Eat's Slider Case Study Solution

In round 4 of the simulation, Erie lost ⅘ stars. The positioning of the production schedule slider affected the star outcomes heavily. Erie lost the emergency loan, contribution margin, profit, and stock price stars. Erie had two products by round 4, and both contributed to star loss. The product Eat was set at 2,300 units. The decision for Eat’s slider was made based on the sales forecast the company had set. The sales forecast came from a spreadsheet, which calculated an estimate based on previous rounds’ data. Eat targeted the high-tech segment, and one of the competing companies, Andrews, was much more appealing to the segment. Andrews had increased their production schedule by 1,000 units, and their positioning in R&D was set ahead of what the ideal position was for the high-tech segment. Because customers would buy from Andrews before they bought from Erie (based on customer satisfaction), Erie’s sales plummeted. The company ended up with 735 extra units of inventory for Eat. That much extra inventory would force the …show more content…
Stocking out on Ebb was a lost sales opportunity, so if it would have sold to its full potential, sales would have increased. Every low tech company sold out, and the market overall sold 113 units less than the market size. If more of Ebb had been produced, it would have sold those 113 units and possibly taken some market share from almost all of the other companies because Ebb’s price was lower than all but one company. Price is the most important to the low tech customers. Ebb had a lot of potentials to sell, so it is certain that the sales would have increased. Erie got the sales star originally, so it wouldn’t have affected that star, but it would have affected others. Sales increasing would have helped the profit star, which was missed by $4,773. With sales going up and costs going down, it is almost certain that Erie would have gotten the profit