Knowledge Area Module (KAM) Ikeithmelvinmba.weebly.com/.../9/2/...groupproject.docx · Web...

Running head: DYNAMIC FOOTWEAR: AN EVOLVING COMPANY 1

Dynamic Footwear: An Evolving Company

Jennifer Bylan, Sasidi Flores, & Keith Melvin

MGMT585 – Strategic Management

February 16, 2013

Dr. Michael Corriere & Arthur Smith

Southwestern College Professional Studies

DYNAMIC FOOTWEAR: AN EVOLVING COMPANY

Dynamic Footwear: An Evolving Company

Dynamic Footwear is an international athletic footwear company operating in four

regions worldwide: 1) North America, 2) Latin America, 3) Asia-Pacific, and 4) Europe-Africa.

The company has direct competitors, primarily three other companies. When the company

began, Dynamic Footwear had equal market share with these other companies. During the

course of six years, the co-managers made decisions on various areas of company operations

such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), production levels, capacity changes, grade of

materials to use in production, employee compensation and training, advertising budgets, and

celebrity bids to name a few. At ground level, year 10, all companies shared an equal playing

field. Subsequent years changed that same playing field, with Dynamic Footwear falling behind

in the early years 11 – 13. However, the co-managers were able to find a specific direction in

which to take the company and made the necessary changes to pull ahead of two of its

competitors, falling short of only one company. It is the belief of the co-managers for Dynamic

Footwear that if the company were to continue to operate, they would be able to overtake the

final company and become the largest footwear company within all regions.

Strategic Vision

A strategic vision for a company is used to identify the ultimate aim or purpose for a

business. In order to be successful, a strategic vision must be realistic and powerful. According

to DeYoung (n.d.), “[A] powerful strategic vision expresses core values that inform action, and it

nurtures the capabilities needed to prosecute that action. It is much more than speculating about

world trends or forecasting the impact of future technologies.” The co-managers of Dynamic

Footwear embrace this philosophy and worked to develop a vision upon which the team

members of the company can remember and use to drive the strategic plans. The strategic vision

2


for Dynamic Footwear is as follows: “Dynamic Footwear strives to be the low-cost provider of

quality footwear for every consumer that seeks the most value for their money. Our dynamic

company delivers quality footwear at affordable prices to all global regions, particularly in the

Asia-Pacific and Latin America regions. Dynamic Footwear keeps costs down and passes this

savings on to our customers, allowing us to grab a larger market share of the economically

conscience consumer.”

Performance Targets

The shoe industry has become a competitive and volatile environment that is now

exposing sluggish and inefficient companies. This has pressed every organization to set a goal of

constructing and sustaining a high performance firm. During the simulation, Dynamic Footwear

witnessed Altitude Athletic make decisions with an end goal of destroying its competitors, while

others made more methodical decisions based on staying competitive. The current environment

was primed for a company to come in and tap in to the market share, and Dynamic Footwear was

able to accomplish that.

Dynamic Footwear decided to set its goals to align with their vision of being a low cost

provider of quality footwear for consumers that are seeking the most value for their money.

Tsetlin & Winkler (2007) explained that a decision maker’s utility may depend not on the

absolute level of performance on each attribute, but rather on whether that level of performance

meets a target. It is clear that targets and performance levels are typically uncertain due to the

dependence of market conditions, and with that in mind, Dynamic Footwear had set performance

targets in place in order to reach the expectations of its investors.

3


Earnings per Share (EPS)

The first target that Dynamic focused its sights on was earnings per share which shows

the earnings for each share of common stock outstanding (Thompson, 2012a). The current

EPS for Dynamic Footwear is at $4.18 which is

$0.34 higher than investor expectations. The goal

for Dynamic is to reach an EPS of $4.40 next year

and $4.75 the following year. If you take a look at

the graph, you will notice that Dynamic’s EPS

fluctuated years 10 thru 13, and in year 14 they took a drastic drop with their EPS ending at

$0.74. Dynamic Footwear began to gain traction in year 15 with their EPS ending at $1.49, and

saw great gains in year 16 with their EPS at $2.57 and year 17 with EPS at $4.18. This steady

increase has given them a high level confidence of consistently reaching future goals.

