ENGRO FOOD

Internal Strength Position External Strength Position

Competitive Advantage(CA) Industry Strength(IS)
Axix X

(Worst -6,Best -1) (Worst +6,Best +1)

-1 Product Quality +5 Barriers to entry

Total X-Axis score: 3.00
Financial Strength(FS) Environment Strength(ES)
Axis Y

(Worst +6,Best +1) (Worst -6,Best -1)

+5 ROA -2 Inflation
+5 Leverage -1 Technology
+4 Leverage -2 Demand Elasticity
+6 Cash Flow -4 Taxation

Average Score = 5 Average Score = -2.5

Total Y-Axis score: 2.75
The following are a few model technical assumptions:

- By definition, the CA and IS values in the SPACE matrix are plotted on the X axis.
-CA values can range from -1 to -6.
- IS values can take +1 to +6?

-The FS and ES dimensions of the model are plotted on the Y axis.

- ES values can be between -1 and -6.
- FS values range from +1 to +6.

Engrofoods factors for SPACE MATRIX

Space Matrix for Engrofood

Consertvative FS Aggrasive
-6

-5
-4 Suggested Strategy type

-3 (3,2.75)
-2
-1

CS 1 2 3 4 5 6

-6 -5 -4 -3 -1 -1 IS
ENGRO FOOD

2
3

4
5

6
Defensive ES Competitive

Conclusion

This particular SPACE matrix tells us that our company should pursue an aggressive strategy. Our
company has a strong competitive position it the market with rapid growth. It needs to use its internal
strengths to develop a market penetration and market development strategy. This can include product
development, integration with other companies, acquisition of competitors, and so on.

Division wise data for Engrofoods BCG Matrix

Percent
Percent Percent Market Percent
Division Revenues Revenues Profits Profits Value Growth Rate
Olpers 49.90% $2000 41.62% 60 +8

$4500
Olwell TVC $1500 31.21% 25 -6
24.87%
$2550
Tarang $1305 27.18% 35 +4
31.21%
$3200
Total = $10250 100% 4805 100% ---- ----

BCG Matrix for EFL

Relative Market share position in industry

hig Lo
h Medium w

.1.0 0.5 .0.0

High 10
 ENGRO FOOD

Industry
sale
growth
Rte Mediu
% m 0 0

Low
-10

Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)

OLPERS NESTLE HALEEB

Critical Success Factors Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score

1 Research & Development 0.08 3 0.24 3 0.24 4 0.32

2 Advertisement 0.09 3 0.24 4 0.36 3 0.27

3 Financial Position 0.09 3 0.27 3 0.27 3 0.27

4 Market Share 0.07 2 0.14 4 0.28 3 0.21

5 Product Quality 0.08 3 0.24 3 0.24 3 0.24

6 Price Competitiveness 0.11 3 0.33 3 0.33 2 0.22

7 Management 0.10 3 0.30 4 0.40 3 0.30

8 Global Expansion 0.08 3 0.24 4 0.32 3 0.24

9 Customer service 0.06 3 0.18 3 0.18 2 0.12

10 Sales And Distribution
Network 0.09 3 0.27 4 0.36 3 0.27

11 Production Capacity 0.07 2 0.14 3 0.21 4 0.28

12 Alliances 0.08 3 0.24 4 0.32 3 0.24
Total
1.0 2.76 3.51 2.98
 ENGRO FOOD

For Engrofoods.REASONS

The IFE matrix for AFL is given above. Note that the strength for the company is Research and
Development, Pakistan based and having a highest production capacity so got 4 rating. The
major weaknesses are Price competitiveness customer service and planning for the future state of
the AFL. The total weighted score of 2.76 indicates this large milk Production Company is above
average in its overall internal strength. But its very close to average limit as well. So it really
needs to improve its weaknesses and build its strength.

