Key Learning Points

An overview of Planning Fundamentals How strategic planning differs from tactical and operational planning Strategic Planning: Yesterday and Today o Step 1: Establishment of Mission, Vision, and goals o Step 2: Analysis of External Opportunities and Threats o Step 3: Analysis of Internal Strengths and Weaknesses o Step 4: SWOT Analysis and Strategy formulation o Step 5: Strategy Implementation o Step 6: Strategy Control

An Overview of Planning Fundamentals

Planning : Systematic process of making decisions about goals and activities that a group or organization or individu The basics planning process are: 1. Situational analysis

Planning should gather, interpret and summarize information which is relevant to the planning issues 2. Alternative goals and plans Evaluate the advantages, disadvantages and potential effects of each alternative goal and plan. 3. Goal and evaluation When performing evaluation, priority should be set in order to achieve goals and plans. 4. Goal and plan selection

After priority has been set, and evaluation has been conducted, the most feasible goals and plans m

organization, this steps is called planning scenarios which describes a particular set of future conditi 5. 6. Implementation Monitor and control

This is an essential step because planning is ongoing and the process is repetitive. Thus ma actual performance according to the units goal and plans.

Level of Planning
The level of planning in consist of : 1. Strategic planning Involves making decisions for the organization long term goals and strategies It has a strong external orientation. Strategic goal major targets relating to the organizations long term survival, value and growth.

Strategy is a pattern of actions and resource allocations designated to obtained the goal of the organ 2. Tactical and operational planning

This translates broad strategic goals and plans into specific goals and plans that are relevan Tactical plans focus on the major actions to fulfill the strategic plan.

Operation planning identifies the specific procedures and processes required at lower levels

Adidas bought out Salomon sports equipment, and with this purchase it makes adidas a second largest sports equip

Strategic Planning: Yesterday and Today

From 1960s to 1980s strategic planning generally emphasized a top-down approach to goal setting and planning. D companies and consulting firms innovated a variety analytical method and planning approaches. Strategic management involves managers from all sections of organization in the formulation and implementation of The six major components of the strategic management process are: 1. Establishment of mission, vision and goals The first step is to establish mission. Mission is the basic purpose, scope and value of the organization. Second step is to establish Strategic vision It moves beyond the mission statement to provide a perspective to the organization goal. 2. Analysis of external opportunities and threats

Successful strategic management depends on an accurate evaluation of the environment. After env

industry is examined. The next is organizational stakeholder.

Stakeholder is groups or individual who affect and are affected by the achievement of the mission, g

Compaq has to segment its product to different kind of products according to customers need; Ther about 50 percent. 3. Analysis of internal strengths and weakness The major or internal resource analysis are: o o o o Financial analysis Human resources assessment Marketing audit Operations analysis

Resources are inputs to a system that can enhance performance. Resources can take many forms but tend to fall into two broad classifications: o Tangible assets For instance: Real estate, Production facilities and raw materials o Intangible assets

For instance: Company reputation, culture, technical knowledge, and paten

Core competencies is the unique skills or knowledge that an organization possess to give an edge over competitors.

Benchmarking is the process of estimating how well the companys basic functions and skills compare to other companies.

1.

SWOT analysis and strategy

SWOT analysis is a comparison of weakness, strengths, threats and opportunities that helps Strategy formulation moves from simple analysis to devising a coherent course of action.

Corporate strategy identifies the set of businesses, marketing or industries in which the orga businesses.

An organization has 4 basic corporate strategy alternatives ranging from very specialized to

A concentration is a strategy employed for an organization that operates a single business a Vertical integration involves expanding the business to supply channels and distributors.

Concentric diversification used to add new business that produce related products, markets

The opposite of concentric diversification is conglomerate diversification, defined as a corpo into unrelated businesses.

BCG Matrix

The BCGs matrix helps iden managers of individual busin

Trends in Corporate Strategy

Organization usually performs better if they implement a more concentric diversification stra

or similar to one another. For instance, Disney spend $19 Million to merge with ABC/Cap cit

Business Strategy

Defines the major actions that an organization builds and strengthens its competitive positio Two generic business strategies are: 1. Low Cost Strategy

Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines peruse competitive advantages through low-cost s businesses by building competitive advantages by being efficient and offering a stan 2. Differentiation strategy Company attempts to be unique in its industry or market segment by using

Functional Strategy

This is the final step in strategy formulation. In this strategy, each functional area of the orga the business strategy.