Return on Equity (ROE)

The second target Dynamic Footwear

focused on was their Return on Equity (RoE)

which is at 15.29% and exceeds investor

expectations. The goal for next year is to

reach an 18% RoE and 21% the following

year. These goals are set high and will be a challenge, but they are attainable based off the

progress over the last two years.

Credit Rating

The third target that Dynamic focused on was their credit rating which currently sits at an

A+. Unfortunately, they were only able to reach investor expectations in three of the eight

4


years due to taking out loans to ensure they remained viable as a company. The expectation for

Dynamic Footwear is to sustain a rating at or above

an A for the next two years. Dynamic Footwear is

keeping in mind that there will be opportunities

for expansion that will need to be partly financed

by debt.

Image Rating

The last of the performance targets focused Dynamic’s image rating. The goal for the

next two years is to reach a rating of 72 and 75. Dynamic Footwear has been consistent in

averaging a 66.1 image rating but was only

able to reach investor expectations in two of

the eight years. The cost of celebrities was

stable until CROSS Shoes, who was in need

of celebrities, decided to begin paying almost

four million dollars more than every other company. This in turn caused all the other companies

to begin putting in astronomical bids in order to secure one or two celebrities. Dynamic plans on

maintaining a focus on Corporate Social Responsibility projects which has helped improve their

image rating. The focus that Dynamic Footwear has placed on CSR allowed them to win the

Gold Star Award for Corporate Citizenship the past two years. The goals that have been put in

place should ensure that Dynamic Footwear stays atop as the industry leader in this category.

5


Branded Footwear

In this simulation, internet sales,

branded sales, and private-label sales were

the three revenue-generating options

available to Dynamic Footwear. By year

17, internet sales accounted for 12% of all

branded sales making the internet segment a secondary (but not ignored) part of their branded

footwear strategy. Although the private-label sector offered ways to make profits on excess

capacity, the risks involved forced the company to shift its primary focus to the branded segment

(Thompson et al., 2012b). More on Private-Label can be found in the next section.

Over time, it became apparent that all three companies were boosting their S/Q ratings in

order to gain retailer support and increase

their revenues. In order to compensate for

these costs, they were forced to raise their

prices. Big Sole attempted to stay at a low

price and higher quality, but this resulted in

their downfall as they were not able to make a profit with low volumes and high cost. The

strategy for Dynamic mimics the strategy of Kia Motors. As Kia entered the market, they were

known for not having the best quality, but were able to make large profits from selling new cars

for less than $10,000 (Forgang, 2012). Dynamic focused on keeping costs low (as discussed in

the production and work force section) which allowed them to offer the lowest prices in all four

regions while still maintaining a profit, resulting in an increased market share up to 31.3%.

6


North America

Dynamic’s market share in this region was in 3rd place;

however they still managed a market share of 26.3%. They

were #1 for internet market share at 26.4%. Dynamic’s high

number of models, aggressive advertising, and low-cost/lowest

price strategy helped them attract retailers and stay competitive

in this region (Thompson et al., 2012b).

Europe-Africa

Dynamic’s market share in this region was in 2nd place

at a market share of 28.4%. They were #1 for internet market

share at 26%. Their high number of models, aggressive

advertising, and low-cost/lowest price strategy helped them

stay competitive in this region (Thompson et al., 2012b).

Asia-Pacific

Dynamic Footwear dominated the market share in this

region at 31.3% wholesale and 27.7% on the internet. Their

high number of models, aggressive advertising, higher celebrity

appeal (compared to other regions), volume of sales, and low-

cost/lowest price strategy helped them stay competitive in this

region (Thompson et al., 2012b).

7


Latin-America

Dynamic Footwear dominated the market share again in

this region at 29.9% wholesale and 26.9% on the internet.

Their high number of models, aggressive advertising, and low-

cost/lowest price strategy helped them attract retailers and stay

competitive in this region (Thompson et al., 2012b).

Private-Label Footwear

The private label market was a segment of the footwear industry that created the most

suspense due to the bidding war that occurred between the four different companies in the early

years of the simulation. It became apparent after year 14 that the two teams competing heavily

in the private label market was Dynamic Footwear and Altitude Athletic. This particular market

was not very competitive and it was largely dominated by Altitude Athletic due to their ability to

underprice the competition and meet most of the market demand in all four regions.