OVERALL INDUSTRY ANALYSIS GHUL AHMED

OVERALL INDUSTRY ANALYSIS

OVERALL INDUSTRY RATING Favorable Moderate Un- Implications
favorable
Threat of new entrants 9 1 2
Threat of new entrants is low
Favorable
Bargaining power of buyers 5 - 5
Bargaining power of buyers is
Low
Moderate
Threat of substitutes 2 2 -
Threat of substitutes is Low
Favorable
Bargaining power of 3 2 2
suppliers Bargaining power of suppliers
is low
Favorable
Intensity of rivalry among 2 - 6
competitors Intensity or rivalry is High
Unfavorable
Total 21 5 15 Favorable

EFE MATRIX

Critical Success Factors Weight Rating Weighted

Score
 ENGRO FOOD

Opportunities
New style and Trends Demands 0.10 3 0.30
New market segments around the world 0.25 2 0.50
Abolition of Quota 0.05 2 0.10
Existing production Capacity 0.04 4 0.16
Lower cost competitiveness 0.06 2 0.12
Advanced Technology 0.05 3 0.15
THREAT
Strong Local competitors 0.08 3 0.24
Strong international Competitors 0.15 4 0.60
Economic Downturn 0.10 1 0.10
Change in Government Policies 0.04 1 0.04
Lack of conducive Environment of Business 0.04 2 0.08
Rise in utilities expenses 0.04 2 0.08
TOTAL 1.00 2.47

Internal Strategic Position External Strategic Position

Financial Strength (FS) Environmental Stability (ES)
Return on equity 2 Technological changes -2
Liquidity 2 Demand variability -3
Inventory turnover 2 Price range of competing products -2

Earnings per share 1 Barriers to entry into market -4

Price earnings ratio 4 Competitive pressure -4
Ease of exit -5
Financial Strengths (FS) 2.2 Environmental Stability (ES) -3.33

Competitive Advantage (CA) Industry Strength (IS)

Market Share -2 Growth Potential 5
Product Quality -2 Profit Potential 4
Customer loyalty -2 Financial Stability 3
Control over suppliers and distributers -3 Technological know-how 5

Ease of entry into market 3

Productivity, capacity utilization 2
Competitive Advantage (CA) -2.25 Industry Strength (IS) 3.67

Financial Strength: 2.2 Numerical values that are assigned ranges from +1
Environmental Stability: -3.33 (worst) to +6 (Best) to each of the variables that
make FS and IS and -1 ( Best) to -6 (Worst) for each of
the variables making ES and CA.
ENGRO FOOD

Competitive Pressure: -2.25

Industry Strength: 3.67

Y-axis: 2.2-3.33 = -1.13 FS and ES make up the X-axis whereas CA and IS

X-axis: 3.67-2.25 = 1.42 makes up the Y-axis.

FS
+6
Conservative +5 Aggressive
+4
+3
+2
+1

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

-4
Defensive -5 Competitive
-6
ES
ANALYSIS

As can be seen from the graph above Gul Ahmed lies in the Competitive quadrant of the space matrix.
The graph illustrates traits of a firm which has a major competitive advantage in a high growth industry.

The strategies that Gul Ahmed can undertake are as follows:

Backward, forward, horizontal integration

Market penetration
Market development
Product development
ENGRO FOOD

Pak Suzuki Motor Company Limited

EXTERNAL FACTOR EVALUATION MATRIX (EFE)

OPPORTUNITIES Weight Ratings Weighted Score

1. Increasing Demand for Cars 0.15 4 0.60
2. Efficient EFI Engines 0.10 3 0.30
3. Large Market to operate 0.10 3 0.30
4. Global spare parts market 0.05 2 0.10
5. Small size CNG Cylinders 0.12 3 0.36
THREATS
1. Tough Competitors like Toyota and Honda 0.14 2 0.28
2. Inflation Rate 0.08 3 0.24
3. Heavy Taxes 0.08 3 0.24
4. Cheaper Imported Cars 0.10 4 0.40
5. Increase in Fuel Prices 0.08 2 0.16

Total Weighted Score 1.0 2.98

Ratings:
1 Poor 3 Above Average
2 Below Average 4 - Superior

The total weighted score of 2.98 shows that company is responding above average to its external
factors. They are trying to grab maximum opportunities available there and avoiding the threats
to their best.
Justification of Ratings:
1. The company is producing the maximum number of cars in compare with other competitors
and therefore grabbing the opportunity to meet the increasing demand.
2. Pak Suzuki has introduced new EFI engine in its CULTUS model which is a 1000cc car. The EFI
engine technology is never introduced before in below 1300cc cars.
3. The dealer network of Pak Suzuki is almost all around the country which help them to
maximize their sales and reach in every corner of the country.
4. In new CNG fitted cars, the Suzuki is introducing new compact CNG cylinders which take less
space and are lighter than their equivalent available in the market.
5. The major threat Suzuki Company could have is from Toyota and Honda, as Suzuki is still
unable to meet them in 1300cc and above category of cars. The new product SWIFT is not giving
the respond which was expected.