Company Profiles
Starbucks: Inside the coffee cult

StarBucks

Starbucks employed and trained the "tattooed kids" and paid them above the industrys standard salary. They also g to express their ideas to the company. In return, the company expects their employees to adhere to a fairly rigid dres resources strategy is impressive because Starbucks generate revenues about $35 Million, and the company now is 1. Strategy implementation

Strategic managers must ensure that the new strategies are implemented effectively and eff Strategy implementation reflected in two major trends: o Adopting a more comprehensive view of implementation

o 1.

Extending the more participative strategic management Strategic control

Strategic control system is designed to support managers in evaluating the organizations pr when discrepancies exit, taking corrective action.

Most strategic control systems include budgets to monitor and control major financial expen The dual responsibilities of the control system are efficiency and flexibility.

Dupont

DuPont has changed from a slow moving giant into a faster growing machine thanks to John A. Krol. He has done th planning process, by listening to them and asking for input which has improved the quality of decisions made. To imp diversify its operations into life sciences such as biotech agriculture and pharmaceuticals. When these operations su products dont go well, they sell them off. The overall plan of DuPont is the concentrate on faster growing markets th

Chapter 4 || Chapter 5 || Chapter 6 || Chapter 7

Growth-share matrix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October
2010)

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (October 2010)

The BCG matrix (aka B.C.G. analysis, BCG-matrix, Boston Box, Boston Matrix, Boston Consulting Group analysis, portfolio diagram) is a chart that had been created by Bruce Henderson for the Boston Consulting Group in 1968 to help corporations with analyzing their business units or product lines. This helps the company allocate resources and is used as an analytical tool in brand marketing, product management, strategic management, and portfolio analysis.[1]

Contents
[hide]

1 Chart 2 Practical use of the BCG Matrix o 2.1 Relative market share o 2.2 Market growth rate o 2.3 Critical evaluation o 2.4 Alternatives 3 Other uses 4 References

[edit] Chart

BCG Matrix

To use the chart, analysts plot a scatter graph to rank the business units (or products) on the basis of their relative market shares and growth rates.

Cash cows are units with high market share in a slow-growing industry. These units typically generate cash in excess of the amount of cash needed to maintain the business. They are regarded as staid and boring, in a "mature" market, and every corporation would be thrilled to own as many as possible. They are to be "milked" continuously with as little investment as possible, since such investment would be wasted in an industry with low growth. Dogs, or more charitably called pets, are units with low market share in a mature, slow-growing industry. These units typically "break even", generating barely enough cash to maintain the business's market share. Though owning a break-even unit provides the social benefit of providing jobs and possible synergies that assist other business units, from an accounting point of view such a unit is worthless, not generating cash for the company. They depress a profitable company's return on assets ratio, used by many investors to judge how well a company is being managed. Dogs, it is thought, should be sold off. Question marks (also known as problem child) are growing rapidly and thus consume large amounts of cash, but because they have low market shares they do not generate much cash. The result is a large net cash consumption. A question mark has the potential to gain market share and become a star, and eventually a cash cow when the market growth slows. If the question mark does not succeed in becoming the market leader, then after perhaps years of cash consumption it will degenerate into a dog when the market growth declines. Question marks must be analyzed carefully in order to determine whether they are worth the investment required to grow market share. Stars are units with a high market share in a fast-growing industry. The hope is that stars become the next cash cows. Sustaining the business unit's market leadership may require extra cash, but this is worthwhile if that's what it takes for the unit to remain a leader. When growth slows, stars become cash cows if they have been able to maintain their category leadership, or they move from brief stardom to dogdom.[citation needed]

As a particular industry matures and its growth slows, all business units become either cash cows or dogs. The natural cycle for most business units is that they start as question marks, then turn into stars. Eventually the market stops growing thus the business unit becomes a cash cow. At the end of the cycle the cash cow turns into a dog. The overall goal of this ranking was to help corporate analysts decide which of their business units to fund, and how much; and which units to sell. Managers were supposed to gain perspective from this analysis that allowed them to plan with confidence to use money generated by the cash cows to fund the stars and, possibly, the question marks. As the BCG stated in 1970: Only a diversified company with a balanced portfolio can use its strengths to truly capitalize on its growth opportunities. The balanced portfolio has:

stars whose high share and high growth assure the future; cash cows that supply funds for that future growth; and question marks to be converted into stars with the added funds.