The strategy for Altitude Athletic became apparent in that they knew Dynamic had

limited capacity and we were the only company competing with them. Altitude decided to let

them underbid with their limited capacity, selling the remaining pairs in the market at the max

bid price which enabled them to receive a higher Return on Equity (RoE). Knapp (2010) stated

that effective target setting is all about breaking the numbers down into relevant pieces of

information. Dynamic Footwear figured out the importance of understanding how decision

making in one segment of the footwear market, can drastically affect another. Their future

success in private labels will be dependent upon Dynamic Footwear’s building capacity in

different regions. The information below reflects what they have been able to accomplish and

what areas need improvement.

8


North America

Dynamic only tapped in to this regions market share during year 16. They won the bid

with a price of $33.00 and captured 29.6% of the market, but Altitude Athletic sold a remaining

693 pairs at a price of $44.50 due to our lack of capacity. Dynamic made a concerted effort to

avoid this region due to the high production costs and low return on equity.

Europe-Africa

Dynamic won the bid in this region at a price of $43.50 and captured 29.2% of the

market, but their capacity kept them from selling more shoes and Altitude Athletic was able to

sell 668 more pairs at a price of $44.50. Dynamic Footwear’s goal was to surpass Athletic

Altitude at their game of bidding just below the max bid price and it worked out in this region.

Asia-Pacific

Dynamic Footwear had their best sales in this region during year 13 where they won the

bid at a price of 23.00 and captured 100% of the market. They also won the bid during year 16

at a price of $15.00 but only captured 15% of the market because they were only able to produce

200 pairs while Altitude Athletic sold 1,136 pairs at a price of $20.10.

Latin-America

This was Dynamic Footwear’s best region in terms of winning bids and market share.

Their average bid price was $21.33 and their average market share was 36.3%. During years 13

and 14 they saw their market share increase from 42.4% to 44.3% respectively, and decided that

in year 15 they would invest more in this region. Dynamic put in a bid of 22.75 with 1,202 pairs

of shoes available for sale, but Altitude Athletic won the bid at a price of 20.75 and sold 1,200

pairs capturing 100% of the market.

9


Production and Work Force

Savings in Production

As stated on multiple occasions, Dynamic Footwear’s strategy to offer low prices is

dependent on producing footwear at low costs. This means that every effort must be made

during production to keep costs low. Several upgrades were made to plants in various regions to

help assist in lowering these costs. Option A was chosen for North America and Latin America

in year 11 to reduce reject rates by 50%. Option C was also used in Latin America in year 15 to

boost S/Q ratings by one star. While this is an expensive upgrade intended to boost quality, this

allowed Dynamic to maintain a 5-star S/Q rating at a significantly lower cost. Option C was also

selected for the Asia-Pacific plant (which also covers the Europe-Africa region) to achieve the

same cost-saving results. These upgrades allowed large cost savings in percentage of superior

materials and best practices training, including a reduction in enhanced styling/features that were

necessary to offer more models in year 17. To upkeep their 5-star S/Q rating, Total Quality

Management (TQM) and Six Sigma practices had to be increased, but at a fraction of the cost.

Managing Costs in the Work Force

Cascio (2006) from the Harvard Business Review emphasized the importance of wages

when comparing two similar companies. In his study between Wal-Mart and their rival Costco,

it was a night and day difference between the costs of turnover and production from low-paid

and higher-paid employees. Cascio (2006) reported that Costco was paying their employees an

average $17 an hour, while Wal-Mart averages $10.11 (or $9.86 for their Sam’s Club subsidy).

82% of Costco employees have health insurance at 8% of their pay, while Wal-Mart is less than

half of that at 33% of their pay (Cascio, 2006). Lastly, 91% of Costco’s employees are covered

with a retirement plan, as opposed to Wal-Mart’s 64%. The results of these figures would appear

10


that Costco would have higher costs that would drive themselves out of the market. Inversely,

Costco has control of the market at 50%, with Wal-Mart at 40% (Cascio, 2006). Where Costco

makes a profit on these numbers is their turnover rate. While the cost of turnover for a Costco

employee is $8,599 higher, their turnover is at 17% vs. 44%. The final results were $43 billion

for Wal-Mart and Costco at $37 billion with 38% fewer employees (Cascio, 2006).

