Sheet1Company NameBaldwinChesterAndrewsTotal Assests$ 230,202$ 88,975$ 94,224Total Liabilities$ 80,568$ 8,901$ 27,691Total Equity$ 149,634$ 80,074$ 66,533Emergency LoanMarket Share29.3%15.2%16.4%Stock MarketClosing Price$ 52.61$ 41.28$ 35.53Outstanding shares5,366,1323,321,6933,350,156Market Cap (millions)$ 282$ 137$ 119Book Value$ 27.88$ 24.11$ 19.86Cumulative R&D Cycle Time-70%-14%-65%Top Products Year 8 Low TechName PriceUnits SoldPotential SoldStock OutAgePerformanceSizeReliabilitySales BudgetCustomer AccessibilityPromo BudgetCustomer AwarenessCustomer SatisfactionAble$33.001,9721,728No4.57.812.120,000$1,650100%$1,400100%34Cake$32.001,7491,492No2.57.213.220,000$600100%$1,400100%38Baker$35.001,3571,390Yes1.88.811.220,000$1,900100%$1,900100%40Cone$35.001,079918Yes2.610.411.117,050$2,000100%$1,400100%26Bold$35.008911,351Yes1.88.811.220,000$1,900100%$1,900100%39Top Products year 8 High TechNamePriceUnits Sold Potential SoldStock OutAgePerformanceSizeReliabilitySales BudgetCustomer AccessibilityPromo BudgetCustomer AwarenessCustomer SatisfactionBid$45.001,5131,363Yes1.713723,000$1,900100%$1,900100%54Adam$44.001,1931,284Yes1.813723,000$1,05098%$1,400100%51Bead$45.001,1871,395Yes1.613723,000$1,900100%$1,900100%55Cone$35.00448248Yes2.610.411.117,050$2,000100%$1,400100%7Baker$35.00176179Yes1.88.811.220,000$1,900100%$1,900100%1Bold$35.00123185Yes1.88.811.220,000$1,900100%$1,900100%1Chester Performance by YearRound 0/2019Round 1/2020Round 2/2021Round 3/2022Round 4/2023Round 5/2024Round 6/2025Round 7/2026Round 8/2027StarsN/A54 (Profit)504 (Em. Loan)3 (Sales/profit)4 (cont margin)5Total Assests$ 20,903$ 25,476$ 32,776$ 53,068$ 87,367$ 59,930$ 57,908$ 58,508$ 88,975Total Liabilities$ 8,054$ 8,376$ 9,386$ 14,836$ 45,796$ 13,262$ 10,647$ 6,773$ 8,901Total Equity$ 12,850$ 17,100$ 23,390$ 38,232$ 41,571$ 46,668$ 47,260$ 51,735$ 80,074Stock MarketClosing Price$ 11.16$ 17.92$ 19.59$ 25.51$ 7.10$ 18.26$ 20.84$ 25.56$ 41.28Outstanding shares2,000,0002,000,0002,167,4482,596,1342,842,1032,842,1032,842,1032,770,1293,321,693Market Cap (millions)$ 22$ 36$ 42$ 65$ 20$ 52$ 59$ 71$ 137Book Value$ 6.42$ 8.55$ 10.79$ 14.73$ 14.63$ 16.42$ 16.63$ 18.68$ 24.11Sales$ 40,800$ 52,491$ 57,980$ 82,513$ 75,360$ 82,528$ 40,278$ 79,931$ 109,440Profit$ 2,490$ 4,251$ 3,289$ 6,443$ (2,141)$ 5,097$ 592$ 5,975$ 14,239Contribution Margin19.97%25.09%29.87%35.09%34.55%40.24%41.78%35.01%37.49%Stock Price$ 11.16$ 17.92$ 19.59$ 25.21$ 7.10$ 18.26$ 20.84$ 25.56$ 41.28Emergency Loan$ - 0$ - 0$ - 0$ - 0$ 29,077.00$ 2,531.00$ - 0$ - 0$ - 0Market Share16.7%18.7%18.1%22.0%17.6%17.1%7.4%12.8%15.2%Expected growth in ten years at current percentage rateslow tech market size504055446098670873798117892998221080411884130731438015818174001914021054231592547528023low tech demand growth10%10%10.

