BUSINESS POLICY

 CASE STUDY
GREYHOUND
 Maryam Latif (1303)
 Zonash Ghaffar (1413)
 Anam Farooq (1414)
 M.Fahad Tariq (1427)
 INTRODUCTION

 Greyhound Lines Inc. is the nation's largest intercity bus company, and
the only long-haul, nationwide provider of bus service in the United
States.
 The company serves more than 2,600 urban and rural destinations in
the 48 contiguous states and Mexico.

 The company maintains a fleet of 2,400 buses, which cover 60,000

route miles.

 The focus of Greyhound's business is scheduled passenger

transportation, but it also offers limited charter passenger service. In
addition, the company operates express package delivery and food
service at some locations.
HISTORY
 1913:
Carl Wickman started Hibbing Transportation, bussing miners
from the city to the mine.
 1925:
Wickman leaves Hibbing and purchases White Bus Line.
 1926:
White Bus merges with several other lines to form Motor
Transit Corporation, nicknamed Greyhound.
 1930:
Motor Transit becomes Greyhound Corporation.
 1946:
Wickman retires Greyhound is the leading bus line.
Cont…..

 1962:
Greyhound purchases Booth Leasing and becomes the largest
industrial leasing company in the world.
 1970:

Greyhound acquires Armour Foods, keeping only its meat

packing business.
 1987:

Trail ways, Greyhound's last remaining rival, is bought out.

 1997:

Greyhound acquires Valley Transit and 49 percent of Crucero,

a Mexican bus line.
Carl Lentzsch 1994
VISION

 Greyhound believes in complete and through

provision of services so that we can survive in long
run as well by building and growing in order to
create that people feel proud to a associated with us.
MISSION
 “Our mission is to provide complete
costumer satisfaction through the superior
quality services that can better reflect our
aim to maximize the benefits of our
stakeholders so that we can better facilitate
our internal costumer as well.”
SERVICE CATEGORIES
 PASSENGER SERVICE
 FOOD SERVICE
 PACKAGER EXPRESS SERVICE
 CHARTER
OUR COMPETITORS
 TRIALWAYS
 AMTRAK
 US AIRWAYS
STAGE 1(Input Stage)
 Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE)
 External Factor Evaluation (EFE)
 Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)
 Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE)
Key Internal factors Weight Rating Weighted
Score

Strengths

Good will 0.1 4 0.40

Brand name & icons 0.1 4 0.40
Affordable and travelling 0.1 4 0.40
Safe and reliable 0.1 3 0.30
Increasing profit 0.05 3 0.15
Advertising 0.05 3 0.15
Service quality 0.1 3 0.30
Market share 0.1 3 0.30

Weaknesses

Discourtesy towards customer 0.1 1 0.10

Management team 0.1 1 0.10
Bad IT system 0.05 1 0.05
training 0.05 2 0.10

Total 1.00 2.75

External Factor Evaluation (EFE)
Key External factors Weight Rating Weighted Score

Opportunities

•Partnership Mexican bus line) 0.10 4 0.40

•Baby boomer 0.10 3 0. 30
•New Asian and Mexican immigration 0.10 2 0.20
0.15 3 0.45
•Alliance to provide mix mode transportation
Threats
•Rapidly changing trend 0.15 4 0.60
•Changing customer prefrences 0.10 3 0.30
•No entry barries 0.10 3 0.30

•Airline & railway service 0.10 3 0.30

•Increase in bank loan
0.10 3 0.30

Total 1.00 3.15

Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)
 Critical Greyhound Amtrak
success factor weight
Rating Score Rating Score

Good will 0.15 3 0.45 4 0.60

Brand name & 0.10 3 0.30 3 0.30
icons
Service Quality 0.10 3 0.30 3 0.30
Management 0.15 1 0.15 3 0.45
Advertising 0.05 3 0.15 2 0.10
Financial 0.20 2 0.40 3 0.60
Position
Customer 0.10 2 0.20 4 0.40
Loyalty
Market share 0.15 1 0.15 4 0.60
Total 1.00 2.10 3.35
STAGE 2 (The Matching Stage)
 SWOT Matrix
 SPACE Matrix
 BCG Matrix
 IE Matrix
 Grand Strategy Matrix
SWOT Matrix
 Strengths - S Weakness – W
SWOT 1. Good will 1. Discourtesy towards customer
MATRIX 2. Brand name 2. Management team
3. Affordable travelling 3. Bad IT system
4. Safe & Reliable 4. training
5. Ads
6. Service quality
7. Increase in profit & market share

Opportunities – O SO - strategies WO – strategies

1. Partnership (S1, S5,O2,O3) By improving management team and
2. Baby boomer (Market Development) proper training can provide mix mode of
transportation(W2, W4,O4)
3. New Asian & Mexican
immigration. (Conglomerate Diversification)
4. Alliance of mix mode
transportation.

