This document provides quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) analyses and Boston Consulting Group (BCG) matrix analyses for Hershey, Walmart, and Krispy Kreme. For each company, key factors are identified and weighted. Attractiveness scores are calculated for strategic alternatives based on these factors. The BCG matrix graphs each company's divisions based on relative market share and industry growth rate to identify cash cows, dogs, question marks, and stars. Hershey needs to improve expansion internationally. Krispy Kreme's company stores division has moderate growth. Walmart US is a cash cow while Sam's Club is a star. The grand strategy matrix positions the companies based on competitive strength and industry growth.

1. ASSIGNMENT 5
Implementing BCG, Grand Matrix and QSPM FOR
1. HERSHEY
2. WALMART
3. KRISPY KREME

2. QSPM(QUANTITAIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING MATRIX
• The Quantitative Strategic planning matrix (QSPM) is a strategic tool used to evaluate alternate
set of strategies.
• The main goal of this QSPM is to pick right strategy to move forward with the information
present in hand.
• QSPM is mainly calculated in following steps,
1. IFE
2. EFE
3. Strategic alternatives
4. Weighting the Factors
5. Attractiveness scores
6. Final Calculations

3. QSPM FOR HERSHEYS
Key Factors Weight
Create fast rack
programs for
developing new
products from
employee ideas
New partnerships with non
organization sales
AS TAS AS TAS
Opportunities
1. Increase demand from the market 0.10 4 0.40 2 0.10
2. New opportunities for marketing media 0.12 2 0.24 1 0.12
3. Chocolate had coverage of 55.8 percent of the market
overall global value 0.14 1 0.14 2 0.28
4. The major 50 firms in the industry had control less than 40
percent of the market 0.06 1 0.06 2 0.12
5. Ethics, Sustainability labor and environmental of
organizations 0.10 0 0 0 0
Threats
1. Increase in the fuel cost impact the shipping and
distribution cost 0.14 2 0.28 2 0.28
2. Higher manufacturing cost due to increase in healthy
food. 0.08 2 0.16 1 0.08
3. Obesity is increasing and customer is aware about it 0.04 0 0 0 0
4. Increase in prices of Sugar 0.10 0 0 0 0
5. Slow on economic growth high un employment caused
consumer cutting budget on those unnecessary things 0.12 0 0 0 0
Total 1.0
Strengths
1. Brand Recognition 0.20 1 0.20 2 0.40
2. Strategic Acquitions 0.10 0 0 0 0
3. Human Resources ( Employee empowerment and increase
in employee benefits ) 0.07 4 0.28 1 0.20
4. Premium line with high quality of dark chocolate 0.08 4 0.32 0 0
5. Changing in product packing have showed lighter material
and less waste 0.07 0 0 0 0
Weakness
1. Diversity among suppliers and shippers 0.12 0 0 4 0.28
2. Advertising expenses increased 0.05 1 0.05 0 0
3. Switch of consumer to lower price products 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10
4. Companys longterm debt has been increased 0.09 0 0 0 0
5. High job stress and consequent low workers 0.10 2 0.20 2 0.20
Total 1.0 1.96 1.58

4. QSPM FOR KRISPY KREME
Key Factors Weight
Product
development
Market
development
AS TAS AS TAS
Opportunities
1. Diversification of product 0.20 1 0.20 1 0.20
2. Detection of problem in management 0.10 2 0.20 2 0.20
3. Market research 0.08 0 0 0 0
4. Development of healthier doughnuts 0.05 3 0.15 3 0.15
5. Starbucks lacks a diversified and distinctive
pastry line 0.14 0 0 0 0
Threats
1. Tough competition 0.18 3 0.54 2 0.4
2. Global presence of competitors 0.05 2 0.1 2 0.1
3. Customers health 0.10 2 0.20 4 0.40
4. Europeans prefer their local brands of
doughnuts 0.05 3 0.6 4 0.2
5 Starbucks has approximately 25 times the
amount of stores worldwide that Krispy Kreme 0.05 0 0 0 0
Total 1.0
Strengths
1. Production Capacity 0.2 4 0.8 2 0.4
2. Price differentiation 0.1 0 0 0 0
3. Channels distribution 0.2 4 0.8 1 0.2
4. Human resource power 0.1 2 0.2 3 0.3
5. Diversification of markets 0.1 0 0 0 0
Weakness
1. Reliance on single product 0.05 3 0.15 3 0.15
2. Dropping sales 0.05 2 0.10 1 0.05
3. Un healthy products 0.04 2 0.08 2 0.08
4. Fall in number of companies 0.05 3 0.15 3 0.15
5. Shareholders have not received dividends
recently, 0.06 0 0 0 0
Total 1.0 1.89 2.35

