Matching Dell

28,056 views

Published on

0 Comments
8 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
28,056
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
34
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1,430
Comments
0
Likes
8
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Whether in the U.S. market or the Worldwide market, from 1990 to 1998, the PC market grew very fast, and growth rate of these two market are quite similar. In term of unit sold, both the U.S. and the worldwide markets grew 3.8 times in 1998 compared to 1990. In term of dollor, the U.S. market grew 3.2 times however the worldwide market grew only 2.8 times in 1998 compared to 1990. Thus the U.S. market sold PC more expensive than the average of price of the worldwide market. This was might be one of reason Dell develop the U.S. market first.
  • From above charts, the U.S. market share was dominant which around 40% of worldwide market and it maintained a stable market share. So this was the other possible reason that Dell targeted the U.S. market firstly, then developed overseas market.
  • In the U.S. market, PC market was divided into 4 segments – Large/midsize business & government , Small business & office , Consumers(home) , Education.
  • According to the price index showed above, consumers market lacked price attraction to Dell, only large business & government segment and small business & office segment had a higher average unit price. Besides, consumers belong to large business & government segment and small business & office segment did not care more about the price of PC because they need reliable network and high performance computers, especially to large business & government segment. By contrast, because they were sensitive to the price of PC and paid more attention to brand of PC than those two segments, consumers (home) segment did not have high price selling attraction for Dell. Dell only had 18.3%(by unit, worldwide) market share of consumers(home) in 1998.
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors Objectives struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘position. DELL challenged Compaq Market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. Gateway was a serious challenge for DELL’ strengths. Except of Gateway all the big players were shift to model similar to Direct Model. Competitors had a quite similar organization, culture and values (all from US) Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘ SCA. It was a new industry where it did not have a clear barrier amongst competitor (customers segment were overlapped)
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors Objectives struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘position. DELL challenged Compaq Market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. Gateway was a serious challenge for DELL’ strengths. Except of Gateway all the big players were shift to model similar to Direct Model. Competitors had a quite similar organization, culture and values (all from US) Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘ SCA. It was a new industry where it did not have a clear barrier amongst competitor (customers segment were overlapped)
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA.
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA.
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors Objectives struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘position. DELL challenged Compaq Market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. Gateway was a serious challenge for DELL’ strengths. Except of Gateway all the big players were shift to model similar to Direct Model. Competitors had a quite similar organization, culture and values (all from US) Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘ SCA. It was a new industry where it did not have a clear barrier amongst competitor (customers segment were overlapped)
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors Objectives struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘position. DELL challenged Compaq Market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. Gateway was a serious challenge for DELL’ strengths. Except of Gateway all the big players were shift to model similar to Direct Model. Competitors had a quite similar organization, culture and values (all from US) Gateway is a serious challenge for DELL ‘ SCA. It was a new industry where it did not have a clear barrier amongst competitor (customers segment were overlapped)
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA.
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA.
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA.
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA.
  • UNDERSTANTING the COMPETITORS Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA.
  • We can i dentify two strategic groups competitors either close or further against Dell. Closest Competitors: Compaq (incumbent position), HP, Gateway Further Competitors: IBM, Apple Latecomers competitors: Toshiba, Sony, NEC, etc. Cost Structure of the five big players:
  • In the U.S. market, Dell grew very quickly from 1% market share(by units) soared to 13.2% in 1998 and ranked the second in home market. In worldwide market, Dell also had a excellent performance in term of market share (by units). It began to develop oversea markets from 1992 at well figure of 2.3%, and market share of 1998 reached 8.6% and took the third place which only lower than the giant IBM by 0.2%.