[edit] Practical use of the BCG Matrix

For each product or service, the 'area' of the circle represents the value of its sales. The BCG Matrix thus offers a very useful 'map' of the organization's product (or service) strengths and weaknesses, at least in terms of current profitability, as well as the likely cashflows.

The need which prompted this idea was, indeed, that of managing cash-flow. It was reasoned that one of the main indicators of cash generation was relative market share, and one which pointed to cash usage was that of market growth rate. Derivatives can also be used to create a 'product portfolio' analysis of services. So Information System services can be treated accordingly.[citation needed]

[edit] Relative market share

This indicates likely cash generation, because the higher the share the more cash will be generated. As a result of 'economies of scale' (a basic assumption of the BCG Matrix), it is assumed that these earnings will grow faster the higher the share. The exact measure is the brand's share relative to its largest competitor. Thus, if the brand had a share of 20 percent, and the largest competitor had the same, the ratio would be 1:1. If the largest competitor had a share of 60 percent; however, the ratio would be 1:3, implying that the organization's brand was in a relatively weak position. If the largest competitor only had a share of 5 percent, the ratio would be 4:1, implying that the brand owned was in a relatively strong position, which might be reflected in profits and cash flows. If this technique is used in practice, this scale is logarithmic, not linear. On the other hand, exactly what is a high relative share is a matter of some debate. The best evidence is that the most stable position (at least in Fast Moving Consumer Goods FMCG markets) is for the brand leader to have a share double that of the second brand, and triple that of the third. Brand leaders in this position tend to be very stableand profitable; the Rule of 123.[2] The reason for choosing relative market share, rather than just profits, is that it carries more information than just cash flow. It shows where the brand is positioned against its main competitors, and indicates where it might be likely to go in the future. It can also show what type of marketing activities might be expected to be effective.[citation needed]

[edit] Market growth rate

Rapidly growing in rapidly growing markets, are what organizations strive for; but, as we have seen, the penalty is that they are usually net cash users - they require investment. The reason for this is often because the growth is being 'bought' by the high investment, in the reasonable expectation that a high market share will eventually turn into a sound investment in future profits. The theory behind the matrix assumes, therefore, that a higher growth rate is indicative of accompanying demands on investment. The cut-off point is usually chosen as 10 per cent per annum. Determining this cut-off point, the rate above which the growth is deemed to be significant (and likely to lead to extra demands on cash) is a critical requirement of the technique; and one that, again, makes the use of the BCG Matrix problematical in some product areas. What is more, the evidence,[2] from FMCG markets at least, is that the most typical pattern is of very low growth, less than 1 per cent per annum. This is outside the range normally considered in BCG Matrix work, which may make application of this form of analysis unworkable in many markets.[citation needed] Where it can be applied, however, the market growth rate says more about the brand position than just its cash flow. It is a good indicator of that market's strength, of its future potential

(of its 'maturity' in terms of the market life-cycle), and also of its attractiveness to future competitors. It can also be used in growth analysis.

