conglomerate in Spain. For last one year its engaged in a much publicized takeover battle for Endesa the largest Spanish power utility firm with E.On AG of Germany and Enel of Italy. Under EC antitrust laws, if any firm wants to acquire more than 10% of shares in any firm, it needs regulatory approval from the countrys securities commission and if it wants to acquire more than 25% stake, then it needs to float a tender. Up to 10% of the shares can be acquired from open market purchase, without any approval of authorities. The situation as at March 2007 stood as follows:E.On had acquired a 10% stake and with due approval from Spanish securities commission had acquired just under 25% stake. The first 10% was thru shares purchased with cash from open market, for the rest 15% it offered equity swaps with investment bankers (equity swaps are financial derivatives with two way exchange of cash flows and with usually two components a) A floating interest rate at LIBOR and b) share prices at a predetermined date. One party pays cash for the amount taken + LIBOR for tenure period, while the other party pays cash equivalent of share prices as at maturity of the contract for the number of shares held). While E.On was already holding a 25% stake, Acciona had acquired a 10% stake through open market and another 10% stake through equity swaps. In the meanwhile Gas Natural, the Spanish gas distribution utility company, was also in the fray for takeover of Endesa. After Acciona acquired another 10% stake through equity swaps, Gas natural withdrew from the takeover drama, in the meanwhile Enel joined the drama by taking over another 10% thru open market, thus further complicating the scenario. 55% of the firms shares were already held by three power distribution majors. Now the drama was for the rest 45% stake. The question is why such an intense drama for takeover of this firm? Renewable Energy Generation in EU and EUs leading power utilities:The EU member nations had agreed to generate 20% of its power requirements from renewable sources and Acciona was generating 350 MW thru wind power by 2002 end. By 2005, Acciona completed 100% acquisition of EHN, a leading Spanish wind energy firm. EHN was a global leader in wind energy generation with 4500 MW of installed capacity by 2005 end. Acciona Energia was the energy arm of Acciona Corporation, and by 2006 end Acciona became a global leader in wind energy generation. The 12 leading power producers in EU as at 2006 produced about 536337 MW of power and approximately 11% of that came from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biogas and waves. Endesa was the sixth largest producer of power in EU, with French RWE and German E.On being no.1 and 2 resp.

Acciona was a firm focused on developing technologies for the future. It has already invested 22 million Euros for development of solar storage systems and conversion of wind energies and water purification systems. Its construction arm was engaged in building eco- friendly buildings, with solar panels, that could generate its own surplus electricity. The firm had recently installed the worlds largest solar photovoltaic plant in Nevada USA 64 MW. Acciona believed that takeover of Endesa, can make it a leading renewable energy producer and Endesas assets can be used for generating renewable energy from wind and solar sources. Endesa had a capacity of 47,000 MW, out of which nearly 20% of the capacity came from renewable sources, and Accionas prime interest lay in acquiring the renewable energy generation assets of Endesa and also make in entry into the conventional energy market, where it had no presence so far. The Circus begins The first to jump into the ring for takeover of Endesa was Gas natural, in early 2005. GN was Spains leading energy producer and 12th largest in Europe. GN offered Euro 21.3 per share for a total takeover price of Euro 23 billion, for a 51% stake. Endesas management opposed the offer on grounds that the offer was underpriced against ruling price of 24 Euro in stock exchanges of Europe. Also GNs strategic selling point that the takeover will create a leading gas energy producer in EU was also hotly contested, as RWE and E.On were already leading producers of electricity from Gas. Endesas management opposed the offer and filed a no. of lawsuits against GN. They requested E.On to play the role of white knight and acquire a 25% stake first to prevent a hostile takeover by GN. E.On complied with the request and also floated a tender for acquiring a majority stake of 51% at Euro 27.50 per share, totaling to a purchase value of Euro 29.1 billion. The Spanish Govt. was in favor of the GN offer and didnt like the idea of a German firm taking over Spains leading power producer and 6th largest in Europe. However GN was in no position to match the E.On offer. 3 days after the E.On offer, the Spanish government passed a series of anti-trust laws, empowering the Spanish securities commission to exercise veto power against any foreign firm taking over any Spanish firm. The conditions imposed were stringent and E.On management decided that it will take more than a year to fulfill all the conditions for a complete takeover. In the meanwhile the 25% stake remained. This was middle of 2006. In September 2006, Acciona conducted a dawn raid to acquire 10% of Endesas shares at Euro 32 per share for a total of 4 billion Euros and acquired another 10% through a 180 day equity swap. The equity swap deal was financed by its bankers, Acciona was supposed to pay back its bankers 4 billion dollars after 180 days at Libor + 1%. The swap deal was arranged at Libor + 2% with Endesa management. After 180 days Endesa management gets back the 10% shareholding at book value, while any capital gain from market appreciation over and above 32 Euros/share goes to Acciona plus 2% interest rate over Libor. Accionas management hoped that the appreciating share price which was already trading at 35 in LSE, will appreciate to 40 or