1. Sheet1Company NameBaldwinChesterAndrewsTotal Assests$
230,202$ 88,975$ 94,224Total Liabilities$ 80,568$ 8,901$
27,691Total Equity$ 149,634$ 80,074$ 66,533Emergency
LoanMarket Share29.3%15.2%16.4%Stock MarketClosing
Price$ 52.61$ 41.28$ 35.53Outstanding
shares5,366,1323,321,6933,350,156Market Cap (millions)$
282$ 137$ 119Book Value$ 27.88$ 24.11$
19.86Cumulative R&D Cycle Time-70%-14%-65%Top Products
Year 8 Low TechName PriceUnits SoldPotential SoldStock
OutAgePerformanceSizeReliabilitySales BudgetCustomer
AccessibilityPromo BudgetCustomer AwarenessCustomer
SatisfactionAble$33.001,9721,728No4.57.812.120,000$1,65010
0%$1,400100%34Cake$32.001,7491,492No2.57.213.220,000$6
00100%$1,400100%38Baker$35.001,3571,390Yes1.88.811.220,
000$1,900100%$1,900100%40Cone$35.001,079918Yes2.610.41
1.117,050$2,000100%$1,400100%26Bold$35.008911,351Yes1.8
8.811.220,000$1,900100%$1,900100%39Top Products year 8
High TechNamePriceUnits Sold Potential SoldStock
OutAgePerformanceSizeReliabilitySales BudgetCustomer
AccessibilityPromo BudgetCustomer AwarenessCustomer
SatisfactionBid$45.001,5131,363Yes1.713723,000$1,900100%$
1,900100%54Adam$44.001,1931,284Yes1.813723,000$1,05098
%$1,400100%51Bead$45.001,1871,395Yes1.613723,000$1,900
100%$1,900100%55Cone$35.00448248Yes2.610.411.117,050$2
,000100%$1,400100%7Baker$35.00176179Yes1.88.811.220,000
$1,900100%$1,900100%1Bold$35.00123185Yes1.88.811.220,00
0$1,900100%$1,900100%1Chester Performance by YearRound
0/2019Round 1/2020Round 2/2021Round 3/2022Round
4/2023Round 5/2024Round 6/2025Round 7/2026Round
8/2027StarsN/A54 (Profit)504 (Em. Loan)3 (Sales/profit)4 (cont
margin)5Total Assests$ 20,903$ 25,476$ 32,776$ 53,068$
87,367$ 59,930$ 57,908$ 58,508$ 88,975Total Liabilities$
8,054$ 8,376$ 9,386$ 14,836$ 45,796$ 13,262$ 10,647$
6,773$ 8,901Total Equity$ 12,850$ 17,100$ 23,390$

2. 38,232$ 41,571$ 46,668$ 47,260$ 51,735$ 80,074Stock
MarketClosing Price$ 11.16$ 17.92$ 19.59$ 25.51$ 7.10$
18.26$ 20.84$ 25.56$ 41.28Outstanding
shares2,000,0002,000,0002,167,4482,596,1342,842,1032,842,10
32,842,1032,770,1293,321,693Market Cap (millions)$ 22$
36$ 42$ 65$ 20$ 52$ 59$ 71$ 137Book Value$ 6.42$
8.55$ 10.79$ 14.73$ 14.63$ 16.42$ 16.63$ 18.68$
24.11Sales$ 40,800$ 52,491$ 57,980$ 82,513$ 75,360$
82,528$ 40,278$ 79,931$ 109,440Profit$ 2,490$ 4,251$
3,289$ 6,443$ (2,141)$ 5,097$ 592$ 5,975$
14,239Contribution
Margin19.97%25.09%29.87%35.09%34.55%40.24%41.78%35.0
1%37.49%Stock Price$ 11.16$ 17.92$ 19.59$ 25.21$
7.10$ 18.26$ 20.84$ 25.56$ 41.28Emergency Loan$ - 0$
- 0$ - 0$ - 0$ 29,077.00$ 2,531.00$ - 0$ - 0$ -
0Market
Share16.7%18.7%18.1%22.0%17.6%17.1%7.4%12.8%15.2%Ex
pected growth in ten years at current percentage rateslow tech
market
size5040554460986708737981178929982210804118841307314
38015818174001914021054231592547528023low tech demand
growth10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%high tech market
size2160259231103732447953756450774092881021711238123
6213599149581645418100199102190124091high tech demand
growth20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%
Literature Evaluation Table
Student Name:
Summary of Clinical Issue (200-250 words):
Hand hygiene is an important practice in any health institution
as it not only maintains the health and safety of the patient but
also that of the health professional. However, most health
professionals do not adhere to hand hygiene practices or do not
effectively carry out the practices. This negligence has led to a