Dynamic Footwear took on a similar approach. Employee wages and compensation were

carefully selected and balanced per region to ensure they were being compensated enough to be

productive without hurting our bottom line. This became quite a balancing act between image

rating, S/Q rating, maximizing profits, and maximizing cash flow. Using this bell curve to our

advantage (as seen in the provided graph), we were able to find a “sweet spot” per region per

year that would allow us to

remain competitive. Upon

analysis of the Footwear

Industry support, Dynamic

Footwear often had the lowest

compensated employees who

were least productive as a

result. This was a weakness for Dynamic; however they had some of the lowest labor costs per

pair in the industry (Thompson et al., 2012b). This suggests that perhaps Dynamic’s low-cost

labor with low-price strategy was the Wal-Mart of the footwear industry.

Financial Strategy

During the years of operation for the co-managers, Dynamic Footwear did not issue any

dividends to the stockholders. While this was discussed, ultimately it was decided that to do so

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

-10080-10060-10040-10020-10000

-9980-9960-9940-9920

Ending Cash L-A (snapshot)

Ending Cash

% Wage Increase

11


was too prohibitive to the financial

standing of the company. Dynamic

Footwear was financially aggressive

during the early years of the

simulation, taking on debt to fund the

building of a plant in Latin America via a long term loan. This debt made it difficult to issue any

dividends in the beginning. During the later years, when the potential to issue dividends became

more plausible, it was decided that reducing debt was a priority. Focusing on debt reduction,

Dynamic Footwear was able to turn a C+ credit rating in year 14 to an A+ credit rating in year

17. These improved credit ratings in year 15 and 16 of B and B+ respectively made it easier for

Dynamic Footwear to operate with more cash. Because of the better credit rating, the company

paid less in interest on existing loans.

Dynamic Footwear struggled with meeting investor’s expectations of stock price in all

years except for year 17. The financial strategy implemented at the start of year 14, one of the

lowest years for stock price at $12 per share, was the turning point for the company. From there,

stock prices increased steadily, until it exceed investor expectations of $46 per share by posting a

price of $65 per share.

12


At the end of year 17, Dynamic Footwear had a net cash balance of $8,192,000. The

company changed its financial strategy to lower debt obligations and use capital earned to

finance any further capital expenditures. However, in further years it was planned to issue some

dividends, although unknown as to the amount. A second strategic plan of action was to increase

earnings per share with a stock repurchase. Both were viable options for future years.

“Corporations…prefer the flexibility afforded by a policy of modest dividends, along with the

promise of eventual appreciation via stock buybacks and the like. Investors have continued to

accept that approach” (Lazo, n.d.).

Competitor Analysis

During the course of the simulation, Dynamic Footwear was challenged to maintain

market share and keep competitors from stealing additional sales. Of the competitors, CROSS

Shoes and Altitude Athletic were the strongest. While each of the companies was fighting for

market share, these two were the fiercest in both branded and private-label divisions. Market

share is the key to success, promoting aggressive competitive behaviors between the different

competing companies.

“If you’re Nike vs. Reebok, market share is an obvious indicator of how you’re performing. In the athletic shoe business, gaining or losing a few extra points of market share can mean the difference between a good year and a bad one” (McCormack, n.d.).

In the early years, Altitude Athletic was the strongest competitor, but did experience a few down

years. CROSS Shoes, however, was a fairly steady and consistently strong competitor through

all the years.

Branded Footwear

The branded footwear division for Dynamic Footwear was in a close race throughout the

simulation with CROSS Shoes and Altitude Athletics. Both companies proved to be intense

13


challengers in the sales of branded footwear. As represented in the graph for the market share of

branded labels, all three companies

had peaks and valleys within the

differing regions in year 16 and

year 17. CROSS Shoes obtained

the upper most peak of market

share in Asia-Pacific year 16 at

34.3%. No other company was

able to collect that large of an

amount of market share. However, Dynamic Footwear came close in the same market the

following year at 31.3%. Dynamic Footwear also came close to breaking past the 30% mark in

Latin America in the same year. Additionally, as is seen in the graph, CROSS Shoes was able to

maintain a consistently high market share in all regions for the two years. Unlike Dynamic and

Altitude, CROSS does not have peaks and valleys. Rather their market share stayed fairly

straight, with no large drops. CROSS Shoes stayed on a steady and consistent competitive path.