above, thus allowing the management to make a killing. The Acciona management hoped that it can take over another 5% stake from the profits made in this 180 day transaction. In December 2007, E.On approached EU regulatory commission to contest Spanish Governments legal amendments, as the amendments came after E.On takeover offer. The same month E.On raised the offer price to Euro 35; this raised the stock prices of Endesa to Euro 40 by year end! This was just what Acciona was hoping for! However even from the profits made from the swap transaction, Acciona was not in a position to match E.Ons offer. GN withdrew from the circus in Feb-07, and Enel jumped into the ring same month with a 10% stake. However the Italian firm, who was EUs 5th largest power firm showed no signs or intentions for a complete takeover. In March 2007, the Spanish Governments amendments were stuck down by EU regulatory commission and E.On raised the offer price to Euro 38 the ruling price of the day for acquiring a 51% majority stake. The Spanish Government offered a 20 year loan to Acciona to match E.Ons offer and takeover Endesa. Enel agreed to sell 5% of its shares to Acciona at Euro 38, thus making Acciona a 25% majority holder, which could be financed from the profits of equity swap. This was how matters stood at March 2007. Strategic Issues:a) Diversification into conventional energy sector, where Acciona has no prior experience b) Paying too much for a firm, majority of whose assets were for power generation from Gas, procurement of Gas can become a major issue for the future. c) Remaining a 15% shareholder, who has a voice in firms management d) Remaining a 25% majority holder and playing an important role in Endesas future management course, while not remaining on a collision course with E.On e) Becoming a 51% majority holder.

Questions on Hindalco-Novelis Merger:a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Highlight the key business synergies resulting from the merger Do you think that LBOs are a good way of financing an acquisition? What was the amount of debt Hindalco was getting into? What was Noveliss gain from the deal? Why share prices fall immediately after a merger announcement? Was Noveliss improved financial performance was due to the merger? Can you elaborate on Mr. Jean-Marcs doubts? Especially so on long term profitability?

Session 4: Business Level Strategy Case: Zipcar, the challenge of scaling up an ecofriendly business Zipcar, a company that has turned the concept of car rental on its head. There's no waiting in line, and there's no insurance. In fact, there's no face-to-face interaction at all. Customers apply to become membersor "zipsters"and reserve vehicles online. And forget about getting stuck with a car you dont want. Zip cars, which are scattered throughout city neighborhoods, are fun and whimsical (think Mini Coopers and Volkswagen Jettas with names like "Dagwood" and "Jinglebell"). Car doors unlock with the flash of a pass card over a sensor on the windshield, and a key hangs from the steering column. Gas and insurance are included in an hourly rate, which tends to range from $6 to $10. Zipcar challenges the conventional car business with a distributed network, low costs of renting, and the ease of walking to a car parked within a few paces from your house. Zipcar is the Southwest Airline of car rental business. The business model works as follows. A potential car user has to become a subscriber by registering online and paying an upfront subscription fee of $ 300 per annum to become a member. Zipcar targets the occasional car user, who doesnt own a car, largely uses public transport for daily commuting to office and doesnt as well drive for long distances on weekends on the inter-state high speed motorways of USA. The users of Zipcar use the car once a week on average and doesnt want the hassle of hiring a car from a large car company, whose rental charges are high and involves a lot of paperwork, every time one orders a car on phone. All the necessary information is filed only once on line by the subscriber and the subscriber is requested to update it annually. The firm maintains a highly distributed car network, with a small fleet of cars parked in important residential locations around town. The parking fees are included in the rental charges. If a subscriber wishes to hire a car, he or she has to visit the site to book a car and look for available cars in the nearest locations. Each car is equipped with a black box that is capable of transmitting data on a real time basis. The subscriber is provided with a card, once a car is booked, the server sends information to the black box, about the time, user-id and the parking lot where the user will visit. Once the car is in motion, the black box keeps remitting information to the server about the time used and the odometer reading, recorded with a webcam installed on the roof of the car. Thus billing is real time. The car doors are locked and unlocked with smart cards given to subscribers, and the digital chip in the engine is linked to the smart card. Only when the door is unlocked using the card, the chip enables the engine to be started. The subscribers can choose their cars online, if no car is available in the nearest parking location, that doesnt represent a huge challenge. The transmitting of information on a real time basis from black boxes to the server and the car reservation time logged at the time of booking tells subscriber which car in which location will be available on a real time basis.