3. high prevalence of Hospital Acquired Infections (HAIs) and
consequently an increase in morbidity and mortality rates. The
World Health Organization has a set of guidelines that dictate
proper and effective hand hygiene practices before and after
contact with the patient. There are different factors that
contribute to this noncompliance of the guidelines. Despite the
presence of these influencing factors, studies show that health
workers have knowledge on the importance of hand hygiene, yet
they choose not to practice these techniques. Other factors
include influence from their peers in cases where they opt for
methods like putting on gloves instead of hand washing,
behavioral motivational factors and work environment factors
such as high population of patients or scarce resources. These
factors are common in most studies done in different regions
across the world. This is an indication that there is need for
extra and constant education on the importance of hand hygiene
and motivation to the adherence of hand hygiene practices.
PICOT Question: For patients and healthcare workers in the
hospital (p) does hand washing protocol (I) compared to an
alcohol-based solution (C) reduce hospital acquired infection
(O) within a period of stay in the hospital (T)
Criteria
Article 1
QUANTITATIVE study
Article 2
Article 3
APA-Formatted Article Citation with Permalink
Deochand, N., & Deochand, M. E. (2016). Brief Report on
Hand-Hygiene Monitoring Systems: A Pilot Study of a
Computer-Assisted Image Analysis Technique. Journal of
environmental health, 78(10).

4. Chatfield, S. L., Nolan, R., Crawford, H., & Hallam, J. S.
(2016). Experiences of hand hygiene among acute care nurses:
An interpretative phenomenological analysis. SAGE open
medicine, 4, 2050312116675098.
Dyson, J., Lawton, R., Jackson, C., & Cheater, F. (2013).
Development of a theory-based instrument to identify barriers
and levers to best hand hygiene practice among healthcare
practitioners. Implementation Science, 8(1), 111.
How Does the Article Relate to the PICOT Question?
The article explains the results of a hand hygiene technique;
Computer-Assisted Image Analysis Technique
The article elaborates the effect of the nurses’ perceptions of
hygiene is critical in driving practices. Improvements of hand
hygiene can reduce the incidences of healthcare-related
infections amongst patients.
The article develops an instrument to assess impediments and
boosters to HH and ways of adapting theory to practice in HH.
Quantitative, Qualitative (How do you know?)
The study is qualitative using data collected the image analysis
The research employs a qualitative approach using data from
eight nurses in different health facilities.
Qualitative. The assessment involved the use of collected data
to assess the barriers and levers to HH
Purpose Statement
This new study wanted to find better hand hygiene techniques
that were cost effective, less intrusive and more accurate.
The study wanted to investigate whether it is possible to
cultivate a culture of hygiene among health care practitioners
through consistent reminders for the need to observe one’s
attitude to hand washing.
To assess and identify barriers and levers to Hand Hygiene and
develop a theory-based diagnosis instrument for HH.
Research Question
Brief Report on Hand-Hygiene Monitoring Systems: A Pilot

