Week 1 AssignmentCIS290v61University of Phoenix Materia.docx

Week 1 Assignment
CIS/290v6
1
University of Phoenix MaterialPart 1: Computer Research
Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on a computer
chip doubles every two years. This means that the power, speed,
and application of computers are ever increasing. Along with
these changes in performance, software is also improving and
constantly pushing a computer’s capabilities to the edge.
As a computer technician, you must constantly stay up-to-date
with these changes in technology. This includes understanding
the dynamics of hardware and software and how they interact
with each other. To stay current, you must include research as a
necessary part of your job. With rapid changes going on in the
computer industry, a technician needs to build a trusted network
of information resources that includes websites, periodicals, and
industry professionals.
Computer benchmark tests and tools are other resources you can
turn to for computer information. In a benchmark test, the
performance of a software application is measured when one
brand of a hardware component is placed inside a computer. By
using the same application and computer for each test, different
brands of a component can then be compared with one another,
allowing you to choose the best brand for the job at the price
you want to pay. Benchmarks are a good way to get you started
with your research. You will be using them throughout this
course.
To help you get started, here are some helpful websites:
· www.pricewatch.com: This is a helpful site to check pricing;

however, be sure to look at the condition of the product. It can
be listed as new or refurbished.
· www.tomshardware.com and www.kingston.com: These are
benchmark sites to check out product performance.
· www.pcworld.com: This is a popular site for information and
product reviews.
· www.ifixit.com and www.macfixit.com: These are helpful
sites for troubleshooting.
Keep in mind that these are just a few of the many sites
available for computer technicians. As you continue gaining
experience, you develop your own network of trusted
information resources.
Activity: Information Research
Begin your research by searching the Internet for additional
websites, not mentioned previously, which offer pricing,
technical reviews, and troubleshooting for computers and
computer components. Enter these websites into the charts
below and provide a succinct description of the website.
Price Check Sites
Identify three price check sites and provide a description
summary of what the site provides.
Website URL
Summary Description
Product Review Sites
Identify three product review sites and provide a description
Website URL

Summary Description
Troubleshooting Sites
Identify three troubleshooting sites and provide a description
Website URL
Summary Description
Part 2: Comparing Computers Worksheet
Computers range in price and options the same way as many
other consumer products. Before you can buy a computer, you
must consider the type of computer you want or need and the
price you are willing to spend on it. Researching a product is a
great way to compare many variables and helps you determine
exactly which computer to buy.
Activity: Preassembled Computer Search
For the following activity, think of a computer that you would
like to have. Determine how you would use this computer,
whether it is for work, school, gaming, or some other use. Visit
two online computer manufacturers (www.dell.com,
www.hp.com, www.gateway.com, or www.toshiba.com to name
a few), and find a preassembled computer from each company

that best matches your dream machine. In the chart below, fill
in information for each of the two computers. Then, choose
which computer you would buy and give a brief business
justification of why you would pick it over the other.
Preassembled Computer Chart
Component
Computer 1
Computer 2
Make, Model, and Series
Processor/GHz
Operating System
Display
Optical/CD/DVD Drive
Hard Drive

Memory
Video/Graphics Card
Operating System
Warranty
Other
Price
Computer URL to Specific Component

Computer Purchase Decision
Choose which computer you would buy and give a brief
business justification of why you would pick it over the other.
Make and model of computer I would choose:
Business justification for choosing this model:
Strategy Matrix
Year by Year Decisions: Pricing & R&D Allocations
2012
2013
2014
2015
X5
Price
Price
Price
Price
R&D %
R&D %
R&D %
R&D %
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
X6
Price
Price
Price

Price
R&D %
R&D %
R&D %
R&D %
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
X7
Price
Price
Price
Price
R&D %
R&D %
R&D %
R&D %
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
Discontinue?
CVP Analysis
Cost, Volume, Profit

