Fill in the table in TemplateSA-EXH 1- The table has five columns: External Factors, Weight, Rating, Weighted Score, and Comments. Use short names for the factors but fles
Fill in the table in TemplateSA-EXH 1- The table has five columns: External Factors, Weight, Rating, Weighted Score, and Comments.
Use short names for the factors but flesh them out in the comments so they make sense when you approach them later.
Use the template for Exhibit 1 – EFAS
Use the Template EFAS as the template for your work. Ensure that your format displays correctly and is readable. Do NOT copy from the text or from the Template EFAS text! Use your own critical analysis and critical thinking. The template is provided to assist you with the layout–i.e., make it easy for you to construct the chart. The template also gives you a good idea of the appropriate explanations required in the Comments blocks about the why an SF, potential quantified impact, how weighted, and how rated.
Comments Column
Comments are expected to be 4-5 sentences in length and depth and offer a clear explanation of the strategic factor (SF) in 4 aspects:
- Why it is a strategic factor (SF); (1-2 sentences only)
- A quantified estimate of the potential impact (QPI) of the SF; (1 sentence only)
- How you assign the weight; (1 sentence only) and
- How you assign the rating. (1 sentence only)
Keep the 4-5 sentences of your Comments in order for clarity and ease of understanding. The recommended order is: Why SF comments; QPI comments; Weight comments; and finally Rating comments.
How to write the Why SF and QPI comments: For the Why SF, explain WHY you selected this SF, WHY it is important to Amazon, and WHAT is the potential impact on Amazon in the future.
For the QPI comments, estimate the potential impact on Amazon in the future in a quantitative manner using some metrics: sales, revenues, costs, market share, profits, logistics pipeline, CSI, etc. Express the quantitative potential impact (QPI) in Dollars $$. If you express the potential impact in $$, that makes each strategic factor comparable against the other strategic factors. And expressing the impact in sales makes them even more easily comparable. Make sure you are making significant estimates based on the size of Amazon based on annual revenue values in your 5-Y financials. You develop this estimate.
The monetary value of the QPI is useful to compare the strategic factors and rank them in relevance. Ranking them will help you to assign the Weights (2nd column in the table) to each strategic factor. Use a positive analysis (quantitative) rather than a normative analysis (feelings, desires). Focus on what is the potential gain for your SF opportunities or the potential loss from an SF threat in the future. History lessons are not needed nor applicable. You should estimate and predict the impact in the future. Be creative.
Don’t develop future actions or alternatives here in the EFAS about how a firm may, or should take action on a particular SF. The brainstorming development of those alternative actions comes with the TOWS Analysis that we will start presenting in future work.
HINT: To focus your thinking on addressing “why” you selected each SF and “why it is important,” start your “why select/important” sentence with words like this: “I selected this SF because…..” or “This SF is important because…” By using this lead-in phrase you should be able to concisely state why that particular SF is important.
HINT: To focus your thinking on addressing the quantitative potential impact (QPI) in the future of each SF, be sure your QPI sentence contains words like this: “potential impact of $____” or “potential increases to ____ are $____ per year” or “reduction in sales by $____ per year.” Be sure to state the potential impact in dollars so you can compare the potential impacts of your various SF.
How to write the Weight and Rank comments: To assign weights, explain the importance of the SF to the firm’s future survival. Is the SF of vital importance or low importance on a scale of 1 to 0? What is the impact of the SF on the future survival of Amazon? What SF has the biggest impact? Which one(s) are the Big Dogs? Make a logical explanation of why the weight you have assigned is what it is. Comparison and ranking between SF is a useful technique to assign the weight. See your potential $$$ impacts from your “Why” analysis above. The bigger the $$$ impact is, the bigger the weight should be. Remember the weight column adds to 1.0.
HINT: To focus your thinking on addressing the importance of the SF to Amazon’s survival, be sure to include the keyword “survival” in your weight sentence.
To assign ratings, provide an explanation of how well, or how badly, the firm is handling each specific external SF RIGHT NOW – not in the future or not in the distant past – but right now. Use the scale of 1 – 5, poor to outstanding, comparing the firm’s performance against the industry standard rating of 3. Give a logical explanation of why the rating you have assigned is what it is. Do they handle it well or are they lost? Are they performing in the average way as other competitors are? Remember the industry average performance is rated at 3.
HINT: To focus your thinking on addressing how Amazon is handling each SF, understand what the 1-5 scale means and then use your rating number from the rating column with matching words (low, average, above average, high, etc) in your rating sentence.