5. Study of a Computer-Assisted Image Analysis Technique
How do nurses perceive the significance of their hand washing
practices on their patients?
What are the main barrier and levers to Hand Hygiene?
Outcome
Computer Assisted Image analysis is more effective compared
to traditional techniques like observation.
The nurses perceive their health practices are perceived
differently by the hospitals.
The greater the number of impediments to hand hygiene, the
lower the adherence to HH strategies by staff.
Setting
(Where did the study take place?)
Western Michigan University
Various hospitals throughout the U.S.
Delphi
Sample
2
Eight nurses in the U.S.A.
A total of 100 medical professionals were asked to assess the
top barriers and levers to HH.
Method
Quantitative
Qualitative analysis
Medical professionals were engaged to carry out an assessment
of the main barriers and levers to HH.
Key Findings of the Study
5seconds was effective in removing glow germs.
Less glow germs were present in subject who used soap in hand
washing
Policy-mandated rules and personal hygiene contribute to hand
cleanliness among nurses.
As the number of findings become few, the rate of compliance
to HH increases and as the number of barriers to HH decreases
the level of compliance increases.
Recommendations of the Researcher

6. Hand image analysis provides effective feedback on hand
hygiene and can be used to improve on hand hygiene
techniques.
Nurses should be involved in strategizing on the best hand
washing plans and strategies to ensure effective results.
There is a need to eradicate or reduce the barrier to HH and
increase the levers if full HH is to be realized.
Criteria
Article 4
Good Quantitative Study
Article 5
SYSTEMATIC Review
Article 6
APA-Formatted Article Citation with Permalink
Anna, G. P & Sobala, W. (2013). Observance of hand washing
procedures performed by the medical personnel before patient
contact part 1 Retrieved from international journal of
occupational medicine and environmental health 2013
Sendall, M. C., McCosker, L. K., & Halton, K. (2019). Cleaning
Staff’s Attitudes about Hand Hygiene in a Metropolitan
Hospital in Australia: A Qualitative Study. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(6), 1067.
Sung-Ching, P., Tien, K. L., Hung, I., Yu-Jiun, L., Wang-Huei,
S., Wang, M. J., & Yee-Chun, C. (2013). Compliance of Health
Care Workers with Hand Hygiene Practices: Independent
Advantages of Overt and Covert Observers. PLoS One, 8(1),
e53746.
How Does the Article Relate to the PICOT Question?
The article shows the results of a study done on hand hygiene
techniques performed by health providers before patient
contact.

7. The article explains the attitude of the hospital staff on hand
washing and their adherence to the set guidelines
It gives an evaluation of hand hygiene adherence as suggested
by the WHO
Quantitative, Qualitative (How do you know?)
Quantitative study done using quasi observational data
The research adapts a qualitative research using data collected
from hospitals spread across Australia
Qualitative. The data used to explain the effect of feedback on
HH
Purpose Statement
Observing hand washing procedures before patient contact as
standard to WHO and CDC guidelines
The study focused on exploring the attitude of hospital staff on
hand hygiene and the Australian Hand Hygiene Initiative
The evaluation focused on evaluating the effect of feedback on
the performance of HH adherence amongst staff.
Research Question
What hand washing procedures were performed by the medical
personnel before patient contact part 1
What is the attitude of the nurses concerning hand washing
strategies?
What is the effect of HH reporting on the performance of
consecutive hand hygiene
Outcome
There was no relationship between department and compliance
to hand hygiene.
Health workers in increased risk departments had a higher
average time spent washing hands.
The research revealed that there is a need for collective effort
from the nurses themselves and the hospitals to constantly
remind the staff about hand washing.
Better reporting of HH leads to better HH among staff.
Setting
(Where did the study take place?)
3 Hospitals in Lodz province

8. The study was conducted across different health facilities in
Australia
National Taiwan University Hospital
Sample
188 medical staff (Nurses and Physicians)
Twelve cleaners participated in two different focus groups.
A total of thirteen participants in each ward
Method
Quasi-observational study
Qualitative analysis.
Qualitative description
Key Findings of the Study
Average compliance of medical personnel to hand hygiene was
as low as 5.2%.
Medical personnel washed their hand twice less frequently when
feeding patients, taking blood samples and insertion of vascular
catheter.
Most substituted gloves for handwashing.
Three different attitudes towards hand cleaning were identified:
build culture, remind and teach cleanliness values for personal
hygiene.
There are key improvements when HH reports are constantly
provided to educate the staff
Recommendations of the Researcher
Short hand washing times and noncompliance indicate the need
for increased knowledge on hand hygiene and motivation to its
adherence.
There is a need to constantly remind staff of the need to clean
hands and practice personal hygiene.
Covert observers need to constantly evaluate the adherence to
HH and provide reports.
References

