Evaluation Of Ebags

780 Words 4 Pages
Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management (90 point possible)

This assessment is based on how well an organization manages information, knowledge, and technology (Schroeder et al., 2011). This requires that an integrated database for “decision making based on hard data” that is accessible to employees and includes data on suppliers, internal processes, and customers (Schroeder et al., 2011, p. 183).

Evaluation of eBags: The eBags Partner Network (EPN) data management technology tool demonstrated a high level of quality in managing the knowledge eBags obtained from customer interactions on their website and effectively shared with vendors on a daily basis (Schroeder et al., 2011). This “enabled eBags to more effectively market the product
…show more content…
Quality measures such as customer returns, return on investment, and market share are considered (Schroeder et al., 2011).

Evaluation of eBags: Product outcomes for eBags has exceeded expectations, “return rates for luggage averaged 6% to 7% of the bags sold” and was considered a “relatively low rate” (Schroeder et al., 2011, p. 529). They not only source over 15, 000 SKUs but added another 1, 000 at the request of customers. The company has provided products to meet the needs of all three market segments – high, middle, and low and launched the private label. This is a high-level of customer focus.

In early 2004, Jon Nordmark and his team gathered to review the company’s financial and market position after the holiday season and found that they had become” the largest online provider of bags and accessories” and “was one of the few internet retailer’s to turn a profit” (Schroeder et al., 2011, p. 525). eBag’s business model and leadership’s continued focus on improving the company’s quality in customer focus (launching the private label) and seeking “out additional revenue streams to sustain its high level of growth” attests to the commitment and vision of leadership. Additionally, it shows continuous improvement in their competitive advantage (Schroeder et al., 2011, p.

Related Documents