*
What is CVP?Uses a specific cost-profit-volume formula to
study the relationship of the costs, price, sales volume and
profit.
Profit = (price – vcost/unit)*Volume – Total Fixed Costs.Price
and vcost are per unit.
*
Developing the formulaProfit = (price – vcost/unit)*Volume –
Total Fixed Costs.price and vcost are per unit.P = (p – c)V – F
(Basic Formula)P = profitp = price (per unit)c = Variable
cost/unitF = total Fixed CostsV = Sales Volume (units sold)
*
Example Using Basic FormulaP = (p – c)V – Fprice (p) =
$300/unitvcost (c) = $100/unitTotal Fixed Costs = $50,000If
you sell 1,500 units, what is the profit?P = (300 – 100)1500 –
50000 = (200)1500 – 50000 = 300000 – 50000 = $250,000

*
Using CVPBreakeven analysis
Profit, price, Volume analysis
*
Using CVP for Breakeven
Breakeven is the situation where no profit or loss is
generated.Income = CostsIn the Basic Formula, Profit = 0
Two ways to use:Breakeven Volume: VBEBreakeven price: pBE
*
Calculating Breakeven VolumeBreakeven Volume is the
quantity that will generate Profit = 0 for given costs and
price.Using the formula, we need to determine what V is when P
= 0.P = (p – c)V – F0 = (p – c) VBE – FF = (p – c) VBEF/(p –
c) = VBEVBE is being use to denote specifically the Breakeven
Volume.
*

Contribution MarginVBE = F/(p – c) The breakeven volume is
calculated by Total Fixed costs divided by price minus variable
costs.(p – c) is often called the Contribution Margin (per unit)
or Unit Contribution Margin.Another way of looking at
breakeven is it is the sales volume where Income = Costs.
*
Breakeven: Income = CostsIncome = CostsP = (p – c)V – F0 =
(p – c) VBE – F0 = p VBE – c VBE – Fp VBE = c VBE + F p
VBE is the income and c VBE + F are the total costs, Variable
Costs + Fixed Costs.
*
Example of Breakeven CalculationsVBE = F/(p – c) price (p) =
$300/unitvcost (c) = $100/unitTotal Fixed Costs = $50,000What
the Breakeven volume?VBE = 50000/(300 – 100) VBE =
50000/200VBE = 250 units
*
Check & Validate…Check: Income = Total Costsp VBE = c

VBE + F ??300(250) = 100(250) + 5000075000 = 25000 +
5000075000 = 75000
*
Breakeven Graph
INCOME = pV
FIXED COSTS + VARIABLE COSTS
FIXED COSTS
Breakeven:
Income = Total Costs
VBE
*
Breakeven PriceLet’s say you know the volume and you want to
know the price that will generate a breakeven situation: i.e. P =
00 = pBE V – c V – FpBE V = c V + FpBE = (c V +
F)/VBreakeven price is calculated by dividing the Total Costs
by the Volume.

*
Example Breakeven pricepBE = (c V + F)/V or c + F/Vc =
100 (per unit)F = 50000V = 1500 unitspBE = [100(1500) +
50000]/1500 = [150000 + 50000]/1500 = [200000]/1500
= $133.33/unitIf you price the item at $133.33 then if you sell,
1500 units, you will Breakeven.
*
Example Breakeven pricepBE = (c V + F)/V or c + F/Vc =
100 (per unit)F = 50000V = 1500 unitspBE = $133.33If you
price it higher than $133.33, and you sell 1500 units, you will
make a profit.
*
Using X5 from PDA SimDefault Values:p = $250 (you can
change this after SLP1)c = $140 (does not change in the
simulation)Unit Contr. Margin = $110From Default Run Year
2006:R&D costs = 6,666,667 (33% of 20,000,000 budget, you
decide allocation %)Other Fixed Costs = 70,000,000 (does not
change)Total Fixed Costs = 76,666,667 (R&D + Other