9. Anna, G. P & Sobala, W. (2013). Observance of hand washing
procedures performed by the medical personnel before patient
contact part 1 Retrieved from international journal of
occupational medicine and environmental health 2013
Deochand, N., & Deochand, M. E. (2016). Brief Report on
Hand-Hygiene Monitoring Systems: A Pilot Study of a
Computer-Assisted Image Analysis Technique. Journal of
environmental health, 78(10).
Chatfield, S. L., Nolan, R., Crawford, H., & Hallam, J. S.
(2016). Experiences of hand hygiene among acute care nurses:
An interpretative phenomenological analysis. SAGE open
medicine, 4, 2050312116675098.
Sendall, M. C., McCosker, L. K., & Halton, K. (2019). Cleaning
Staff’s Attitudes about Hand Hygiene in a Metropolitan
Hospital in Australia: A Qualitative Study. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(6), 1067.
Sung-Ching, P., Tien, K. L., Hung, I., Yu-Jiun, L., Wang-Huei,
S., Wang, M. J., & Yee-Chun, C. (2013). Compliance of Health
Care Workers with Hand Hygiene Practices: Independent
Advantages of Overt and Covert Observers. PLoS One, 8(1),
e53746.
Dyson, J., Lawton, R., Jackson, C., & Cheater, F. (2013).
Development of a theory-based instrument to identify barriers
and levers to best hand hygiene practice among healthcare
practitioners. Implementation Science, 8(1), 111.
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
5
Running head: WEEK 8 TEAM FINAL COURSE PROJECT 1
WEEK 8 TEAM FINAL COURSE PROJECT 2

10. Contents
Executive Summary 3
Company Organization 4
Chester Organizational Chart 4
Team Effectiveness 5
Team Charter Assessment 5
Porter’s Generic Strategy 5
The Target Market Segment 6
The Project Plan 6
Conflict Management Plan 8
Team Rules 8
Ethical Responsbility 8
Critical Success Factors 9
Competition and SWOT Analysis 9
Industry Analysis 11
Conclusion
References
Executive Summary
The government decided to split a monopoly within the
sensor industry and there were six teams that were created to
compete in the sensor industry. Our team Chester began our
first year on a financial level trying to compete with our
competitors, which were Andrews, Baldwin, Digby, Erie, and
Ferris. As to every company, there were issues that the Chester
team faced in order to compete among the mentioned teams.
Each team involved was faced with decision-making tasks to
improve their standings in the market by trying to improve their
sensor products, marketing efforts, finances and productions
over an eight-year time span. This report will show how the
Chester team competed with the other teams and where we stood
within the eight years of our product from start to finish.

11. The sensor market evolved and the Chester team was faced
with two types of markets, the Low tech, and the High tech
markets. Within these two markets, there were concerns due to
each market having its own specifications of what the customers
wanted from a product. Team Chester had to keep a close eye on
our competitors during each year so we could meet the needs of
our customers. Team Chester initially started by using the
Broad cost leader strategy for the low-cost product in each of
our segments of the market. We decided we wanted to have
great profit margins while keeping the price on our sensors low
for the customers that are price sensitive. Our company had the
ability to reposition our product rather than introducing new
ones to the market.
From the beginning to the end, team Chester shows how
our business developed from being on an equal field with our
competitors, to how we ended with our market shares of both
the high and low-tech products. We show how we first started
out, which was on an equal level with our competitors in the
market share which began at 16.7 % and how our company
progresses with minor issues resulting in emergency loans and
how team Chester competed with the other teams.
Company Organization
In team Chester, duties and responsibilities were
decided on democratically. Everyone had a voice in what duties
were assigned to whom and decisions were made as a team.
Each member was given roles and responsibilities such as Team
Captain, Scribe, Conflict Resolution Manager & Administrator,
Presentation Wizard, and Technology Guru. These roles
allowed team Chester to run efficiently and make sure everyone
contributes and an equal share of responsibility. All decisions
were made live over conference calls on Tuesdays and
Thursdays to ensure everyone was in agreement with team
decisions.
Chester Organizational Chart