This enables the users to program their own activities in a hassle free manner, without having to do nagging follow ups over phone with car rental companies. The firm doesnt use large and expensive vehicles, mainly used for cross country driving by large families. Instead it maintains a fleet of small vehicles, like VW Golf, or Fiat Panda or mid-sized sedans Ford Fiesta, suited more for intra-city driving. Almost 80% of the firms subscribers are college students and young professionals, who cant afford to buy a new car or doesnt want to own one at early stages of their professional lives. Zipcar was started by a MIT MBA, Robin Chase. She sensed that there are a large number of people in USA and as well as in other parts of the world, who are tech-savvy and is conscious of saving money as well as being sensitive to the surroundings by not crowding the neighborhood with parked cars. The firm was started with an initial fund of $ 50,000 dollars, which allowed Robin to lease a small fleet of 12 VWs. Thus the firm was born in early 2000. Later on Robin raised another $ 3, 25,000 from friends and relatives to invest in the smart card technology, which required sophisticated programming using fuzzy logic and she had a hard time in finding one such programmer initially. Finally after months of searching, Robin came across a talented programmer from MIT Paul Covell, who took up the challenge of programming. Zipcar charged an annual fee of $ 300, apart from a fully refundable security deposit of $ 300, plus an initial registration fee of $ 25 for the smart card. The usage charges were $ 1.50 per hour and 40 cents per mile, which was increased later as gasoline prices kept increasing. There was a late fee of $ 20 per hour for late return, beyond the reserved time for usage. The costs were calculated, based on a 50% utilization rate between 8 am and 8 pm for each car, and the charges included insurance fees, parking fees and leasing costs. The insurance and parking fees were recovered from annual subscription and refundable security deposits, based on an assumption that there will be a 10% attrition rate among subscribers. Zipcar initially started in Boston Americas intellectual mecca, with two of the finest universities in the world situated within the same town. The marketing was restricted to putting up signs in designated places within the two universities and Robin went around personally explaining the university students about her business model. It was a roaring success in Boston. This allowed Robin to expand her fleet to 40 cars. But now she was facing a series of challenges, of scaling up the business, expanding to other cities, hiring the right people, and above all getting funded for further expansion. After the initial success, Robin estimated that she needs another million dollars as venture capital fund to expand the business and shes is scouting for an angel investor, whom so far she hasnt found. She has already done endless rounds of presentations to many VC firms and as of now shes wondering how to refine the business model further, so as to convince the investors.

Questions on Zipcar Business model a) Explain how the business model of Zipcar is radically different from conventional car renting business b) Think how the business model can be further refined to convince the investors c) Suggest a funding plan to Robin, which allows scaling of the business without burdening her with high interest costs d) Suggest a similar new business model under Indian conditions to fulfill a crying and unattended need, which not only generates employment, but serves the society. Questions on HGS:a) Whats the main issue in the case? b) Do you think a CFO should only facilitate a number crunching exercise or go beyond that? c) What do you think is Shirleys main concern and what stops her from giving a decision? d) Do you think that Shirleys decision should mainly address the takeover threat? e) How do you think Shirley should address the internal politics between Beckett and Walters? f) If Shirley suggests a business model for Plastiwear, what would be the key assumptions behind the model? g) Should Plastiwear be only marketed as a mens dress material in a highly competitive and fragmented market? Or should HGS find out other safer and low risk business models for Plastiwear? h) Recommend a solution to the case as a strategy consultant and clearly highlight the CFOs role in strategic decision making