5. QSPM FOR WALMART
Maintain lowcost leadership
and spend more money in order to increase net
sales
Add merchendise category
in the store to compete effectively with the
target in order to increase the market share
Strenghts Weights AS TAS AS TAS
1. Wal-Mart’s sales rose from $374.3 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $401.2 billion in 2009
while net income rose from $12.7 billion to $13.4 billion. 0.1 4 0.4 3 0.3
2. Wide variety of Merchendise 0.1 0 0 0 0
3. Great employee benefits 0.08 0 0 0 0
4. Regular customers 0.3 4 0.12 2 0.6
5. More number of products in large
scale 0.12 2 0.24 1 0.12
Weakness
1. Wal-Mart does not have a
formal mission statement. 0.05 3 0.15 1 0.05
2. The company avoids spending
money on consultants and
marketing experts. 0.13 4 0.52 2 0.26
3. Hiring illegal minorities to clean 0.02 0 0 0 0
4. Sam's clubs were neverdesigned to sell merchandisecategories//, but rather items. 0.1 2 0.2 4 0.4
Total 1
Opportunities
1. Wal-Mart’s community involvement year after year is phenomenal.Wal-Mart
foundation is the largest corporate cashcontributor in America. 0.18 2 0.36 1 0.18
2. Wal-Mart maintains a strategic competitive focus on global positioning. 0.15 2 0.3 2 0.3
3. Worlds largest private satellite communication 0.07 0 0 0 0
4. Wal-Mart is in the retail business, which also includes Internet E-tailing 0.17 3 0.51 2 0.34
THREATS
1. Nationally and internationally, Wal-Mart has been faced with the United Food and
Commercial workers Union, trying to persuade employees to become part of the union. 0.1 0 0 0 0
2. Target has now become a fierce competitor of Wal-Mart and is ranked second among
discount retailers with sales of nearly $65 billion with366,000 employees 0.13 4 0.52 3 0.39
3. Intense price competition 0.1 0 0 0 0
4. New laws and regulations concering foodsaftey, wage and work benefits 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1
Total 1 2.67 2.25

6. BOSTON CONSULTING MATRIX (BCG)
• BCG Matrix graphically portrays difference among divisions based on two dimensions
1. Relative market share position
2. Industry Growth Rate
• Relative market share position is calculated as ratio of its own division market share to the
division

7. BSG MATRIX FOR HERSHEY
Division
Revenues Profits
Relative Market
Share Position
Industry
Growth Rate
in millions % $ %
North America 6352.7 85.5 1916.2 97.9 0.34 2.36
International 1,069 14.5 40 2.1 0.05 -15.23
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Industry
Growth
Rate
Relative Market Share Position
• Coming to the graph we have taken Revenue Market share
on X axis and Industry growth on Y axis.
• Hershey needs to improve its expansion in Europe, Asia and
South America.

8. BCG FOR KRISPY KREME
Division
Revenues Profits
Relativ
e
Market
Share
Positio
n
Industry Growth Rate
$ % $ %
Company
Stores
325,306,00 66.3 9,287,000 11.72 0.06 6.02
Domestic
Franchise
13,450,000 2.7 8,103,000 10.23 0.06 13.61
International
Franchise
28,598,000 5.8
20,026,00
0
25.27 0.06 11.69
-20
-10
0
10
20
0
1
Industry
Growth
Rate
Relative Market Share Position

9. BSG MATRIX FOR WALMART
Division
Revenues Profits
Relative
Market
Share
Position
Industry
Growth Rate
in million % in billion %
Walmart US 559,151 75.2 129.35 44.8 0.6 4.8
Walmart
International
120,100 16.1 101.19 35 0.16 -23.6
Sams Club 63,900 8.7 58 20.2 0.2 17.2
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Industry
Growth
Rate
Relative Market Share Position

10. GRAND STRATEGY MATRIX

11. • Hershey GSM falls into Quadrant 4, its has strong competition in the
industry, still Hershey managed to be one of the top in candy sales
but the market growth is low compared to mars and others brands.
• WalMart GSM falls into Quadrant 1 although it has a strong
competition wallmart in no 1 in retail industry, the sales growth is
high compared to its competitors.
• Krispy Kreme falls into Quadrant 2, its is not leading in the industry
but it still manages to maintain the sales because of customer loyalty.