[edit] Critical evaluation

The matrix ranks only market share and industry growth rate, and only implies actual profitability, the purpose of any business. (It is certainly possible that a particular dog can be profitable without cash infusions required, and therefore should be retained and not sold.) The matrix also overlooks other elements of industry. With this or any other such analytical tool, ranking business units has a subjective element involving guesswork about the future, particularly with respect to growth rates. Unless the rankings are approached with rigor and scepticism, optimistic evaluations can lead to a dot com mentality in which even the most dubious businesses are classified as "question marks" with good prospects; enthusiastic managers may claim that cash must be thrown at these businesses immediately in order to turn them into stars, before growth rates slow and it's too late. Poor definition of a business's market will lead to some dogs being misclassified as cash cows. As originally practiced by the Boston Consulting Group,[2] the matrix was undoubtedly a useful tool, in those few situations where it could be applied, for graphically illustrating cashflows. If used with this degree of sophistication its use would still be valid. However, later practitioners have tended to over-simplify its messages. In particular, the later application of the names (problem children, stars, cash cows and dogs) has tended to overshadow all elseand is often what most students, and practitioners, remember. This is unfortunate, since such simplistic use contains at least two major problems: 'Minority applicability'. The cashflow techniques are only applicable to a very limited number of markets (where growth is relatively high, and a definite pattern of product life-cycles can be observed, such as that of ethical pharmaceuticals). In the majority of markets, use may give misleading results. 'Milking cash cows'. Perhaps the worst implication of the later developments is that the (brand leader) cash cows should be milked to fund new brands. This is not what research into the FMCG markets has shown to be the case. The brand leader's position is the one, above all, to be defended, not least since brands in this position will probably outperform any number of newly launched brands. Such brand leaders will, of course, generate large cash flows; but they should not be `milked' to such an extent that their position is jeopardized. In any case, the chance of the new brands achieving similar brand leadership may be slim certainly far less than the popular perception of the Boston Matrix would imply. Perhaps the most important danger[2] is, however, that the apparent implication of its fourquadrant form is that there should be balance of products or services across all four quadrants; and that is, indeed, the main message that it is intended to convey. Thus, money must be diverted from `cash cows' to fund the `stars' of the future, since `cash cows' will inevitably decline to become `dogs'. There is an almost mesmeric inevitability about the whole process. It focuses attention, and funding, on to the `stars'. It presumes, and almost demands, that `cash cows' will turn into `dogs'. The reality is that it is only the `cash cows' that are really importantall the other elements are supporting actors. It is a foolish vendor who diverts funds from a `cash cow' when these

are needed to extend the life of that `product'. Although it is necessary to recognize a `dog' when it appears (at least before it bites you) it would be foolish in the extreme to create one in order to balance up the picture. The vendor, who has most of his (or her) products in the `cash cow' quadrant, should consider himself (or herself) fortunate indeed, and an excellent marketer, although he or she might also consider creating a few stars as an insurance policy against unexpected future developments and, perhaps, to add some extra growth. There is also a common misconception that 'dogs' are a waste of resources. In many markets 'dogs' can be considered loss-leaders that while not themselves profitable will lead to increased sales in other profitable areas.

[edit] Alternatives
As with most marketing techniques, there are a number of alternative offerings vying with the BCG Matrix although this appears to be the most widely used (or at least most widely taughtand then probably 'not' used). The next most widely reported technique is that developed by McKinsey and General Electric, which is a three-cell by three-cell matrix using the dimensions of `industry attractiveness' and `business strengths'. This approaches some of the same issues as the BCG Matrix but from a different direction and in a more complex way (which may be why it is used less, or is at least less widely taught). A more practical approach is that of the Boston Consulting Group's Advantage Matrix, which the consultancy reportedly used itself though it is little known amongst the wider population. A different alternative that is getting more popularity by practitioners, is COPE analysis [3]. COPE analysis, takes an even wider business approach than McKinsey's, and is based on hard or estimated data instead of subjective scores.

[edit] Other uses

The initial intent of the growth-share matrix was to evaluate business units, but the same evaluation can be made for product lines or any other cash-generating entities. This should only be attempted for real lines that have a sufficient history to allow some prediction; if the corporation has made only a few products and called them a product line, the sample variance will be too high for this sort of analysis to be meaningful.

[edit] References
1. ^ About BCG: http://www.bcg.com/about_bcg/history/history_1968.aspx 2. ^ a b c d the Rule of 123 3. ^ COPE analysis explained Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix" View page ratings

Rate this page

What's this? Trustworthy

Objective

Complete

Well-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Submit ratings Saved successfully Your ratings have not been submitted yet Categories: Boston Consulting Group | Marketing Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from October 2010 | All articles needing additional references | Wikipedia articles in need of updating from October 2010 | All Wikipedia articles in need of updating | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from February 2009
Personal tools

Log in / create account

Namespaces

Article Discussion

Variants Views

Read Edit View history

Actions Search
Special:Search

Search

Navigation

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Cite this page Rate this page