12. Team Effectiveness
Overall, team Chester’s strategy and team effectiveness
was very good. Team Chester was able to successfully launch
two products and ended up among the top companies. We
started with Cake, which was our Low-Tech product and later
started Cone, which started as High Tech and then moved to
Low Tech in order to generate more sales. Team Chester
worked well as a group and everyone did their best to make it to
weekly conferences and ensured that the weekly assignments
were completed and turned in on time. Our goal was to finish
this course with a successful business, and we achieved our
goal.
As far as improvements, team Chester missed a round of
simulations due to lack of follow up. This being a team effort,
we shouldn’t have relied on one person to be responsible for a
round of decisions. Once we realized this issue, we quickly
rectified the problem so that this issue would not happen in the
future. In my opinion, the only other way that team Chester
might have been more effective, is if the whole team worked the
exact same schedule and could have all been online at the same
time. That, of course, was not the case and we were successful
in getting the job done.
Team Charter Assessment
Porter’s Generic Strategy
Initially, we put in our charter that we would use the
Broad cost leader strategy. Broad cost leader will be a low-cost
product in each segment of the market. We want to have great
profit margins while keeping the price low for those customers
that are price sensitive. Our company would have the ability to
reposition our product versus introducing new ones to the
market. We also noted that today’s high-end item will become
tomorrow’s low-end item. Our company’s initial priority was to
evaluate our current products as we moved to develop the next
high-end product using the latest technology. We wanted to

13. evaluate the assets and liabilities to effectively make the
decisions if divesting a low-end product in favor of a high-tech
product would be necessary.
As soon as round one of the CAPSIM was completed
our company agreed that we needed to immediately put a high-
end product on the market and put one into research and
development in round two with sales beginning in the middle of
the year of round three. Later after suffering an emergency
loan, we changed -our strategy and our high-tech product to a
low-tech product. While this was risky and not recommended,
we were successful with the switch in the end. The
Target Market Segment
All companies targeted the same two markets, so it was
difficult to figure out the best way to be the leader of any
market. For the first and second rounds, we concentrated on the
low-tech market with our one product. In the third round, we
were able to introduce a new high-tech product in the middle of
the year and jump right into sales, appealing to our customer’s
needs, and selling out right away. We did not introduce another
new product into the market and adapted our second product,
cone, to appeal to the low-tech market in round seven hoping to
gain an advantage in the low-tech sector. The Project Plan
Chester decided after the charter was submitted to
modify the meeting and communication schedule. It worked
better for the company to hold conferences twice a week as the
primary means of communication and use text messaging to
message each other and send reminders. The company
effectively used the document and change management as
written in the charter but did not follow the posting timelines.
The company decided to modify deadlines based on
requirements for the week. The company did also not follow the
weekly task schedule as indicated in the charter as far as the
targets for having the final paper complete. We had a hiccup in
round six by not instituting a good checks and balances system
and relying on one team member to make the decisions himself.

14. This ended up hurting the team and was not the best decision to
make. The company needs to establish rules that require a
minimum number of board members present to make company
decisions. We did not use any project management skills for our
project plan. Project management planning would have helped
if a more detailed project plan were developed.
Task
Task Lead
Week1
Week2
Week3
Week4
Week5
Week6
Week7
Week8
Charter
Lijy Abraham
SWOT Analysis
Connie Jones

15. Log into Capsim
Individual
Rehearsal Round
Individual
Practice Round
Angelina Trombello
As a team
Competition Round 1
Kevin Shelton
As a team

16. Competition Round 2
Lijy Abraham
As a team
Competition Round 3
Angelina Trombello
As a team
Competition Round 4
Kevin Shelton
As a team
Dry Run Presentation
James Woods

17. Individually
As a team
Report
Connie Jones
All
All
As a team
As a team
Presentation
James Woods
All
All
As a team
As a teamConflict Management Plan
Just like any new company’s conflict management plan,
Chester realized there were some changes that could be made to
make it better. Although there was only one team conflict, the
conflict management plan does not have an accountability
standard besides emailing the professor. The plan stated that if
a member does not complete the work by the team goal of
Thursday evening, members will need to advise and see where