Fixed)2006 unit sales volume: 1,766,216
*
Using X5 from PDA SimLet’s validate the results in the Sim
and calculate ProfitP = (p – c)V – FP = (250 – 140) 1,766,216 –
76,666,667 = (110) 1,766,216 – 76,666,667 = 194,283,760 -
76,666,667 = 117,617,093Profit from Default Sim for X5 in
2006 = 117,617,097
*
Using X5 from PDA SimLet’s estimate what will happen in
2007 if we lower R&D and we lower the price.R&D% = 10% (of
20,000,000)R&D = 2,000,000Price p = $225 (down from $250
by 10%)Sales Volume V = 1,439,609 (from 2007 default
run)Profit = (225 – 140) 1,439,609 – 72,000,000 = (85)
1,439,609 – 72,000,000 = 122,366,765 – 72,000,000
= 50,366,765 Profit = 81,690,327 from 2007, default run
*
Using X5 from PDA SimSo if you lower your price to $225 and
decrease R&D and the volume does not change from the default

volume, you will earn less profit in 2007 that you did in the
default run.BUT, if you lower the price will that help to
increase the volume?Maybe, but what does the volume need to
be to obtain the same profit that was earned in 2007, default run
(81,690,327)
*
Using X5 from PDA SimProfit, P = 81,690,327Volume = ?P =
(p – c)V – F(P + F)/(p – c) = V(81,690,327 + 72,000,000)/(85)
= V153,690,327 / 85 = 1,808,121.49V = 1,808,122 units to
achieve the same profitIf you lower the price to $225 and
reduce the R&D to 10%, does the reduce price cause an increase
in Volume so that the profit is the same?
*
Determining Strategy: X5 ExampleDefault run 2007p = 250c =
140Unit Contr. Margin = 100R&D (33%) = 6,666,667Other
Fixed = 70,000,000Profit = 81,690,327 Volume =
1,439,609Possible strategy 2007p = 225c = 140ucm = 85R&D
(10%) = 2,000,000Other Fixed = 70,000,000Profit = 81,690,327
Volume = 1,808,122
If you lower price from $250 to $225 in 2007, will volume go
up to or higher than 81,690,327

*
Breakeven FormulasP = (p – c)V – FFor Breakeven, set P = 0
Breakeven VolumeVBE = F/(p – c)
Breakeven PricepBE = (c V + F)/V or pBE = c +
F/VREMEMBER: in the PDA Sim, you need to consider that
R&D is part of Fixed Costs, so here F = Fo + R
*
Other CVP Formulas
Use F = Fo + R (PDA sim fixed costs) Price, for a given Profit,
Volume and Costsp* = (P + Fo + R + cV) / V
Volume, for a given price, Profit and CostsV* = (P + Fo + R) /
(p – c)
*
Application of CVP in the PDA SimWhen should you use
Breakeven?How do you deal with multiple years?How do you
deal with multiple products?
Give these questions some thought. Experiment with CVP.

*
USING THE CVP CALCULATOR
An Example for X5 in the PDA SIM
*
Default X5 2006
Price: $250
R&D%: 33%
X5 Financials for 2006
*
Default X5 Market Report for the year 2006
*
USING CVP Calculator:
Variable cost/unit: $140
Note that the results from the CVP Calculator are nearly the
same as you get in the SIM. The only difference is because the

SIM must be using 33.3333% for the R&D Allocation and the
CVP Calculator is using 33%. So we will ignore the
difference.R&D Total Budget $ 20,000,000 R&D%
Allocation33%R&D Costs $ 6,600,000 Fixed Costs $
70,000,000 Total Fixed Costs $ 76,600,000 Target
Profit$117,617,097Variable Cost/Unit $ 140.00 Price $
250.00 Volume 1,765,610 Sales Revenue $
441,402,493.18 ROS26.65%

*
Now let’s develop a Revised Strategy
Now, let’s try to develop a different price and R&D allocation
for 2006 for our Revised Strategy using the CVP Calculator.
Should we lower R&D or increase it? Should we lower the price
or increase it? How much profit do we want? How much will we
sell?Let’s lower the R&D%, say down to 15% - why? I will
leave that up to you decide why we might want to do this.Let’s
leave the price the same for this first estimate: $250.And let’s
shoot for the same profit: $117,617,097If you put these into the
CVP Calculator, this says you need less volume: 1,732,883
units.