  • Performance analysis : It is necessary to develop performance measures that will reflect long – term viability and health. The focus should be on the assets and competencies that underlie the current and future strategies and their SCAs. What are the key assets and competencies for a business during the planning horizon? What strategic dimensions are most crucial: to become more competitive with respect to product offerings, to develop new products, pr to become more productive?   Profitability : It can be measured with the ROA = (profits/sales) x (sales/ assets). It has to meet or exceed the cost of capital. Sales: It is necessary to separate changes in sales that are caused by tactical actions from those that represent fundamental changes in the value delivered to the customers and it is important to do an analysis of customer satisfaction and loyalty. Shareholder value analysis : If the return is greater than the cost of capital, shareholder value will increase and if it is less shareholders value will decrease. One danger of shareholder value analysis is that it reduces the priority given to other stakeholders such as employees, suppliers and customers. Customer satisfaction : The most useful information comes from those who have decided to leave a brand or firm. Product quality : How good a value is it? Can it really deliver superior performance? How does it compare with competitor offerings? How will it compare with competitor offerings in the future given competitive innovations? Brand associations : What are the associations of brands? What is its perceived quality? Is a brand or firm regarded as expert in a product or technology area? Innovative? Expensive? For the country club set? Relative cost : It is critical when a strategy is dependent on achieving a cost advantage or cost parity. Sources of costs: Economies of scale, the experience curve, product design innovations and the use of no – frills products offering. New products : Does the R&D operation generate a stream of new product concepts? How does the flow of patents compare to that for competitors? Is the process from product concept to new product introduction well managed? Is there a track record of successful new products that have affected the product performance profile and market position? Is it possible to generate substantial innovation? Are there programs to precipitate innovation? Employee capability and performance : Are the human resources in place to support current and future strategies? Do those who are added to the organisation match its needs in terms of types and quality or are there gaps that are not being filled? Is there enough diversity to respond to new threats and opportunities?
  • Major performance indexes(revenue, gross margin, net income) were in a high growth way during 91-98, and one more important thing is its days of inventory was improved wonderfully and reached only 7 days at the beginning of 1999. It fasted its days of inventory 10 times during only in 7 years.
  • Matching Dell

    1. 1. Presented by: Patricio Becar Hasnain Zaheer Candong Wu Puru Tiwari
    2. 2. “ It’s amazing to me that our competitors think the customer is the dealer.” Michael Dell <ul><li>Be Direct: DELL </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>PRODUCT </li></ul><ul><li>Two lines of products; choice within a broad menu of features. </li></ul><ul><li>Support pages for self-help, 90% support tickets closed on phone, remaining outsourced. </li></ul><ul><li>High customer perception of quality of products, services and support </li></ul><ul><li>Dell’s commitment to consumer value, to the team, to being direct, to operating responsibly and, ultimately to winning continues to differentiate it from other companies. </li></ul><ul><li>COMPETITION </li></ul><ul><li>Compaq (no.1 – wide range) </li></ul><ul><li>IBM (no. 3 – sales and service leader) </li></ul><ul><li>HP (no.4 - quality leader, closely tied to channel) </li></ul><ul><li>All above prisoners of channel and channel culture </li></ul><ul><li>All started variants of direct model – AAP (IBM), ODM (Compaq), ESPP (HP) but no major headway </li></ul><ul><li>Gateway: Direct player, biggest threat but management weaknesses and operational execution pushed it down </li></ul>
    4. 5. Background <ul><li>Time period of this case – 1984-1999. Alternative strategies and recommendations for long term, 10 years out, from 1999 onwards. </li></ul><ul><li>DELL </li></ul><ul><li>An entrepreneurial company started by Michael Dell who founded it in 1984 with just $1,000, out of a dorm room. </li></ul><ul><li>DIRECT MODEL: Build relationships directly with consumers - Cut out the middleman. Outside sales process for relationship, inside sales for transaction segments. </li></ul><ul><li>Production processes to cut inventory, suppliers co-located, close collaboration with suppliers for efficient logistics </li></ul><ul><li>DELL eliminated the need for inventory or middlemen and gave itself a built-in price advantage, which it in part keeps as profit and in part passes on to customers.” Used customer funds received for 5 days before passing on to suppliers. </li></ul><ul><li>Global player, markets all over the world with manufacturing facilities in Ireland, Malaysia and Austin, US. </li></ul>