Private-Label Footwear

In the private-label footwear division, Dynamic Footwear had one primary competitor –

Altitude Athletic. Of the four companies, Dynamic and Altitude were the only two bidding for

market share in this industry. By year 14, CROSS Shoes and Big Sole Shoe Company had

withdrawn from bidding for any of the private label business in any of the regions. This was true

for the remaining years with one anomaly; CROSS Shoes stole all market shares in North

America in their year 16 bid. Up to that point, all bidding was direct competition between

Dynamic Footwear and Altitude Athletic. CROSS took both companies by surprise with the last

A B C D

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%

Branded Sales by RegionYears 16 and 17

North America Y16North America Y17Europe-Africa Y16Europe-Africa Y17Asia-Pacific Y16Asia-Pacific Y17Latin America Y16Latin America Y17

14


minute move to jump into the

private label game. As

represented in the graph, Altitude

obtained the largest amount of

market share for each year and

each region, with the exception of

the leap by CROSS in year 16.

Dynamic Footwear was fairly

aggressive with their pricing bids in private label and was able to sell all available shoes in that

segment. The largest challenge was Dynamic’s inability to produce enough shoes to meet the

private label demand without impairing the branded market share.

Going Forward

Dynamic Footwear has clearly embraced its low-cost provider strategy to offer bargain-

priced footwear that people of all regions can afford. All co-managers of this company agree

that if the company stays with its low-cost approach, Dynamic Footwear’s upward trend will

eventually earn them the title of Best-In-Industry (Thompson et al., 2012b). Because of the high

costs associated with private-label

sales, this market segment does not

align well with a low-cost strategy

and will remain an avenue for

selling excess capacity and

maintaining a positive image. This actually works to the company’s advantage by selling this

excess capacity at clearance prices to steal market share and reduce competitor’s profits.

A B C D

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Private Label Sales by RegionYears 16 and 17 North America

Y16North America Y17Europe-Africa Y16Europe-Africa Y17Asia-Pacific Y16Asia-Pacific Y17Latin America Y16Latin America Y17

15


Dynamic Footwear has earned the Gold Star Award two years running. In order to maintain a

positive image for the company, maintaining good practices in ethics, diversity, green initiatives,

and charitable contributions will continue to be a part of our winning strategy. Dynamic will

also continue its commitment to

operating on profit. Although there may

be some instances where it would have

to borrow, since year 13 their low debts

have increased stock prices

significantly, and provides Dynamic

with the ONLY A+ credit rating in the industry (Thompson et al., 2012b).

As stated earlier, the production levels of Dynamic Footwear’s employees are

comparatively low. Careful consideration should be given to increase wages to boost

productivity while gaining a return on human assets. Another area of concern is capacity.

Especially in consideration to companies A and C, Dynamic is falling behind on its ability to

produce footwear in a market with growing demand. In fact, branded distribution projections for

year 18 are showing a likely inventory shortfall of over 100 pairs per region. Using Dynamic’s

low-cost strategy and previous decisions as a guide, it is possible to position the company for

success in the future. Year 18 would likely yield little change from year 17 since the company

plans to sell the same amount as it did in year 17. However, with an approximate $20

million/10-year loan from the bank, Dynamic will be able to increase its capacity in all three

plants while maintaining an acceptable EPS, RoE, and their coveted credit rating. Dynamic’s co-

managers remain confident that with capacity investments in year 17, their low-cost strategy is

likely to secure Dynamic Footwear’s place at the top by year 20 at the latest.

16


Lessons Learned

The management team of Dynamic Footwear learned some very important lessons during

this business simulation, and they involve working as a team, staying the course, and the ability

to adapt within a fluid marketplace. We live in a day and age where staying ahead of the

competition is vital to the success of any company. The simulation showed us how the

globalization of business will always represent some sort of change from year to year and

organizations that are unable to effectively conform to the turbulent market place will fall apart.

The measurement by which we defined our success was based on growth, long term stability,

and our company’s ability to apply a forward thinking strategy.