*
Price: $250
R&D: 15%
Allocation15%R&D Costs $ 3,000,000 Fixed Costs $
70,000,000 Total Fixed Costs $ 73,000,000 Target
Profit$117,617,097Variable Cost/Unit $ 140.00 Price $
250.00 Volume 1,732,883 Sales Revenue $
433,220,675.00 ROS27.15%

*
What price if Volume does not change?Price = ?Same volume as
default runSame profit as default runR&D%: 15%
Price = $247.96Volume 1,765,610 Price $
247.96 Sales Revenue $ 437,802,497.00 ROS26.87%

*
What happens in SIM?Let’s run the sim with our revised
strategy for X5 for 2006.Price: $248R&D%: 15%
X5 Financials for 2006This YearLast Year%
ChangeRevenueSales Volume1,835,3671,448,03127%Revenue
Volume455,170,904362,007,64926%CostVariable
Costs256,951,317202,724,28327%Fixed
Costs70,000,00070,000,0000%R & D Costs3,703,7046,666,667-
44%Total Costs330,655,021279,390,95018%ProfitTotal
Profit124,515,88482,616,69951%Total
Profitability27%23%20%

*
Results do not match!!Volume sold: 1,835,367Profit earned:
124,515,88We don’t get the same results that were predicted by
the CVP!!
In the CVP we used a Volume of: 1,765,610
But in the SIM, when we lowered the price just a bit down to
$248, we got a volume of: 1,835,367.
We will get this same result in the CVP calculator if we put in
the actual profit earned in the SIM
*
CVP Calculator with Revised Strategy ResultsR&D Total
Budget $ 20,000,000 R&D% Allocation15%R&D Costs $
3,000,000 Fixed Costs $ 70,000,000 Total Fixed Costs $
73,000,000 Target Profit$124,515,884Variable Cost/Unit $
140.00 Price $ 248.00 Volume 1,828,851
Sales Revenue $ 453,554,992.89 ROS27.45%

*
Why does the SIM not match your predictions with the CVP
Calculator?The SIM gives you the results based on your inputs
of price and R&D%It will determine how much you sell based
on the price – usually a lower price will generate a higher sales
volume and vice versa, depending on the price elasticity.The
CVP calculator does not know the price:demand curve – it is
simply telling you how much you need to sell for a given Price
and a Target Profit.
*
Some final thoughtsSo what is missing is the relationship
between price and demand.Demand is based on based price and
the performance (how much is being spent on R&D).You need
to use CVP to help you determine or predict a price in your
revised strategy.Then based on the results you get, you can
begin to understand the price:demand relationship.That is why
you get to run the SIM several times as you learn more about
price:demand.And of course demand is related to how much you
spend on R&D.And each product is more or less sensitive to
price and product development efforts.

*
CVP Calculator, BUS599R&D Total Budget$
24,000,000R&D% Allocation33%R&D Costs$ 7,920,000Fixed
Costs$ 70,000,000Total Fixed Costs$ 77,920,000Target
Profit$0Variable Cost/Unit$ 140.00Price$
250.00Volume700,000Volume708,364Price$ 251.31Sales
Revenue$ 177,090,909.09Sales Revenue$
175,920,000.00ROS0.00%ROS0.00%
Enter Price
Calculate Volume
Enter Volume
Calculate Price
This CVP Calculator has been developed specifically for
BUS599 SLP.
-Enter the R&D allocation %.
-Enter the Fixed Costs.
-Enter the Target Profit (use 0 for Breakeven Calculation.)
-Enter the Variable Cost per Unit.
The Calculator will calculate two different formulas. Enter
Price and it will calculate the Volume. Enter the Volume and it
will calculate Price.
CLEAR ALL
Example Calculation: Take X5
R&D% = 33%
Fixed Costs = $70,000,000
Variable Cost/unit = $140.00
For Breakeven, Target Profit = 0
Enter Price = $250.00
Calculate Volume (Breakeven) = 696,364

Enter Volume = 700,000
Calculate Price (Breakeven) = $249.43
What does this mean? It means:
To Breakeven (profit = 0), with a price of $250.00, you need to
sell 696,364 units.
OR, if you sell 700,000, the price needs to be $249.43 to
breakeven.
Another Example:
Suppose you want to obtain a profit of $20,000,000. Enter that
in the Target Profit.
At a price of $250.00, you need to sell 878,182 units. OR if
you sell 700,000 units, you need to sell them at $278.00.
Enter the data in the Green Cells.
Calculations are automatic.
Running head: INTERNAL PROFILE
1
INTERNAL PROFILE FROM SIMULATION
9
Trident University
Katrina Dowdell
Module 2 SLP 2
MGT 599
Dr. Banks