    5. 6. <ul><li>INDUSTRY </li></ul><ul><li>Products: Based on well-defined, Wintel based standards first established by IBM. Wide range of configurations, highly competitive global markets for components except Wintel (processor and operating system) </li></ul><ul><li>Evolution: </li></ul><ul><li>1975-81 start-up </li></ul><ul><li>1981-86 – Early explosive growth, high margins, IBM enters in 1981 </li></ul><ul><li>1990-95 – Crest because of economy but prices keep falling </li></ul><ul><li>1995-99 – Growth recovery but industry at late-growth  maturity stage </li></ul><ul><li>Customers: Large / medium companies / government, small business, consumer, education </li></ul><ul><li>Channels: Retail, distributors  small resellers, integrated resellers, direct </li></ul><ul><li>Manufacturing: Assembly-line, low entry barrier, Asian manufacturers capacity </li></ul>Background
    6. 7. Problem statement <ul><li>CONCERNS AND CHALLENGES </li></ul><ul><li>Competitors are poised to copy and succeed in direct model </li></ul><ul><li>Price and productivity advantage with competitors is narrowing. </li></ul><ul><li>Maturing industry </li></ul><ul><li>PROBLEMS </li></ul><ul><li>How to deploy a global strategy to manage sales in international markets? </li></ul><ul><li>How to leverage growth in Internet usage that is promoting PC ownership? </li></ul><ul><li>How to leverage growth in Asia? </li></ul><ul><li>How to take advantage of growth in IT industry? </li></ul><ul><li>What will drive growth in future? Are we betting on the right products by still promoting Wintel laptops and PCs? </li></ul><ul><li>In short: </li></ul><ul><li>Direct model and JIT/production and logistics have put Dell into an enviable position. How to preserve gains while ensuring growth. </li></ul>
    7. 8. Market Analysis - PC Market Size
    8. 9. Market Analysis
    9. 10. Market analysis Segmentation analysis
    10. 11. * Price Index = Market Share (by value) / Market Share (by units) Market Analysis
    11. 12. Porter’s five-factor model of market profitability Asker. A. D. (2005) Bargaining power of customers: More bargaining power because a lot of brands for their choice. Bargaining power of suppliers: Less bargaining power because many suppliers compete heavily. Competition among existing firms Compaq, IBM, HP, Apple, Gateway, etc. Threat of potential entrants: New PC manufacturers from developing countries, like China, Taiwan, etc. Threat of substitute products: PDA, notebook, net book, etc.
    12. 13. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    13. 14. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    14. 15. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    15. 16. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    16. 17. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    17. 18. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    18. 19. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    19. 20. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    20. 21. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    21. 22. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    22. 23. Competitive Analysis Understanding Competitors
    23. 24. Competitive Strength Grid                   DELL Compaq IBM Gateway HP     User Satisfaction     Overall                   Raw Technology               Sys. Speed, Reliability, Compability, Configurability, Upgrades, Hardware quality and Sys. Manag .       Pricing                   Service & Support               Warranties, Support Staff, Repair times, Channel & Web based Support, Overall service/support       Customer Relationship                   Point Scale     Very Good         Good         Fair         Bad       Worst                  
    24. 25. Competitive Analysis Synthesis: Competitive Strength Grid Performance: Cost Structure Weakness IBM Compaq HP Gateway DELL Strength Low Performance IBM HP Compaq Gateway DELL High Performance 28.70% 26.30% 21.40% 13.80% 12.40%
    25. 26. Competitive analysis - Notes <ul><li>Competitors struggled to follow and replicate the Direct Model of DELL </li></ul><ul><li>Gateway is a serious challenge in 1999. </li></ul><ul><li>DELL challenged Compaq market share. However, DELL is followed closely by both HP and Gateway. </li></ul><ul><li>All big players tried to move partial sales to model similar to Direct. </li></ul><ul><li>Competitors had similar organization, culture and values (all from US) </li></ul><ul><li>New industry where no clear barrier (customers segment overlapping) </li></ul><ul><li>Reliance and degree of affiliation with channel can act as a strength as a well as a weakness, mainly a weakness. </li></ul><ul><li>Use of technology to achieve operational growth may vary. </li></ul><ul><li>Level of investment in overseas markets determined the growth of Dell as compared to gateway which remained formidable in US but failed to become a major global company. </li></ul><ul><li>Overseas investment in manufacturing as well as sales was a great decision of Dell. </li></ul><ul><li>Remaining steadfast to direct is a major focus point kept its differentiation in place and proved to be a SCA. </li></ul>
