Financial Tamper: Performance vs Goals - Essay Sample

Introduction

Although Financial Tamper did not meet all its goals for year 16, it managed to stay on top of its competitors. The biggest competitor was company D as it managed to keep up with the general performance of Financial Tamper and even outdo it in some areas. This report analyzes Financial Tamper's performance in comparison with the set goals. The focus of analysis is essential aspects such as VRIO, financial returns, and competitive performance

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Results relative to Goals for your division - a discussion of an exhibit for your goals, with your exhibit attached at the end of your report.

The set goals spanned across the financial returns and position in the industry. Financial Tamper managed to meet all the financial goals but failed to accomplish all the performance targets. The next section discusses the performance results of Financial Tamper in North America while this one analyzes the financial aspects. Table 1 shows the analysis of the two financial returns: return on equity and earnings per share. Financial Tamper exceeded the set goal for the return on equity by 0.31% while the earnings per share surpassed the goal by 5.31%. The analysis entailed a comparison between the weighted average score and these two measures.

Performance Results for your division, so qualitative metrics other than goals, e.g., layoffs, number of models, etc.; and Results Reasoning about why your division was (or was not) as successful as your expected.

Financial Tamper displayed a commendable performance in most of the qualitative metrics as compared to its competitors. The analysis in this section will focus on the number of models, the market share, and the number of sales as seen in table 1.

Market Share

The market share of Financial Tamper was 22.1% in the internet segment, 19.1% in the wholesale segment, and 33.3% in the private-label segment. Although the overall market share of Financial Tamper was the highest in the industry, it did not meet the forecasted value. Financial Tamper faced heightened competition from companies D and E. These two companies recorded market share values marginally close to Financial Tamper, meaning the company did not establish a definite competitive advantage.

Number of Models

Financial Tamper recorded 300 models in both the internet and the wholesale segment. This number was way below the expected number, which was 500. Similarly, Financial Tamper recorded a low number of models as compared to the rest of the competitors in the North America. Limited resources significantly contributed to the low numbers in terms of the number of models.

Number of Sales

Financial Tamper sold 883 pairs in the internet segment, 732 in private label, and 2,970 pairs in the wholesale sector. Similarly, these sales did not meet the expectations, especially in the wholesale section. Financial Tamper S/Q ratings and brand reputation failed to meet the set goals hence affecting the number of sales.

Results contrasted to Competitor's Results for your division, using your closest competitor for comparison and not just industry averages.

In the North American market, Financial Tamper's most significant competitor was company D, which managed to outperform it in several sectors. This report will conduct a comparison of these two companies in each segment.

Internet Segment

Financial Tamper's generally outperformed company D in the internet segment despite its lower brand reputation. Financial Tamper's market share in this segment was 22.1%, while that of D company was 21.5%. Financial Tamper performed better than company D in this segment since its total number of orders, together with the entire sales outdid those of the later. Similarly, the model availability of Financial Tamper was exceeded that of company D by 100. Likewise, the celebrity appeals for Financial Tamper was almost double that of company D. Although Financial Tamper's performance was better in this segment, the set price for the two companies was the same.

Wholesale Segment

Despite the fact that Financial Tampers had a higher S/Q rating in the wholesale segment, its general performance was lower than that of company D by a significant margin. The market share of company D exceeded that of Financial Tampers by 11.6%. The reason behind this defeat was factors such as the wholesale price, number of outlets, support, and the amount gained due to stock-outs. Generally, company D had way more stores as compared to Financial Tamper. The number of stores owned by company D was 6.79% times more than that of Financial Tamper. Similarly, company D had a higher retailer support per outlet as compared to Financial Tamper. In terms of the price, a pair at company D sold at $48 while at Financial Tamper, it went for $50. These two factors put together increased the competitive advantage of company D since customers were able to quickly locate its outlets and find lower prices as a bonus. The delivery period of both companies was the same; hence this was not a contributing factor.

Private-Label Segment

Company D did not have any shares in this segment; hence Financial Tampers automatically performed better.

Sustainable Competitive Advantage (VRIO) - how did you differentiate your division, and how much (1-10 scale) of the four elements of VRIO has been achieved or could be into future years?

This section analyses the VRIO scores (value, rarity, imitability and organization) of Financial Tamper (Smith, 1). The average VRIO performance for Financial Tampers was 6.75. This value was obtained by adding the scores for each component and dividing it by four. In terms of value, Financial Tamper's ability to withhold competition and, at the same time, exploit new opportunities was 7. In terms of rarity, the score for Financial Tamper was 6 since its control over limited resources in North America existed but only to a certain extent. Financial Tamper's imitability score was similarly 6 since several companies were offering the same products at similar operating margins. Lastly, Financial Tamper recorded an organization score of 8. An analysis of the company's systems and processes found them organized enough to utilize the available resources. Similarly, the organizational culture of Financial Tamper developed enough to accommodate changes in the industry. In the future, Financial Tamper can record a VRIO score of 8 with some improvements.

Conclusion

Financial Tamper's financial performance surpassed the set goals by a commendable margin. However, the company did not manage to firmly identify itself in the market by establishing a rooted competitive advantage. Similarly, Financial Tamper's VRIO scores were not as good as expected. The performance of Financial Tamper could significantly improve if it were to record a mean VRIO score of 8 and above.

Work Cited

Smith, Rachel. "Explaining the VRIO framework (with a real-life example): Find your company's sustainable competitive advantages using the VRIO framework." Clear Point Strategy, https://www.clearpointstrategy.com/vrio-framework/.