Session 5:- The Smart Grid, how the baby can walk? The traditional electricity distribution grid is fragmented, cant respond to demand fluctuations on a real time basis and also results in considerable amount of distribution loss. The smart grid, based on internet based communication technologies, overcomes many problems of traditional grids, results in conservation of energy, lesser emission of greenhouse gases and negligible distribution losses. The smart grid integrates energy transmission and delivery with information technology infrastructure. The power grid comprises three components, viz. generation, transmission and distribution. From power generation plants, electricity is transmitted to a network called the grid. Transmission is the process of moving electricity through high voltage cross country lines and power stations. Distribution involves delivery of electricity through medium or low voltage lines from substations to homes and offices. The major issue is meeting peak demand, which rises substantially in summer. The peak demand is almost five times the yearly average demand and to meet the peak demand, electricity generation companies continuously have to build new and expensive plants, as peak demand is rising twice as fast in 2000s as it had in previous 20 years. Since 1980s peak demand has outpaced production and distribution by 25% per year. Rising cost of raw materials increased the cost of constructing a high voltage transmission line to $1.5 million per mile in USA by 2006. Theres a standing joke in USA: if Alexander Graham Bell visits 21st century, he would have a hard time in recognizing the modern wireless telecomm network, on the other hand if Thomas Edison visits us today, he will find the electric grid more or less unchanged. This speaks volumes on an ageing and creaking infrastructure. The average lifespan of a substation is 40 years and most of the US and European substation transformers are more than 50 years old as of today. This inability to keep up pace with demand, coupled with an ageing infrastructure is now having its effect on economic growth and has contributed to a good extent on slowing down of European and US economy. There are other issues with a centralized power transmission system, chiefly the huge overheads inform of depreciation of assets, high interest costs, and salaries. Apart from overheads, centralized power plants are susceptible to acts of terrorism, bombing during war (one of the major causes of Nazi Germany losing the war was the big power stations, which was subject to constant bombing by allied forces, as these large plants were easy targets and hard to defend). Also transmission losses are considerable, on average 15% of the power transmitted was lost due to inefficiencies of equipment, in developing countries its much higher. 26% of global carbon emissions in 2008 were attributed to power generation. The conventional power grids also cant improvise to generate energy from renewable sources. The smart grid then can address many of the issues of older grids. First of all a smart grid enables a two way communication between the consumer and the power plant, thus optimizing the power generation and balancing peak load. The smart grid comprises meters, monitors and wireless routers, through which a two way communication is possible; this would improve the clumsy and

slow reaction time of the existing system, which often comprises an employee with a clipboard and a telephone. The critical factor here is load balancing and knowing on a real time basis, where the demand is peaking and where its less. Also load balancing will have vast impacts; it will save 42 GW of power annually. Most significantly a smart grid also can accommodate power from renewable systems, such as wind and solar power. The third most significant aspect of smart grid is that it can create an ENERGY INTERNET, that is a worldwide energy web, where information from any power generation source is logged on to the system and can facilitate a smart Demand-Response time, by providing consumers and power distribution companies access to real time information from diverse sources. Thus the entire EU can be on a continent wide energy internet. Energy can be generated over millions of buildings by installing solar panels on them or on the sea coasts using wind energy. This energy then can be stored and logged on to the energy internet. However as of today a number of issues remain:First of all the issue of interoperability. That is combining energy from diverse sources, requires communication and no uniform communication protocols exist; the situation is similar to the issues that arose in mid 90s on internet communication all over the world, as standards were still evolving. Another major issue was lack of incentives that rewarded less consumption and penalized higher consumption (the reverse is the case now). The third major issue is lack of information for consumers. How are they to be educated about intelligent usage of the grid and how millions of buildings, generating solar energy can be seamlessly integrated into the grid? What would be the rates for payment and what would be the rewards for consuming less and generating more? A fourth major issue is integrating intermittent and non-frequent energy generation from diverse sources such as wind, which peaks during rainy season and reduces to nil during winter months. Economies of scale become a major issue here. The last but not the least, the initial investment is heavy, involving billions and national governments alone cant bear the cost. The private sector has to come forward and a PPP mechanism has to evolve. What then is the Way ahead? Questions:a) In an energy deficient country like India, which is also regarded as an IT powerhouse, suggest a series of small steps to start a smart grid system b) Suggest a system to prevent the high rate of electricity theft in India through smart transmission systems c) What do you are the major hurdles today in India in establishing mega power plants? d) Do you think that the INDIA and the BHARAT divide will seriously impede implementation of a smart grid system in India? e) Do you think India should scrap the 1-2-3 agreement and say bye bye to US-India friendship?

f) Do you think that switching over to a smart grid can save and optimize power consumption and generation under Indian conditions? Questions on gaming industry? a) b) c) d) Draw a comparison between the evolution of the gaming and the PC industry Why do you think SONY lost the war? Or do you think SONY really lost the war? Highlight the key strategic shift in gaming industry between 1980s and now Do you think that more complex games and technology platforms provide a winning formula? e) Who do you think will finally emerge as the winner?