    26. 27. Environmental analysis Source: D. Aaker
    27. 28. Environmental analysis <ul><li>Technological . The computer market was influenced technologically by: </li></ul><ul><li>Better performance of products  increase both storage and HD, faster speed both microprocessor and CD-ROM, enhance monitor resolution etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Miniaturization of devices  less space and weight > cheaper freight </li></ul><ul><li>Moore’s Law  Better performance and cheaper price </li></ul><ul><li>Customer Trends: In the mid 1990’s demand growth due to : </li></ul><ul><li>Strong economic growth </li></ul><ul><li>Emergence of new, popular services involving computer networks </li></ul><ul><li>Proliferation of electronic mail and WWW </li></ul><ul><li>Governmental/Economic Trends: US market was characterized by stable both economic and legal system. </li></ul>
    28. 29. Internal Analysis - Market share by brands
    29. 30. Profitability
    30. 31. Internal Analysis Days of inventory = 365days / (Revenue - Gross margin) / Inventory
    31. 32. Factors affecting current performance and long term profit <ul><li>In commercial market, Dell won a very high reputation on their PC. </li></ul><ul><li>Customer satisfaction / brand loyalty </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User satisfaction - Ranked 1 st overall in 1998, and ranked evenly 2 nd in from high to low price point. HP ranked 1 st in high price point, and Gateway ranked 1 st in midrange and low price points. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer relationship – All ranked 2 nd . HP ranked 1 st . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Product / service quality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Raw technology – Ranked all aspects 1 st . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pricing – Mostly ranked 2 nd and ownership costs ranked 1 st . Gateway ranked 1 st . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Service and support – Mostly ranked 1 st and 2 nd except the item ‘ channel-based support ’ ranked 3 rd . </li></ul></ul>
    32. 33. Alternative Strategies & Recommendations
    33. 34. Alternate Strategies <ul><li>Market Development </li></ul><ul><li>Expand Geographically </li></ul><ul><li>Target New Segments </li></ul><ul><li>Diversification new product and new market </li></ul><ul><li>Brand name (advertising) </li></ul><ul><li>Marketing skills </li></ul><ul><li>Sales and distribution capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Manufacturing skills </li></ul><ul><li>R&D and new product Capacity </li></ul>
    34. 35. Alternate Strategies <ul><li>Strategic alliances </li></ul><ul><li>scale economies and strategic markets </li></ul><ul><li>Fill out product line to serve market niches </li></ul><ul><li>Gain access to technology & low cast mfg capabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Access a name or customer relationship </li></ul><ul><li>Product development </li></ul><ul><li>Add product features & refinement </li></ul><ul><li>New Generation products, new form factors </li></ul>
    35. 36. Recommendation <ul><li>Product Expansion Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>New product design and portfolio </li></ul><ul><li>According to user ( kids , students , employers , elders ) </li></ul><ul><li>Organic shape , colors , trend , age , gender </li></ul><ul><li>Diversification Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Advertising to establish strong brand positioning </li></ul><ul><li>On needs and wants of consumer </li></ul><ul><li>Based on emotions </li></ul><ul><li>Adv for “direct sale” build the brand by service, support and warranty </li></ul><ul><li>Offering solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of portfolio of offering in certain segments (E.g.. IBM has high margins business solutions, HP expanded its technology service business) </li></ul>
    36. 37. Recommendation <ul><li>Product and Market Diversifications </li></ul><ul><li>Laptop, server, PlayStation, Smart phone </li></ul><ul><li>Printers, Servers, Projectors, TV’s, Handhelds, Software, Peripherals, Storage, Networking, Workstations and more. </li></ul><ul><li>Asia , Middle east… </li></ul><ul><li>Defense, Media, hotel, universities, schools… </li></ul><ul><li>Growth Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Acquisitions, Strategic partnership </li></ul><ul><li>E-Business, Storage, Security, Network … </li></ul>
    37. 38. <ul><li>Thank you !! </li></ul>

    ×