18. they can help before the workload is too much. There is no plan
for when a member completely misses an established deadline.
Team Rules
The team had a good set of rules for a new company.
There were sixteen rules that were included. The team abided
by the rules and accepted responsibility and accountability
when necessary. An example of this is when James told the
team he would submit decisions for the the weekly simulation
assignment but failed to do so in time, he accepted full
responsibility. Another example was how the team never
discussed politics or religion. This resulted in social
intercourse among the board members. As the company aged,
the team would be best served by reviewing the rules and
updating them as needed to remove outdated information or
change or delete outdated rules.
Ethical Responsibility
As stated in the CAPSIM primer, ethical decision-making
is the process in which it is determined what actions will be
taken to address an ethical issue. An ethical issue is an action
that may benefit or harm others. We learned that in order to be
ethical a decision should be legal and morally acceptable.
Chester maintained social responsibility throughout the course
so far and no decisions made by the board or members of the
board could be seen as unethical to the shareholders or the
customers.
Critical Success Factors
Some of our critical success factors were communication,
product awareness, product availability, producing a product
within the demands of the customer, delivering products at a
price within our customer’s expectations, keep demand high,
production costs, and labor costs low. These factors will not
guarantee you success, but they contributed to making team
Chester successful. Team Chester had great communication and
made sure that everyone was on the same page. We did well

19. making sure our products had 100% awareness and 100%
availability. We produced products within the size and
performance of our customer's needs and wants. Chester also
stayed competitive with the prices of our products and created
more profits by keeping product and labor costs to a minimum.
Competition and SWOT Analysis
Several large vendors have made the sensor market competitive
globally. Players in this market use strategies such as
innovation, mergers, and acquisition, investing in research and
development as well as a cost-effective product portfolio to
remain relevant in this market. Various brands have been
established both domestically and globally and new entrants
form a competitive landscape. However, the Sensor industry has
faced competition from other firms producing alternative
products. These companies are Rubidium, Amblit technologies,
Almawave, and Pindrop among other firms (Yang et. al, 2015).
There were five competitors in CAPSIM that our company had
to work to identify what strategies they were using and how
they were investing in their products and research. Our company
quickly determined that we really needed to monitor the
activities of only two of them, Baldwin and Andrews. In the
end, these companies proved to be our fiercest competitors.
Baldwin finished on top with a 29.3% market share and
Andrews finished with a 16.4% market share. It must be noted
that Ferris finished with 16.9% of the market share but their
contribution margin was low and they tried to stay at the edge
of cutting technology. They were unable to position their
products well enough to completely take over the high-tech
market while keeping their price $4.50 below the top
competitors. Ferris’ had no products in the low-tech market.
Our company identified that this was a major mistake. The
company did not understand that today’s high-tech product is
tomorrow’s low-tech product.
Team Chester evaluated the simulation report from the previous
completed round in order to make a good decision on research
and development, marketing, and production. An example of our

20. thought process is further explained as we discuss our round
three decisions. In round two our company produced 1,584 units
of “cake” and sold 1,657. We did not forecast correctly and sold
out. The only product that did not sell out was from our
competitors in the low-tech industry was “eat”. Eerie produced
almost 1,100 units and still had 117 left in inventory. It was
important to look at why they did not sell out to ensure we do
not make a bad decision that would result in the customer
buying nothing instead of their product. We discovered that
team Eerie had a good product but failed in customer
accessibility and customer awareness. We then looked at the
percentage growth rate expected for the next year to make a
good decision on how many we might sell. Our forecasting
showed that we could produce 300 more units in round three
and sell more than the other companies. We produced 1,880
units and still sold out. We produced more products than any of
the other teams and ended the round with the majority of the
market share.
Strengths
Human resource focus
Total Quality Management is important
Weaknesses
Inexperienced board members
Trouble forecasting resulting in continuous stock-outs
Emergency loan
Opportunities
Increase Market share through better forecasting
Introduce new products
Increase automation
Threats
Competitive Market
Automation costs
Employee turnover
Industry Analysis
Globally, the sensor market in the year 2017 was valued at
$138,965 million. This is expected to rise to $287,002 by the

