STOCKHOLDER’S

DEBRIEF
DIGBY
Team Members

Juhi Priyadarshini
Krishna Saraswat
Paroksha Kumar Sahu
Ritwika Ray
Somyajit Mohapatra
Goals & Objectives
Customer
• Major focus on Centric • Maintaining above
Traditional, Low and average contribution
Performance • Prioritizing the margin
segment both in accessibility &
terms of value & awareness among
volume public regarding
products
Contribution
Focus
Margin
Overall Strategy

R&D Production Marketing Finance HR & TQM

• Avoiding over • 6% of total revenue • Timely repayment of • High investment in
inventory as well as were spent on debt to maintain the TQM with focus on
• Maintainnig on an keeping enough promotional activities credit rating as well reducing material
average 1.8% of total margin of safety to which eventually led as the cost of debt
revenue as spendings
and labor cost.
fulfill consumer to 95% customer under 10%
on R&D demand and avoid awareness on an • Maintaining an
• Maintaining optimum
• Striving to keep the loosing on to the average Leverage at 2.
product specification opportunity • Pricing products
percentage based
• Avioding dilution of on productivity
above average competitively for so ownership by
requirement in the as to attain index.
sourcing funds by
market economies of scale in way of cheap source • Consistently
the low and of debt growing
traditional segment. • Avoid taking short productivity as well
term loan to fulfill as reducing
working capital needs turnover rate
 Current Scorecard Round 7 vs. Round 0
Round 0 Round 4 Round 7 • Average Market share of 16.31%
• Profits up by 4.5x
ROS 4.1% -1.4% 4.9%
• Improved Contribution margin
Asset Turnover 1.05 1.66 1.48 • Cash from operations increased by 13
ROA 4.4% -2.3% 4.8% million
Cumulative Profit (in mn) $4.1 $2.8 $19.34

Contribution Margin 28.3% 30.8% 39.7%

Bond Rating B CC BBB
Stock Price $34.25 $7.57 $36.72
Average Plant Utilization 75% 101.2% 92%
Leverage 2 2.5 1.7
Cash from operations (in 6.43 17.03 19.00
millions)
 MARKETING : ACCESSIBILITY
120

100

80
Rd1
Rd2

60 Rd3
Rd4
Rd5
Rd6
40 Rd7

20

0
Daze Dell Dixie Dot Dune Dude
MARKETING : AWARENESS
PRODUCT-WISE SALES
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
HR
Consistently
rising and highest
productivity
index in the
whole industry
complemented by
lowest turnover
rate.
TQM Investments
 Strategic spending in TQM Module from Round 3 onwards
 Exponential reduction in the following:
 Material cost
 Labor cost
 R&D cycle time
 Admin cost
 Increased Demand
TQM
R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
CPI Systems $1500 $1800 $1500 $1300 $800
Vendor JIT $1500 $1700 $1000 $500
Quality Initiative training
Channel support Systems $1500 $1300
Concurrent Engineering $1800 $1500
UNEP Green Programs $1500 $1500 $1000
Bench marking $1500 $1000 $500
Quality Function Deployment $4050 $2500 $1300 $1000
CCE/Six Sigma Training $2250 $1800 $1500 $1300 $800
GEMI TQEM Sustainability $1500 $1700
TOTAL $12600 $12100 $10500 $6600 $2600
Material Cost Reduction 1.51% 9.90% 11.80% 11.80% 11.80%
Labor cost Reduction 1.14% 6.88% 12.14% 13.61% 13.89%
Reduction R&D Cycle Time 29.95% 40.01% 40.01% 40.01% 40.01%
Reduction Admin Costs 4.66% 56.19% 60.02% 60.02%
Demand Increase 6.91% 12.56% 14.35% 14.40% 14.40%
Competitor Analysis
Round 4 Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby Erie Ferris
Material Cost Reduction 6.76% 6.93% 11.35% 9.90% 10.51% 1.69%
Labor cost Reduction 4.74% 4.66% 11.72% 6.88% 13.01% 1.19%
Reduction R&D Cycle Time 40.01% 40.01% 36.31% 40.01% 40.01% 30.04%
Reduction Admin Costs 43.11% 22.03% 55.78% 4.66% 46.78% 25.58%
Demand Increase 13.35% 6.50% 14.04% 12.56% 13.22% 7.59%
Total Expenditures $15000 $12500 $15000 $12100 $12400 $6300

Round 7 Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby Erie Ferris

Material Cost Reduction 11.51% 11.74% 11.80% 11.80% 11.80% 9.28%
Labor cost Reduction 12.31% 13.20% 14.00% 13.89% 14.00% 8.18%
Reduction R&D Cycle Time 40.01% 40.01% 40.01% 40.01% 40.01% 40.01%
Reduction Admin Costs 59.62% 58.90% 60.02% 60.02% 60.02% 60.02%
Demand Increase 14.40% 14.24% 14.40% 14.40% 14.40% 14.40%
Total Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $2600 $0 $6300
Figures and Numbers – Production (Automation
level)
Automation Level
8

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Traditional Low High Performance Size Performance 2

Competitor Analysis
• Erie was the leading the market from the initial stage itself as it introduced
product in the early stage and the products were placed in the correct
segment.
• Although Eire have not given any dividend but they have maintained the
trust of the investors and achieved maximum market share.
• Ferris started aggressively but later on loose in industry in every aspect of the
industry.
What went right for us
• We’ve consistently sold way above our potential in the Low segment i.e.
“Dell” throughout 7 Years.
• Consistent and persistent investment in product and quality optimization by
way of TQM and achieved lowest cost of production possible and least
R&D time.
• Have excelled in terms of productivity and reduced the attrition/turnover
throughout tenure.
• Have been able to successfully place new product in the Performance sector
and increase overall market share of the segment
 Scope for improvement

• Could have introduced new products in other segments as well

• Consistent increase in automation level
• Emergency loans can have been avoided
• Scope for improvement is there in terms of contribution margin
• Product delivery time can be improved
Questions?
Thank You!!