EXHIBIT 1
EXTERNAL FACTOR ANALYSIS SUMMARY (EFAS) on OLALLIEBERRY PIE COMPANY (OPC)
External Factors |
Weight: |
Rating: |
Weighted Score |
Comments |
Opportunities: |
||||
O1: Growing Market in Western States |
.05 |
3.5 |
.175 |
This SF was chosen because of its significant potential impact on sales growth. Population increases of 1-3% per year in the primary market area should lead directly to sales growth of at least 2-3% per year and add between $8M -$12M to top line sales revenues per year. Capturing those additional revenues from the population growth are not very important to the OPC survival so the weight has a relatively low score of .05. I rated this a 3.5 since OPC does an above average job of marketing to new customers. |
O2: International Growth Opportunities in SE Asia, Japan, and Korea |
.25 |
2.5 |
.625 |
This SF was selected because of its very significant potential impact on profit growth. Successful expansion into overseas markets could potentially result in doubling the size of OPC to a firm with $800M in sales per year and increase profits from $50M to $100M per year. This SF is weighted highest at .25 since expanding internationally is vital to the survival of OPC in light of worldwide competitors and markets. I rated this low at 2.5 since OPC does not have any international experience or markets at this time. |
O3: Aging U.S. Population and Demographics |
.05 |
4.0 |
.20 |
This SF was added because of the potential for increasing sales to the older population groups as the U.S. population ages. Potential increases to sales are between $15-$20M per year due to the exceptional word-of-mouth promotion network among customers. This SF is weighted relatively low since increasing sales is important to the firm’s survival but not as important as other SF. This SF is rated high at 4.0 since OPC has a very good word-of-mouth marketing program for seniors already in operation. |
O4: Internet Availability |
.15 |
2.0 |
.30 |
I selected this SF because the expansion of Internet availability to more and more U.S. families is an important SF for all food companies to take advantage of. With consumers’ online orders expected to increase at a yearly rate of 20% across all consumer goods, OPC has an outstanding opportunity to take advantage of this trend. We can expect internet sales to become 25% of our sales revenues or about $100M per year in the next 5 years. Internet sales also could boost our market share from 50% to 70% in the western states. This SF could have a very significant impact on sales and on survival so the weight is high at .15. OPC scores well below industry standard here at 2.0 because their Internet marketing/sales process is not well developed. |
O5:Trend to Healthy Lifestyles |
.025 |
3.5 |
.0875 |
I added this SF because the trend is encompassing more and more of the U.S. and world population with important potential impact on the sales and market share of OPC. Potential positive impact of 1% (+$4M/YR) to top line sales is expected. I weighed this .025 because compared to other opportunities it is of lesser impact on the survival of OPC. I rated this 3.5 because OPC has consistently exceeded industry standard average performance in providing a healthy product to consumers. |
Threats: |
||||
T1: U.S. Competition from Raspberry Pie Company (RPC) and Others |
.20 |
4.0 |
.80 |
This SF is important because strong competition from the RPC and others threaten OPC’s market share and sales. RPC has increased its marketing efforts in the western states. Potential loss of market share from 50% to 40% or lower would directly result in sales revenues being reduced by $160M-$200M per year. This is weighted high at .20 as OPC survival depends on maintaining its market share against competition. Rated high at 4.0 as OPC market share has been maintained with an aggressive marketing program in the western states . |
T2: Imports from China |
.10 |
2.5 |
.25 |
I selected this SF because strong worldwide competition is starting to come from Chinese imports to the west coast. These low-cost, high- quality products threaten to take away 10-20% of OPC’s west coast market share and reduce sales by $40-80M per year. This is weighted relatively high at .10 since losing that amount of sales revenues would threaten the survival of the firm. This SF is rated low at 2.5 because OPC has not countered the emergence of Chinese competition with a new marketing effort. |
T3: Increasing Government Regulations |
.10 |
4.0 |
.40 |
This SF is important because government regulations on labor use, raw material quality, environment protection and financial reform are placing an increasing additional future cost burden on OPC of about 18% ($72M/YR) of sales. Compliance costs are hurting the bottom line significantly. These costs are potentially fatal for the survival of OPC unless relief is obtained so the .10 weight is high. This SF rating is high at 4.0 because OPC is an industry leader in lobbying operations to reduce government regulation. |
T4: Unionization Pressures |
.05 |
4.0 |
.20 |
I chose this SF because potential unionization of OPC’s workforce could add 10-15% ($24M – $36M/YR) to direct labor costs and reduce the workforce’s efficiency by 10%. These adverse effects will directly increase costs and drive our prices higher which may result in lost sales and market share. Unionization is a small threat to the survival and expansion of the firm so it is weighted as .05. OPC has a very proactive employee relations program and an exceptional corporate culture that obviates unionization attempts. Rated much higher than industry standard at 4.0. |
T5: New Product Competition |
.025 |
3.0 |
.075 |
This SF is important because new products from the frozen pie sector are coming on the market to compete with OPC’s fresh pie product. This trend will continue as the population demographics supports easy-to-prepare food products. This trend could have a negative impact on future sales at a 2-3% ($8M-$12M/YR) level of impact. This is not weighted high on survival impact to OPC as frozen pies will potentially not capture a significant market share. Rating is industry average at 3.0 as OPC effectively markets the freshness and healthiness of its Olallieberry pies. |
Total Scores: |
1.00 |
3.1125 |
1
4
,
EXHIBIT 1