Internal Profile from Simulation
As the manager tasked with the responsibility of setting
appropriate prices and strategies for the products it is empirical
consider other factors such as market environment from the
competitors` prices to the cost of research and development of
the product. The product X5 had initial sales Of 886,356 in
2011, while X6 sales were 562,961. Product sales of the x7
product in 2011 were zero due to its introduction to the market.
The market saturation levels for the products were not intense
mainly because of the reason that the products were in their
initial stages. This is a report of the product performance over
the period of four years whereby my responsibility was to
ensure profit maximization for the firm through the reduction of
operational costs and price setting.
2011-2012
Product X5
In the financial year from 2011 to 2012, the product recorded an
impressive upturn in revenue from 886,356 to 1,772,711. The
price remained constant over the year at an average price of
285$ which was significantly higher than that of its competitors
in the similar market. In the year 2011, the market saturation of
the product was at 16% which represented an opportunity for
growth. The product was in its initial stages of growth which
meant there were plenty of early adaptors that could be
absorbed to boost the overall product reach. R&D allocations
were increased to forty percent since the product required
additional research to ensure it competes in the market. The
product had been on the market for three years which meant the
product had already amassed necessary consumer trust.
However, for the product value to increase, it was necessary to

ensure that the product evolved to meet the various customer
preferences. The R&D allocation increased the cost of
production for the tablet which in turn led to increased revenue
and profit margins.
Product x6
The product price decreased from 400 to 385 which was in a bid
to increase the overall sales of the product. The profit margins
burgeoned to 141,800,000 which represented an increase in
profit. The customers of the product preferred quality over
pricing. The reduction in price plus the level of quality attracted
additional clients. This is because the product gained a
competitive advantage over its clients since the prices were
significantly lower compared to competitor`s products. Further,
since the target segment of the product was interested in
quality, it was an added advantage to maintain the impressive
quality levels while reducing the cost of the products. The R&D
costs were added to 38% in a bid to increase customer
satisfaction. The additional costs incurred in the R&D
contributed to the increased sales levels. The product performed
better than its competitors due to the additional research that
led to modifications of the product to suit customer needs and
preferences. The demands of a targeted market segment dictates
that additional research must be carried out since customers had
an inclination towards quality and performance of the tablet
(Harris, 2011).
Product x7
The product was launched in 2011, and as a result required
additional input concerning research, this saw the R&D costs
rise to 40%. Additionally, the product price was increased to
350$ to cater for the additional expenses that result from R&D
costs. The increased prices meant that the clients had to pay
more to acquire the product which led to the decrease in sales
levels. The product recorded losses in its first year of
operations primarily due to the high costs of production that
consequently led to burgeoned prices. This was not received
well by early adaptors and other segments of the market.

2012-2013
Product X5
The product experienced rapid growth as it was in the middle
stages of the growth stage. The prices were increased from the
initial 285$ to 290$ which attracted a different segment of
clients. The R&D allocations were further increased to cater for
the need of additional research. Although the clients were
satisfied with the performance of the product, it was necessary
to keep up to notch with the requirements of the clients which
changed over time due to competitors. The growth experienced
at this stage was rapid since the customers were already assured
of the level of quality and did not mind paying more for the
products (Agarwal & Ansell, 2016). This led to the increased
profits; the profits escalated to 177, 682,000 in the second year
due to the increased revenue from units sold. The R&D
allocations were increased at this stage which appeared as an
inappropriate move especially due to the level of the product in
the life cycle. This led to increased costs of production which
reduced the anticipated profit margin.
Product x6
In the 2012-2013 financial year, the product performed
brilliantly against its competitors and recorded increased profits
from 143,690,060$ to 275,798,000 in 2013. The product
outperformed its competition at in that financial year due to the
increased performance resulting from maintained costs. The
R&D allocations increased to 39% in the next financial year.
The high returns in the form of profits were due to the research
and development allocations which helped transform the
product to suit the specific needs of its client. At this stage, the
market saturation was at 56% which meant there was still room
for additional growth.
Product X7
The product experienced a significant rise in sales although the
sales return was still below the recommended threshold.
Therefore, this meant that the product operated in losses for the
second year in a row. The cost of production increased through