Print/export

Create a book Download as PDF Printable version

Languages

esky Dansk Deutsch Espaol Franais Nederlands Polski Portugus Simple English

Svenska Ting Vit This page was last modified on 17 August 2011 at 21:04. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view

Marketing pundits could well be spouting a new acronym at wide eyed students of management courses. The acronym is FMCD. No prize for guessing correctly that the D does not stand for a Ram Gopal Verma movie; it actually means durables. Thanks to Nokia, India Inc has discovered a completely new product category: Fast Moving Consumer Durables. Mobile phones now inhabit an arena that has seen the morphing of detergents and shampoos with microwave ovens and washing machines. Handset companies like Nokia now need new mantras to position and market FMCDs. For Nokia India Managing Director Sanjay Sharma and his marketing head Sanjay Behl, there is a Hamlet like dilemma that simply refuses to go away: Do we position brand Nokia as a toothpaste or do we peddle it as a premium fl at screen television? On the one hand, Nokia needs to reinforce its stranglehold at the entry level itself where first time buyers join the mobile bandwagon by paying anything between Rs 2,000 to Rs 3,000. These buyers could pick up their first handset from the friendly neighbourhood shop which supplies them the latest pirated versions of Bollywood movies. On the other hand, Nokia also needs to keep these first time buyers as loyal customers when they move up the value chain and contemplate buying fancy handsets. The Real Challenge If Sharma and his team can transcend this dilemma, Nokias early success in India can endure as a legend and a lesson for others to emulate. If they get stuck with this positioning riddle, Nokia could be yet another example of how global leaders have failed to find the magic formula in India. By any yardstick, Nokia is a smashing success in India. According to various market research reports, Nokia commands more than 60% of the handset market in the country. The nearest rivals, Sony Ericsson, LG, Samsung and Motorola barely manage a 10% market share as individual entities. Yet, Nokias invincibility could be deceptive. For one, rivals like BenQ are rapidly emerging as aggressive price warriors. Moving up the value chain, new models from LG and Motorola are already giving Nokia a hard time. Global Lessons Nokia can draw from the lessons that global heavyweights have learnt in India. General Motors (GM), Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Sony stand out for their unique and oft en humbling experiences in India. All three are global leaders in their respective domains: automobiles for GM, Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) for P&G and consumer electronics for Sony. All three had an India entry strategy that tried to leverage their status as world leaders and consumer perceptions about the premium nature of their brand equity. All three initially