EXTERNAL FACTOR ANALYSIS SUMMARY (EFAS) on OLALLIEBERRY PIE COMPANY (OPC)
External Factors |
Weight: |
Rating: |
Weighted Score |
Comments |
Opportunities: |
||||
O1: Growing Market in Western States |
.05 |
3.5 |
.175 |
This SF was chosen because of its significant potential impact on sales growth. Population increases of 1-3% per year in the primary market area should lead directly to sales growth of at least 2-3% per year and add between $8M -$12M to top line sales revenues per year. Capturing those additional revenues from the population growth are not very important to the OPC survival so the weight has a relatively low score of .05. I rated this a 3.5 since OPC does an above average job of marketing to new customers. |
O2: International Growth Opportunities in SE Asia, Japan, and Korea |
.25 |
2.5 |
.625 |
This SF was selected because of its very significant potential impact on profit growth. Successful expansion into overseas markets could potentially result in doubling the size of OPC to a firm with $800M in sales per year and increase profits from $50M to $100M per year. This SF is weighted highest at .25 since expanding internationally is vital to the survival of OPC in light of worldwide competitors and markets. I rated this low at 2.5 since OPC does not have any international experience or markets at this time. |
O3: Aging U.S. Population and Demographics |
.05 |
4.0 |
.20 |
This SF was added because of the potential for increasing sales to the older population groups as the U.S. population ages. Potential increases to sales are between $15-$20M per year due to the exceptional word-of-mouth promotion network among customers. This SF is weighted relatively low since increasing sales is important to the firm’s survival but not as important as other SF. This SF is rated high at 4.0 since OPC has a very good word-of-mouth marketing program for seniors already in operation. |
O4: Internet Availability |
.15 |
2.0 |
.30 |
I selected this SF because the expansion of Internet availability to more and more U.S. families is an important SF for all food companies to take advantage of. With consumers’ online orders expected to increase at a yearly rate of 20% across all consumer goods, OPC has an outstanding opportunity to take advantage of this trend. We can expect internet sales to become 25% of our sales revenues or about $100M per year in the next 5 years. Internet sales also could boost our market share from 50% to 70% in the western states. This SF could have a very significant impact on sales and on survival so the weight is high at .15. OPC scores well below industry standard here at 2.0 because their Internet marketing/sales process is not well developed. |
O5:Trend to Healthy Lifestyles |
.025 |
3.5 |
.0875 |
I added this SF because the trend is encompassing more and more of the U.S. and world population with important potential impact on the sales and market share of OPC. Potential positive impact of 1% (+$4M/YR) to top line sales is expected. I weighed this .025 because compared to other opportunities it is of lesser impact on the survival of OPC. I rated this 3.5 because OPC has consistently exceeded industry standard average performance in providing a healthy product to consumers. |
Threats: |
||||
T1: U.S. Competition from Raspberry Pie Company (RPC) and Others |
.20 |
4.0 |
.80 |
This SF is important because strong competition from the RPC and others threaten OPC’s market share and sales. RPC has increased its marketing efforts in the western states. Potential loss of market share from 50% to 40% or lower would directly result in sales revenues being reduced by $160M-$200M per year. This is weighted high at .20 as OPC survival depends on maintaining its market share against competition. Rated high at 4.0 as OPC market share has been maintained with an aggressive marketing program in the western states . |
T2: Imports from China |
.10 |
2.5 |
.25 |
I selected this SF because strong worldwide competition is starting to come from Chinese imports to the west coast. These low-cost, high- quality products threaten to take away 10-20% of OPC’s west coast market share and reduce sales by $40-80M per year. This is weighted relatively high at .10 since losing that amount of sales revenues would threaten the survival of the firm. This SF is rated low at 2.5 because OPC has not countered the emergence of Chinese competition with a new marketing effort. |
T3: Increasing Government Regulations |
.10 |
4.0 |
.40 |
This SF is important because government regulations on labor use, raw material quality, environment protection and financial reform are placing an increasing additional future cost burden on OPC of about 18% ($72M/YR) of sales. Compliance costs are hurting the bottom line significantly. These costs are potentially fatal for the survival of OPC unless relief is obtained so the .10 weight is high. This SF rating is high at 4.0 because OPC is an industry leader in lobbying operations to reduce government regulation. |
T4: Unionization Pressures |
.05 |
4.0 |
.20 |
I chose this SF because potential unionization of OPC’s workforce could add 10-15% ($24M – $36M/YR) to direct labor costs and reduce the workforce’s efficiency by 10%. These adverse effects will directly increase costs and drive our prices higher which may result in lost sales and market share. Unionization is a small threat to the survival and expansion of the firm so it is weighted as .05. OPC has a very proactive employee relations program and an exceptional corporate culture that obviates unionization attempts. Rated much higher than industry standard at 4.0. |
T5: New Product Competition |
.025 |
3.0 |
.075 |
This SF is important because new products from the frozen pie sector are coming on the market to compete with OPC’s fresh pie product. This trend will continue as the population demographics supports easy-to-prepare food products. This trend could have a negative impact on future sales at a 2-3% ($8M-$12M/YR) level of impact. This is not weighted high on survival impact to OPC as frozen pies will potentially not capture a significant market share. Rating is industry average at 3.0 as OPC effectively markets the freshness and healthiness of its Olallieberry pies. |
Total Scores: |
1.00 |
3.1125 |
1
4
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.