The team component of the simulation was critical to Dynamic Footwear because we

were able to brainstorm, merge our ideas together, and produce a successful product. During the

simulation, the most important aspect of teamwork was utilized during the tough years, and it

involved everyone keeping a positive mindset and turning what we saw as obstacles in to

opportunities which in turn paid off in the end. The importance of our roles and responsibilities

cannot be stressed enough because of the knowledge and experience we each took away, which

than benefits the company in all future business decisions.

The next lesson we learned was the importance of our company vision and strategy which

was the reason behind our ability to scrap our way from last place to finishing in second place.

The first couple of years we were in more of a reactive mode based off what our competition was

doing and our ability to re-focus on a low cost provider strategy allowed us to adjust the way we

were operating and that eventually lead to an increase in profits. As a company that has enjoyed

17


recent success, we must be mindful to reevaluate our strategy over time to ensure that it is

properly guiding our company on the correct path.

Through this class, Dynamic Footwear’s management has gained such an extensive

wealth of knowledge about strategic management that will benefit us regardless of what paths we

take in life. The simulation moved us beyond the knowledge we gain in text books by making

decisions within a competitive environment which in turn allowed us to gain the wisdom only

provided through real life experiences. If there was one thing that Dynamic Footwear learned

through the simulation, it was embracing failure, because it is the key to appreciating success.

18


References

Avery, J., Steenburgh, T., Martin, R., & Volpe, M. (2012). Target the right market. Harvard

Business Review, 90(10), 119-123.

Cascio, W. F. (2006, December). The high cost of low wages. Retrieved from

http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1

Cockburn-Wootten, C., & Cockburn, T. (2011). Unsettling Assumptions and Boundaries:

Strategies for Developing a Critical Perspective About Business and Management

Communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(1), 45-59.

DeYoung, D. (n.d.). Strategic vision can be powerful. United States Naval Institute, 126(11)

Retrieved from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sckans.edu/ehost/detail?

vid=3&sid=0b2b4b33-c9ef-4f74-887b-d090dddb657c

%40sessionmgr13&hid=3&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db

=fb4602ab&AN=

Forgang, W. G. (2001). Competitive strategy and leadership: A guide to superior performance.

Lanham, MY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books?id=puQAv59TVqYC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=kia's

low-price strategy&source=bl&ots=onpTm-

2tLw&sig=ghXb3vZTzkLso8CpdphLPRzLxv8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4kUeUbyFOOL_igL5

4YC4Cw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ

Knapp, C. (2010). Using numbers to improve business performance. NZ Business, 24(10), 66.

Lazo, S. (n.d.). Dividends haven’t risen to soften the blow: Companies won’t give up the

19


flexibilities of recent years. National Post (Index-Only), C10. Retrieved from

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sckans.edu/ehost/detail?vid=8&sid=999d1b42-801c-

4a7a-ab5e-

b39329661a23%40sessionmgr4&hid=16&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29w

ZT1zaXRl#db=fb4602ab&AN=

Lee, R. (2010). Extending the Environment-Strategy-Performance Framework: The Roles of

Multinational Corporation Network Strength, Market Responsiveness, and Product

Innovation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(4), 58-73.

McCormack, M. (n.d.). Competitors show where a business can improve. Star Tribune

Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sckans.edu/ehost/detail?

vid=5&sid=bd4110ea-32af-4248-9b4e-

ff1bf98ef0d7%40sessionmgr12&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29w

ZT1zaXRl#db=fb4602ab&AN=

Raman, S. (2009). Middle managers' involvement in strategic planning: An examination of roles

and influencing factors. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 57-74.

Tsetlin, I., & Winkler, R. L. (2007). Decision making with multiattribute performance targets:

The impact of changes in performance and target distributions. Operations Research,

55(2), 226-233.

(A) Thompson, A., Peteraf, M., Gamble, J., & Strickland III, A. J. (2012). Crafting and

executing strategy. (18 Edition ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

(B) Thompson, A. A., Stappenbeck, G. J., Reidenbach, M. A., Thrasher, I. F., & Harms, C. C.

(2012). The Business Strategy Game: Competing in a global market place. Retrieved

from http://www.bsgonline.com/

20

Knowledge Area Module (KAM) Ikeithmelvinmba.weebly.com/.../9/2/...groupproject.docx · Web...

Documents

Transcript of Knowledge Area Module (KAM) Ikeithmelvinmba.weebly.com/.../9/2/...groupproject.docx · Web...