Science Technology

The complexity of winning a major market share was not considered well by Mr.. Flagons.

Multifaceted Issues such as the mix of business shifting towards more complex systems requiring Intensive research and development spending, short product life cycle, rapid technology obsolescence and fast growth with Increasing technology competition and the potential price competition were not taken into account. The failure to consider these issues led the CUFF to assume a large sales growth from 1985 to 1989.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

These assumptions would further hurt the financial position of the company because it would tend to hedge on the forecast by needlessly expanding capacity and increasing inventory in anticipation of strong sales. 1. Projections for Sales Growth of an additional 30% per year are too optimistic considering that competition in the market was intensifying. Other than the strong presence of Fairchild and Tektronix, the CUFF missed to consider that from 1985, the company will be facing tougher competition with the entry of Terabyte, Tasked Risen, And, Negates and LET.

Based on 1984 Sales alone Terabyte and Fluke performed 2. Future price competition brought about by new market competitors were not taken into consideration. Without a very solid technological edge Sects prices would soon find stiff competition if other competitors could find an efficient way to manufacture the products. 3. Projections for Profit after Tax (or profit margin on sales) are also too optimistic. The 1980 to 1984 data shows an average Profit after tax of just 9.

2 million or an Average Return on Sales at 4. 25% but projections for 1985 to 1 989 shows a very optimistic average profit projection of 39. Million or an Average Return on Sales of 7. 54%. The CUFF failed to take Into account the Impact of Cost of Goods Sold (COGS R&D Expenses and General Administrative Expenses which takes out the lion’s share of the Sales Revenue.

4. The assumptions made for Cost of Goods Sold at flat rate of 41% of Sales failed to consider the 1980-84 performance at 45. 8%. The company is not performing well with expensive product recalls and divisional losses due to major manufacturing losses. These major operational efficiency issues affect so much the cost for it not to e considered.