the R&D costs that were incurred throughout production.
However, the increased costs demotivated the clients who
perceived the product as expensive. Additionally, the products
were not well received by clients who preferred superior quality
at affordable prices to quality and pricy products. The costs
incurred from the operations were not convenient for the firm
especially due to the high costs of R&D. This meant that the
organization was disadvantaged due to operational losses. It was
an inappropriate move to increase the R&D costs since this
forced the prices of the product to increase so as to cater for the
production costs. For a new product entering the consumer
market, it would be appropriate to release the product to the
market after weighing the various pros and cons associated. A
new product should not be more expensive that products from
already established competitors. At this stage, the market
saturation level was a mere 7%.
2013-2014
Product x5
The product had reached a market saturation level of 78% and
had reached the declined phase after peaking in the previous
financial year. The R&D allocation at this rate was reduced to
5% for investigating the required pricing strategies. However,
the profit margins reduced from 177, 682,000$ to 139,455,768$
in 2014 since most of the clients had shifted preferences to
other products by competitors. The sales reduced drastically,
and profits were further reduced due to the R&D allocations
that spent additional costs in the production process. The
product had reached most of its target market by this time.
Product x6
The product experienced further growth from 275,798,000 to
302,450,678$ as it entered the peak in its lifecycle. The R&D
allocations were reduced to 30% since the product had already
reached its maturity and was about to enter the decline stage. At
this level, the market saturation was at 81% since the product
had reached most of its targeted market. The product costs were
not changed at this phase to maintain uniformity in projections.

The slashed R&D costs helped reduce the overall costs involved
in production which helped sustain the high profits of the firm.
Further, the saturation level indicated that the product needed
no further research since it had neared the decline phase.
Product x7
Based on the disappointing turn of events and overall returns,
the X7 tablet production was cut. This was in a bid to reduce
the losses incurred throughout the production process. It was a
wise move to cut production since the products costs were
draining the organization while the additional research was
proving detrimental to the organization`s operations.
2014-2015
Profit Margin for Sally Smothers according to "Tablet
Development Sim", 2016
X5
The market saturation at this point had reached 88% meaning
the product was experiencing rapid declines in sales. Therefore,
the A&D allocation was reduced to 25% in a bid to maximize
revenue recorded. However, this move was not appropriate since
the product had already reached the decline stage meaning no
additional research was required. The dip in profit and revenue
saw the X5 record losses in the in the final months of the
financial year with the final projection standing at losses of
24,431,285.
X6
The X6 experienced a rapid decline in profit levels from
302,450,678 to 60,756,766. The decline stage required
modifications in financial practices. This led to reduced prices
of the product in a bid to maintain normal sales projections.
However, the R&D costs were maintained at 30% instead of
reducing the costs to zero. This was responsible for the gigantic
dip in profit margins. The market saturation at this point was

88%.
My overall performance in the simulation was higher than Joe
Thomas since I recorded higher overall returns of
1,553,678,550. However, my pricing and R&D allocations
should have been modified further based on market projections
to increase overall productivity. For instance, in the decline
phase of a project, it is important to ensure that not much is
invested in the R&D section while the prices are regulated
accordingly.
References
Agarwal, R. & Ansell, J. (2016). Strategic Change in Enterprise
Risk Management. Strategic Change, 25(4), 427-439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2072
Harris, E. (2011). Strategic Project Risk Appraisal and
Management. Strategic Direction, 27(4).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/sd.2011.05627dae.001
Tablet Development Sim. (2016). Forio.com. Retrieved 4
November 2016, from
https://forio.com/simulate/michael.garmon/tablet-development-
sim/simulation/#p=page4
Running head: STRATEGIC PRODUCT MANAGEMENT
1
STRATEGIC PRODUCT MANAGEMENT

