Case study Otis toy and Trail frash chassis

Toy Trains Explores the Supply Chain The value proposition of Otis Toy Trains of Minneapolis is to offer well designed, detailed, evocative and luxurious toy trains and their accessories to middle-aged and senior adults. The traits for its critical customers are mainly two aspects. First, the critical customers’ age generally range from 35 to 55 (born from the asses to the asses).

Second, the critical customers should have fairly high income to afford buying and collecting luxurious toy trains.

The toy trains have many order winners, such as its high brand recognition among critical customers, its attractive and evocative train series due to those experienced designers and its wide selection of related accessories. However, Otis Toy Trains still has some order losers. For example, the Otis Toy Trains’ critical customers are so narrow (only adult born from the asses to the asses), and the toy trains do not have much attractiveness among other groups; therefore, it is hard to expand market and easy to lose market.

In addition, the Otis Roy Trains does not have a method to efficiently produce and deliver its toy trains to customers, which means the cost of production and delivery is relatively high.

As a consultant, I will highly recommend the Otis Toy Trains to accept the proposal because it can cut about half of the manufacturing cost, and the outsourcing will also emancipate the Otis Toy Trains from maintaining its facilities (factories). However, outsourcing will make the quality of toy trains out of control.

For example, the Matter called back over nine million toys because its outsourcing factories in China used paint which was hazardous for health. Therefore, my recommendation is to send managers to Chinese factories and keep track of the manufacturing to make sure the quality is under the Otis Toy Trains’ control. Trail Frames Chassis Trail Frames Chassis’ value proposition is to offer customized, timely fashionable and technologically advanced motor home chassis for manufacturers who place orders for small quantities.

Its order winners include its brand recognition, timely seasonable designs, advanced technologies which are incorporated with its design perfectly and highly customized products which satisfy each customer as much as possible. In contrary, its order losers are the high cost and price, unconformity to the schedule. These two order losers also make Tech’s chassis not available to many potential customers due to its low scale of orders.

For proposed TFH chassis, it also has the brand recognition, timely fashionable designs and advanced technologies as order winners; furthermore, it has some additional order winners such as the elatedly low price, conformity to the schedule and large scale of orders. In terms of order losers, the proposed TFH chassis does not have the high cost and price and unconformity to the schedule; however, the lower flexibility of responding to customers need may cause more defect on products which will influence the company’s reputation and profit.

Therefore, both the original and proposed TFH chassis will focus on doing research on fashion and new technologies.

I would recommend TFH to accept the proposal and get into the new market. The reason is hat it is more difficult for TFH to change its operational capabilities, but it can simply target a new group to customers, which means entering the market to low-end chassis market especially when the current market is saturated.

In terms of facilities, RFC does not need to do much amendment on its existing operational capabilities because what it has to do is Just using less-expensive components. In order to increase sales, I think TFH should outsource its manufacturing of low-end chassis Just like what Tech’s major potential competitor BMW had done. The reason is that the low- ND chassis do not need to be customized, so it is easier for TFH guarantee the quality.