Threats - T ST – strategies WT – strategies

1. Rapidly changing trend.
2. Change customer preferences. (S1, S2,S6 T3) (T1, T2, W2)
3. No entry barriers. (Market Penetration) (Product Development)
4. Airline & Railways service.
5. Increase in automobile due to
bank loan.
 SPACE Matrix
 Internal Strategic Position External Strategic position

Financial Strengths (FS) Environmental Stability (ES)

Return on Investment +4 Technological changes -4

leverage +5 Rate of Inflation -4
Working Capital +3 Price range of Competing aervice -6
Liquidity +4 Barriers to entry -2
Competitive pressure -6
Risk involved in business -2
Demand variability -2
+16 Price elasticity of demand -3
Total 4 Total -29
average Average -3.62

Competitive Advantage (CA) Industry Strength (IS)

Market Share -4 Growth Potential +5
Service Quality -1 Profit Potential +4
Customer Loyalty -2
Financial Stability +3
Service life cycle -2
Resource Utilization +5
Technological know-how -3
Capacity utilization +5
Technological know-how +4
Total -12
Total +26
Average -2.4
Average
+4.34
 +6 Aggressive
Conservative
+5
+4 X-axis =CA + IS

+3 -2.4+4.34=1.94

+2
+1
CA IS
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 +5 +6

-1 Y-axis = FS + ES
-2 4+(-3.67)=0.33
-3
-4
-5
Competitive
Defensive -6
Boston Consulting Group Matrix
(BCG)
 MARKET SHARE POSITION
HIGH LOW
STAR QUESTION MARKS

M
AR

AMEGOS
KE GREYHOUND
T
ER ICA NOS
AM
GR
O CASH COW DOGS
W
TH

Lady Greyhound
IE Matrix
 IFE Total Weighted Score 2.70
EFE TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE 2.65

Strong 3.0 – 4.0 Average 2.0 – 2.99 Weak 1.0 – 1.99

4.0 3.0 2.0

i ii iii
High
3.0 – 4.0
GREYHOUND
3.0
iv V Vi
Medium
2.0 – 2.99
2.0
vii viii ix
Low
1.0 – 1.99
1.0
Grand Strategy Matrix
 Rapid market growth
Quadrant ii Quadrant i

Strong competitive position

Weak competitive position

Quadrant iii Quadrant iv

GREYHOUND

Slow market growth

Stage 3 (The Decision Stage)
 Quantitative Strategic Planning
Matrix (QSPM)
 Strategic alternatives
Key Internal Factors Concentric Conglomerate
Diversification Diversification
Strengths Weight AS TAS AS TAS

Good will 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40

Brand name & icons 0.10 4 0.40 3 0.30

Affordable travelling 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40

safe and reliable 0.10 3 0.30 4 0.40

Increase in profit 0.05 3 0.15 1 0.05

Advertising 0.05 2 0.15 3 0.15

Service quality 0.10 3 0.30 4 0.40

Market share 0.10 2 0.20 3 0.30

Weaknesses

Discourtesy towards customers 0.10 2 0.20 3 0.30

Management team 0.10 1 0.10 3 0.30

Bad IT system 0.05 2 0.10 2 0.10

training 0.05 2 0.10 3 0.15

Total Attractive Score 2.8 3.25

 Strategic alternatives

Key External Factors Market Penetration Concentric

Diversification
Opportunities weight AS TAS AS TAS

Partnership 0.10 - - - -

Baby boomer 0.10 3 0.45 3 0.45

New asian and mexican 0.10 2 0.30 3 0.45

Alliance for mix mode of transportation 0.15 2 0.30 4 0.60

Threats

Changing customer prefences 0.15 2 0.30 4 0.60

Rapidly changing trend 0.10 2 0.20 3 0.30

No entry barries 0.10 - - - -

Increase in bank loan 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40

Airline and railway service 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40

Total Attractive Score 1.00 2.35 3.2

Sum Total Attractive Score 5.15 6.45

THANK YOU