8
Trident University
Katrina Dowdell
Module 1 SLP 1
MGT 599
Dr. Banks
Strategic Product Management
Product review
There are three main products made by the Clipboard Tablet
Company the X5, X6 and the X7. The X5 is the oldest of the
three products and has been on the market for three years. The
product has matured such that customers are not worried about
the performance of the device. The X6 is the second product
produced by the institution and has been in the market for two
years since 2009. The consumers of this product care more
about the performance and efficiency of the product as opposed
to price. The most recent product is the X7 which has been on
the market for only one year. The products customers care about
both performance and price.
Of all the three products, the X6 is the most expensive and
retails at 430$ per unit. The X5 retails at $285 per unit while
the X7 is the least expensive at 190$. The X5 is the product

with the most sales due to the awareness and brand trust it has
established in the market. The X6 follows in terms of
performance in the consumer market while the recently
launched product is the last with a non-gradable performance
due to the lack of sales in the previously concluded financial
year.
Financial review
X5
The tablet competes in a relatively saturated market which
stands at 15%. This means that the level of competition is fairly
high given similar products have already been introduced in the
market. The X5 serves a customer base of 1,035,000 out of a
targeted 6,000,000 customers for the year 2011 ("Tablet
Development Sim", 2016). The product performed fairly well in
the recently concluded financial year having recorded an
impressive 882,779 new customers while retaining 86,250
through repeat sales. Therefore, the total sales stood at 968, 979
("Tablet Development Sim", 2016).
X6
The X6 operates in a relatively less competitive market than its
predecessor. With an initial target of 6,000,000 clients, the
product managed to reach a base of 550,000 in a market
saturated at 8%. The product has a higher number of new
customers than returning clients which are an indication of its
appeal to early adaptors in the product life cycle. With an
average of 562961 sales in the year 2011, the product is the
second selling product from the company catalog
X7
This was the latest product to be released by the company as at
2011. The product was designed to attract a larger segment that
cares about pricing and quality. The product was to serve
17,500,000 clients with an installed base of 340,000. However,
in its first year of production, the product did not manage to
make any recordable sales. Therefore, in the product sales
rankings, the X7 was the last with no sales. The X6 followed
the X5 closely with above average sales while the most sold

product was the X5 which generated sales worth 968,979$
("Tablet Development Sim", 2016).
Market review
All the products had similar trends regarding overall financial
performance related to customers. For instance, the best
performing product the X5 had a majority of its sales emanating
from new clients, the early adaptors in the product life cycle.
However, regarding retention, the product has failed to sustain
its initial clients and as a result recorded lower sales margins
than would be the case if a majority of its initial clients were
retained. The initial X5 customers were 882,729 while the
retained customers through repeat sales were 86,250. This
exposes a loophole in the products marketing strategy due to its
inability to retain customers after initially attracting large
numbers.
The second product is the X6 which records similar tendencies
to the X5. Although the market is only 8% saturated the product
fails to retain most of its initial clients. This can be attributed to
the high cost of purchase tagged to the product. Consequently,
the early adaptors might have shifted allegiance to other
products with better prices and specs as well. The X6 only
managed to retain 46,943 clients out of over half a million
initial sales. Also, the X7 recorded a poor performance for the
financial year with no sales recorded despite initial investment.
Alternative strategy
The products are not performing to the required company
standards, and this can be attributed to the lack of adequate
research on market preferences and product development.
Therefore, products can reach out to larger markets and
maintain a solid market presence if adequate research is done on
the needs of ever changing client needs (Agarwal & Ansell,
2016). Most of the initial purchasers are early adaptors who
prefer jumping on to new products. However, the segment of
early adaptors should not be depended on as a consistent base.

This is because early adaptors are characterized by their lack of
loyalty to specific brands. The early adaptors instead can be
used to create awareness and should be maintained until the
growth stage.
Change in pricing
The pricing strategies of the products should be reviewed. This
is primarily due to the unattractive return rates exhibited by all
the products. For instance, the already developed product the
X5 has been on the market for over three years. Consequently,
this represents a challenge in two ways; first, there is a need for
changes in pricing to increase retention rates. The need for
changing the overall pricing policies is due to the various
segments targeted in the consumer market. The safest way to
transition from relying on early adaptors is discouraging their
efforts by targeting a less dynamic segment in the growth stage.
The growth stage should be characterized by strategic pricing to
boost the product marketing prices (Harris, 2011). For instance,
the institution can rely on indirect marketing strategies by
giving price and bulk discounts. This will help retain large
numbers of clients especially those preferring either quality or
fair prices.
Modifications to the X5 over the years
The X5 is the company`s flagship product and as a result,
should be monitored across all the stages of its life cycle. First,
the pricing strategies should be modified to accommodate the
needs of the loyal customers. Most of the X5 consumers appear
to be disinterested in the product upon initial purchase.
Moreover, most clients do not fancy static products that do not
alter prices and offer promotions. The first move will be to
slash the initial prices of the product from $285 to 277$. The
significant slash in prices will not affect the products since it is
already well progressed in its life cycle. This move will help
keep the clients on their toes since they will see the need to take
advantage of the slashed sales. For consistency, the products
will retain the new price levels for a specified duration
preferably two months. Afterward, the product should retain its