21. year 2025. The market share is expected to expand at 11.60%
over the period 2017-2023 resulting from technological
advancement. The causes of growth in this industry are
increasing demand for automation and control, the need for
real-time systems of monitoring and the growth of internet
connectivity. The regional market for this industry is America,
Europe, Asia Pacific, RoW, the Middle East, and Africa. The
target clients are network operators, mobile manufacturers,
security agencies, government agencies, device manufacturers,
communication operators, and defense (Lin et. al, 2016).
In CAPSIM the demand for growth was ten percent each
year for low-tech products and twenty percent for high tech
products from 2019 through 2027 and is expected to continue at
that rate for the foreseeable future. The top three companies
controlled just below seventy percent of the market share. At
the current rate of growth, it is expected that this industry will
need at least 28,023 low-tech sensors and 24,091 high tech
sensors in ten years.
When conducting research in CAPSIM, Porter’s Five Forces
Model has been proven in providing quantitative and qualitative
results. We must look at the rivalry among existing
competitors, the threat of new entrants, bargaining power of
buyers, buyer’s ability to substitute, and the bargaining power
of suppliers.
We can examine the rivalry among existing competitors by
determining the number of competitors (6), industry growth (10
% low tech and 20% high tech), brand loyalty (cake is near the
top of competing products and cone is near the bottom in the
low-tech industry), quality differences (the most purchased
products have a 20,000-hour reliability), and how crowded the
industry is (low tech market producing enough but the high tech
market is selling more than can be produced).
The threat of new entrants is determined by brand loyalty. “If
you have strong and durable barriers to entry, then you can
preserve a favorable position and take fair advantage of it
(BillT, et al.).” In Capsim, this can be measured by the

22. customer satisfaction ratings of the products. As noted in the
previous paragraph our brand loyalty is great on cake and not
very good on cone. We must work to improve cone or remove it
from our inventory before it starts costing us money. In round
eight, we did sell out of the product with 1,528 being produced
and a contribution margin of 30.3%.
The bargaining power of buyers can be determined by looking at
the number of customers, the differences between competitors,
and price sensitivity. We practiced price sensitivity in round
eight by running a sale on cake at $3.00 below Baldwin, who
has the highest market share. This allowed us to sell out of the
product and still a healthy contribution margin of 44.3%.
The buyer’s ability to substitute is abundantly clear. With six
companies producing very similar products, substitution is
rather easy. It is important to maximize customer accessibility
and customer awareness. The three top companies maintained
100% in both of those areas in round 8 while the company with
the least amount of the market share had a 91% accessibility
rate and a 63% average customer awareness rate.
The bargaining power of suppliers is the polar opposite of the
bargaining power of buyers. This refers to the availability of
suppliers, their product uniqueness, and their size. The six
competitors in this industry must compete with suppliers to
obtain products to make their products. The price our
companies pay for our supplies directly affects our asking price
and contribution margins. In order to stay competitive in the
industry, we must maintain a minimum of a 30% contribution
margin. Ferris could not get a contribution margin above 30%
when they were paying around $18 for materials per product and
sell them for $40.50 a piece. In comparison, the most our
company paid for material costs were $11.43 a piece for cone.
We sold the product for $35 and still were able to maintain a
30.3 contribution margin.
References
BillT, Narinekan, Midgie, Mind Tools Content Team, Mind

23. Tools Content Team, & Mind Tools Content Team. (n.d.).
Porter's Five Forces: - Understanding Competitive Forces to
Maximize Profitability. Retrieved from
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_08.htm
CAPSIM Mgmt. Simulations. (n.d.). CAPSIMCore. Retrieved
November 21, 2019, from
https://ww3.capsim.com/student/portal/index.cfm?template=das
hboard.
Lin, C. C., Deng, D. J., Chen, Z. Y., & Chen, K. C. (2016). The
key design of driving industry 4.0: Joint energy-efficient
deployment and scheduling in group-based industrial wireless
sensor networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 54(10), 46-
52.
Quality Assurance
James Woods
Human Resources
Lijy Abraham
Research and Development
Vice President
Angelina Trombello
Marketing Vice President
Kevin Shelton
Production Vice President
Connie Jones
Finance Vice President
Lijy Abraham
President & CEO, Team Leader
James Woods