disdained the bottom end of the market and concentrated on the top segments. Th e result: All three failed to capture even respectable market shares in their respective domains. But Nokia has been proactive enough to invest $50 million to set up a manufacturing plant in the southern city of Chennai in India. This plant will manufacture mobile handsets as well as equipment. This is a clear signal from Nokia that it views India as a major market across the world. And why not? Going by latest figures, India is the fifth largest market in the world for Nokia. Also, if the current growth trend continues, more than a 100 million Indians will be buying mobile handsets by 2008. Nokia is not alone in investing in India and laying their bets on the future of the market. The South Korean conglomerate LG has already pumped in more than $32 million to set up a manufacturing plant in Pune. The Sony Story India has seen many such giants set up manufacturing facilities, only to withdraw later on as they found the Indian market hostile. A typical example is Sony, which trimmed down its manufacturing operations in Dharuhera, Haryana and now imports almost all of its audio products and CTVs (colour televisions). The Japanese giants performance in the Indian consumer electronics industry mirrors what is happening across the world: Sony is being battered by nimble footed and aggressive companies like LG, Samsung and even Microsoft in the segments that it used to dominate. In India, the Korean Chaebols LG and Samsung have emerged as clear leaders, both in terms of market share and brand visibility. Indian brands like Videocon and Onida too have hung on tight, leaving Sony quite far behind in the sweepstakes. According to an advertising industry professional that services the Videocon brand: If you can get a good quality 29 inch fl at screen TV for Rs 15,000, will you pay Rs 30,000 for a 21 inch TV? This is a question that Sony needs to ask itself if it is serious about emerging as a market leader in India. Sunny Sodhi, owner of a travel agency and a heavy mobile phone user, says: Nokia will not have the going as easy as it did in the past. The Indian market is too big and too tempting. Rivals will go all the way to grab the market share away from Nokia. P&G changed gears after being taught a lesson by the price sensitive Indian consumer seeking value for money. Till 2003, market leader Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL) faced a greater threat from its own fl aging growth than from P&G. All that changed last year with P&G becoming an aggressive price warrior. Till date, HLL and P&G continue to fight bruising price battles. P&G has gained significant market share, though accurate figures are difficult to obtain. The GM Lesson For Nokia Almost 10 years after GM entered India, the number one car company in the world boasts of a market share of just two per cent. Just one model from Japan, Honda City, sold more cars than all the GM models put together! However, Nokias India strategy seems to have worked very well right from the word go. It has offered value for money handsets for the price sensitive Indian consumer. It has invested time, energy and money to create and market Made for India mobile phones. If things are so hunky-dory, why should Nokia be worried? Nokias Roadblocks There are plenty of reasons. The two most important ones are: A perception that while Nokia is all about connecting people, it is getting disconnected from upwardly mobile young consumers. Globally, Nokia seems to have paid a price for complacency when its market share dropped from 35% in 2003 to a little less than 30% by early 2005. Its initial reluctance to introduce clamshell (folding) models paved the way for LG and Samsung, who have cashed-in well on their popularity in the Asian continent. Long standing players like Motorola and new entrants like LG aggressively marketed themselves as brands that are funkier and technologically with it. An even bigger problem confronting Nokia is the issue of after sales service. Vijay Nair, a Senior Associate with a legal service firm has a scathing comment: The only danger I see Nokia facing from rivals is at the level of after sales service. In Delhi, at least, the tie-up with HCL for after sales service is proving negative as the HCL employees are incompetent and discourteous to the customers. Mr. Gogia, who has just ended his seven year association with Nokia as a Priority Dealer on a bitter note, shares the same view. His Nokia dealership is in the up market locality of South Extension, New Delhi has seen the Finnish giant in both its gray and hay days. According to him, Nokia has not been able to differentiate between a Priority Dealer and a roadside store that could also stock Nokia phones. How Leaders Behave Most market leaders face this problem of complacency. Some, like General Motors, become truly complacent and stop reinventing themselves. The result: hitherto unknown players like Toyota simply snatch away the leadership status. Some, like General Electric, ruthlessly and continuously reinvent themselves to stay ahead of the pack. The result, General Electric stays at the top. As a global player, Nokia clearly has the ability to roll out models in all price ranges from entry level to premium. The best long term strategy is to identify market segments that can be profitably tapped and position key models segment- wise. Nokia is one company that can attack the competition on several fronts and it must leverage this strength. The Indian mobile phone market is currently in the Star stage of the BCG matrix. Nokia has to ready itself for a period of stiff competition, where it will invest heavily and margins will be highly squeezed. However, the market will eventually discard weak players and reach the cash cow stage; that is when Nokia will actually earn the spoils of victory.

Bharti Airtel Enterprise Services BCG Matrix Study

BCG Matrix:Star SBU: Enterprise Services(Carriers & Corporates) Reason:-( Major Contributor to revenue in just 4 years of coming 04-08) ? SBU: Passive Infra Reason:-(Very new approach but quick grip of market/Good Coloborations like-Indus Towers/Untaaped Market) Cash Cow SBU: Mobile Services Reason:-(Legacy of Bharti) Dog SBU: Telemedia Services Reason:-(Significant fall in ARPU/Other Big Players existing in Market) Data for BCG Matrix in following Manner:Strategic Business Unit Market Share(SBU) Market Share(Largest Competitor) Relative Market Share Market Growth Quadrant Relative Market Share (in BCG Terms) (%age change b/w FY 07-10) in which the SBU lies Mobile Services 70.56% Reliance-CDMA/GSM-->17.94% 24.79% 1.38 33.00% Cash Cow Telemedia Services 9.22% BSNL-->37% 23% 0.62 44.00% Dog Enterprise Services(Carriers & Corporates) 18.26% Atire Technology-->42.6% 14.50% 0.34 30.00% Star Passive Infra 1.94% GTL Infra-->28.33% NA(Newly