initial price until the next financial year where it should change
to keep the clients loyal to the product.
Modifications to the X6 over the years
As earlier mentioned, the X6 clients care more about the
performance of the product. Therefore, the R&D allocations
should be significantly increased to ensure proper research is
conducted on the product. The X6 is the most expensive of all
the products of the company, but clients do not mind buying the
product at high rates as long as its efficiency and performance
is top notch. Consequently, the R&A allocations should be
prioritized when it comes to this product. Since clients prefer
quality over low pricing, additional research should be
conducted on the product to ensure it is designed and produced
to satisfy the various need of its clients. Therefore, the X6
requires more finances in its research departments to increase
its marketability and attractiveness to clients. More so, this
move will help retain clients since their respective preferences
will be considered throughout the production process. It is
important, therefore, for research to be conducted on clients`
preferences, market trends, and technological advancements.
This will enable the product to compete at a high level
throughout the years while retaining a loyal base of customers.
Modifications of the X7 over the years
The X7 was the latest launch of the company and by 2011, had
recorded no significant sales. The product`s clients, however,
were keen on both pricing and performance. Therefore, this
means that the production budget allotted for this product
should be significantly higher than the initial products. This
means that additional attention should be accorded to this
product to ensure its design is favorable for the target market.
First, research should be conducted to determine the most
appropriate prices for the product. If the X7 is incorrectly
priced, its potential clients will go for other products
manufactured by its competitors. Similarly, the R&D budget
should be increased to cater for all the additional research
required to ensure the product satisfies all its clients` needs.

Also, the prices of the product should be altered over time
through promotions and discounts. This will help keep up with
customers who are always scouting for convenient deals. The
second year should see the price slashed for around two months
to attract loyal customers. Afterward, the product should be
customized to suit potential client needs through researching
probable trends. This will help justify new prices and the
various promotions over the years.
All the products require additional attention to correct the
previously done marketing and product development errors. The
X5`s appeal to the clients is its prices. Therefore, the
management should carry out additional research on
competitors` prices to determine the potential pricing strategies
that can increase the sales of the X5. However, the X6`s appeal
to clients is in its quality. This means that the organizational
must provide adequate resources to the marketing and
production team to ensure that technological advancements are
incorporated in the new products. The X7 requires extensive
marketing strategies which are possible only through further
research. As a result of this, the company administration should
provide necessary research materials for the product. Also,
since the product`s appeal to customers is in the pricing
function as well, it is important for the products prices to be
reviewed professionally after every quarter in a financial year;
this can be through discounts, promotions and price slashes as
well.
References
Agarwal, R. & Ansell, J. (2016). Strategic Change in Enterprise
Risk Management. Strategic Change, 25(4), 427-439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2072
Harris, E. (2011). Strategic Project Risk Appraisal and
Management. Strategic Direction, 27(4).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/sd.2011.05627dae.001
Tablet Development Sim. (2016). Forio.com. Retrieved 22
October 2016, from

https://forio.com/simulate/michael.garmon/tablet-development-
sim/simulation/#p=page1

Week 1 AssignmentCIS290v61University of Phoenix Materia.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Week 1 AssignmentCIS290v61University of Phoenix Materia.docx

Similar to Week 1 AssignmentCIS290v61University of Phoenix Materia.docx (20)

More from celenarouzie

More from celenarouzie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 1 AssignmentCIS290v61University of Phoenix Materia.docx