INTERNAL FACTORS EVALUATION MATRIX (IFE)

ENGRO FOOD

STRENGTHS Weight Ratings Weighted Score

1. Highest Market Share 0.20 4 0.80
2. Low Price Vehicles 0.10 4 0.40
3. Large Distribution Channels 0.12 4 0.48
4. Easy availability of spare parts 0.08 4 0.32
5. Highly Innovative and deep product line 0.12 4 0.48
WEAKNESSES
1. Scarcity of raw material 0.08 2 0.16
2. Lack of coordination and linkage with Govt. bodies 0.05 2 0.10
3. Less focus on Looks and design 0.10 1 0.10
4. Less Technical Training Institutes 0.05 1 0.05
5. Less distribution channels in sub urban areas 0.10 1 0.10

Total Weighted Score 1.0 2.99

Ratings:
1 Major Weakness 3 Minor Strength
2 Minor Weakness 4 Major Strength

The score 2.99 shows that company has solid internal position, its strengths are overcoming the
weaknesses.
Justification of Ratings:

1. Pak Suzuki Motor Company has large market share herein and also the largest producers of
Cars which is a major strength.
2. Their prices are very affordable in the same quality that is another major strength.
3. The large distribution channel is another major strength which helps them to achieve their
desired sales targets.
4. The innovation is another key strength of Pak Suzuki and the example is new Suzuki SWIFT.
5. The spare parts availability is a critical issue which cars, Suzuki has comparative advantage in
spare parts availability as most of them are being manufactured in Pakistan.
6. The major weakness which I felt is the non-availability of skilled engineers and workforce. And
the reason behind is lack of technical institutes under their banner.
7. They should also focus on sub-urban areas like Southern Punjab and Interior Sind which their
distribution network

Apple, Inc. Case

EFE
Opportunities Weig Rati Weighte
ht ng d Score
Competitors are generally reactive 0.1 4 0.4
Tablet sales are expected to reach 246 million 0.07 3 0.21
Potential econonomic recovery will enable greater expenditure on 0.03 3 0.09
ENGRO FOOD

luxury goods
Consumers expectations on products 0.04 3 0.12
Recent generations are very brand conscious 0.12 4 0.48
Creating more compatibility with Microsof 0.08 2 0.16
PCs known to have more viruses 0.08 3 0.24
Threats Weig Rati Weighte
ht ng d Score
Competitors in phone market are innovating quickly (Android, etc.) 0.04 2 0.08
Compeititors sell products more cheaply (Dell, HP, etc.) 0.04 1 0.04
Econonomic unvertainty 0.05 2 0.1
Increasing competition in music downloads and online music 0.06 2 0.12
Companies not seeing Apple's products being compatible with their 0.11 2 0.22
sofware
Consumers have high expectations and demand a lot in their 0.13 3 0.39
products
Partnering companies and intellectual property 0.05 4 0.2
1 38 2.85
CPM
Apple Microsoft HP
Ratin Weighted Ratin Weighted Ratin Weighted
Critical Success Factors Weight
g Score g Score g Score
Advertising 0.06 4 0.24 3 0.18 2 0.12
Product Quality 0.07 4 0.28 4 0.28 3 0.21
Product Differentiation 0.2 4 0.8 2 0.4 3 0.6
Price Competitions 0.12 1 0.12 4 0.48 4 0.48
Customer Loyalty 0.07 4 0.28 3 0.21 2 0.14
Market Share 0.05 4 0.2 4 0.2 2 0.1
Product Value 0.15 2 0.3 4 0.6 3 0.45
Financial Position 0.02 4 0.08 4 0.08 4 0.08
Product Innovation 0.15 4 0.6 3 0.45 4 0.6
Green Products 0.06 3 0.18 3 0.18 3 0.18
Public Concern 0.05 2 0.1 3 0.15 2 0.1
1 36 3.18 37 3.21 32 3.06