Strategic Management.pptx

SUBMITTED BY: HANUMEGOWDA( R17MB089) KEERTHIRAJ S (R17MB105) KAMALESH (R17MB101)

HISTORY OF MOBILE INDUSTRY • TILL 1984 TELECOM SERVICES WERE UNDER STATE GOVERNMENT CONTROL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF POST AND TELEGRAPH WHICH WAS LATER CRAFTED OUT AS DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION (DOT) IN 1985. • AFTER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ANNOUNCED NATIONAL TELECOM POLICY IN 1994 TO ALLOW PRIVATE PLAYERS. MOBILE INDUSTRY HELD GROUND WAY BACK IN 1995 WITH ONLY A FEW SUBSCRIBERS. AT THAT TIME IT WAS CONSIDERED AS AN ITEM OF LUXURY AND NOT AS NECESSITY

• INDIAN TELECOM INDUSTRY HAS PENETRATED MARKET TO 43% IN LAST 10 YEARS AND SO THE INDIAN MOBILE INDUSTRY HAS UNDERGONE A REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE DURING THE PAST FEW YEARS TO BECOME ONE OF THE LEADING MOBILE MARKETS ON THE GLOBAL MAP. • ESSAR LAUNCHED FIRST MOBILE IN INDIA AND THE FIRST MOBILE OPERATION WAS PROVIDED BY MODI TELSTRA. • SLUGGISH GROWTH THEREAFTER DUE TO UNFRIENDLY TELECOM POLICIES ONLY 1 MILLION USERS TILL 1998 BUT THEN COMES NEW REGULATIONS IN 1999. • THE NUMBER OF MOBILE PHONES CROSSED FIVE MILLION BY 2001 AND DOUBLED TO 10 MILLION IN 2002.

PORTER’S FIVE FORCES MODEL: THREAT OF NEW ENTRANTS-(LOW)

• CAPITAL REQUIREMENT IS VERY HIGH TO COMPETE IN THE MARKET LIKE HUGE MANUFACTURING COSTS, HIGH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS ETC. •

BARRIERS LIKE PATENTS MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR NEW COMPETITORS, BECAUSE THE BEST METHODS ARE PATENTED.

• ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR NEW COMPETITORS TO ENTER THE MARKET BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP THOSE TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE EFFECTIVELY COMPETING.

•

ALL LEADING COMPANIES ARE FIGHTING A FIERCE BATTLE TO GAIN MORE MARKET SHARE, SO THERE WILL BE HEAVY RETALIATION TOWARDS ANY NEW ENTRY.

Threat of substitute products or services-moderate

• Smart phones do wide variety of functions so any product that specializes in one of those individual functions can be termed as a substitute. There are many substitutes if the buyer focuses on one of the functions, e.g. digital camera can take better photos then smart phones, notebooks can surf the web just as effectively and PDAs can plan a day the same way a smart phone can. • Regarding os, major threat is from substitutes like apple’s iphone and other android devices.

Bargaining power of customers (buyers)-high

• The power that customers have is rising because of the increasing number of choices in the mobile telecommunication industry and very little differentiation of products. • Less asymmetric information which means buyers have all the required information so they can bargain effectively. • Low switching costs make it easy for customers to change the products they normally purchase

BARGAINING POWER OF SUPPLIERS-MODERATE. • REGARDING SOFTWARE SUPPLIERS THERE ARE SO MANY OPEN SOURCE MOBILE OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDERS, OPTIONS ARE PLENTY AND HENCE THE BARGAINING POWER OF SOFTWARE PROVIDER IS LOW. •

THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR IS LOW BARGAINING POWER OF SUPPLIER IS THAT THERE IS INTENSE COMPETITION AMONG SUPPLIER’S ACTS TO REDUCE PRICES TO PRODUCERS.

Intensity of Existing Rivalry-high

• Competition is high with in the smartphone industry • High technology required • Appropriate marketing strategies are needed

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

Key success factors

Weight

Apple

Sony

Samsung

Microsoft

Brand reputation

0.2

9

1.80

9

1.80

8

1.60

7

1.40

No of models

0.2

6

1.20

7

1.40

8

1.60

1

0.20

Ease of use

0.15

9

1.35

7

1.05

8

1.05

5

0.75

R&D expertise

0.1

9

0.90

8

0.80

9

0.90

9

0.90

Continuous innovation

0.15

8

1.20

4

0.60

8

1.20

2

0.30

Vertical integration

0.1

10

1.00

7

0.70

8

0.80

7

0.70

Marketing / research

0.1

8

0.80

8

0.80

8

0.80

8

0.80

Weighted score

1

6.45

5.35

6.15

3.65

SWOT ANALYSIS OF SONY

STRATEGIC GROUP MAPPING high

Apple

Samsung

PRICE

Sony Microsoft Huawei Lenovo

low high

low Performance / specifications