Terracog Global Positioning Systems: Conflict and Communication on Project Aerial

Although the company did show an increased gross profit of $8,255,000 with $6,358,000 less Net Sales in 2013 versus 2012, that increase is due to the reduction in product Cost of Goods Sold by $14,613,000. Since increases in product price will negatively affect sales, one of management’s primary goals is to keep prices stable. This objective is achieved through implementation of cost cutting programs, investing in more efficient equipment, and automation of more steps in the production process.

Next, the actual money that spent on this project is far exceed the budgeted amount. To date, it spent 12.55 million more than expected. However, this is not the end, there are still two testing remains incomplete which will cost company more to finish them. Regarding to each items, the item that results in the most unfavorable result is the software development that cost the company 12.90 million more to finish development. We should also notice that the items far behind the schedule are all related to the software. This tells us that the company is extremely not good at developing software. This may due to the sudden change from the medium segmentation focus to the high end products. I would initially recommend the company to have a joint venture with the other high end company to implement this project. However, as the project is almost done, the most important thing is how to promo this product that makes it profitable or at

With the entry-level cameras, our strategy was to produce them with very minimal cost to ourselves. Furthermore, by having the entry-level cameras relatively low-cost this will potentially lead to mass production, which was our intended goal for these cameras. These cameras were envisioned where any average customer could purchase it comfortably to use on a daily basis. With that being said, we figured that many other companies would attempt to tackle the same price adjustment strategy that we were operating with. We reckoned that many companies were attempting to raise their prices for entry-level cameras, having said that we altered by maintaining a fairly lower price to raise profits. Unfortunately, we realize that this isn’t working out for our company, and decided to modify the prices, however we preformed this adjustment a bit to late for any major outcomes.

All pricing decisions the team took are recorded in detail in appendix A, B and C. A summary of the same is presented in figure 1 below. Decisions were made with an informed understanding of the elasticity of demand, fleet utilisation, the gross profit, the contribution, the net profit, seasonal demand changes, the competitors pricing decisions and the context of the scenario.

Pricing is a relevant issue in procurement at all levels. Individuals purchasing the commodities of an organization should receive clarity on pricing. There is confusion in this

Clearwater Technologies’ problem is that end-user pricing for a capacity upgrade to the QTX server needed to be agreed upon in the upcoming meeting. Finance wants to increase revenue, sales wants to keep prices fair and management wants prices to stay within the margin model.

A major issue is since reducing the price 20% reduces the profit margin to 15%, to maintain the same profit while reducing the price, the sales must be $28 million for this year. This is an increase of 233% in one year to justify reducing the price this much. This is a highly unlikely target.

In addition, better communication was required at time of design of LTM-1000 between marketing and ultimately our customers to first of all build what our customers wanted. Rather than creating a monster that was assumed was what our customers would buy. Second, should there existed an effective communication guidelines between finance, marketing and R&D at the time, we possibly could have convinced LTM 1000’s target customer to foot the bill for some of development and prototype costs. I am quite aware that LTM 1000 was on Brian’s Want-List which could not have been disregarded but with better consultation with other departments, it could have turned into a more sellable product rather than a successful crowd-magnet.

However we feel that this strategy also has several weaknesses. Compared to the first option presented by the VP of Advertising, we would still need to advertise that our product is coming down in price. If we don’t advertise, the consumer is still going to be drawn to our competitors because they will remain unaware of the new parity in pricing. Also, if we

“Ensuring the requisite skills” - disagreement on price with Sales, Design, and Development teams causes conflict and lack of collaboration;

1. It is a fact that item 345 has lost market share and as the product manager I would be concerned about it. By retaining FF20 price I can gain market share only if competition increases their price to FF20. At the outset this seems unlikely because competition has

b) Another alternative should be using the negotiation method in order to develop a “win-win” situation. A negotiating party would have to be applied, “When a long period of time is required to produce the items purchased” (p 375). In these circumstances, suitable economic price adjustment clauses must be negotiated. Opportunities for various improvements may develop, such as the new manufacturing methods, new packaging possibilities, substitute materials, new plant layouts, and new tools. Negotiation permits an examination and evaluation of all these potential improvements. Competitive bidding does not. The advantage would be assurance of a long-term business with the Company along with reasonable profit for the supplier and reasonable cost for the buyer.

Significant changes in product prices- Product prices may vary within a projects lifecycle. For example, when the product first launches, it will be the full price what the project management team

It’s high time that we have to take the decision regarding the project Aerial. If we further delay the decision about launching the product, there are chances that we may lose our valuable customers and the market share. So I have made the decision to launch the product as per the schedules.

After analyzing the results from the previous quarter, it was determined that the prices set for each segment were not sufficient. Product sales priority were also not properly adjusted. With the R&D investments, sales priorities needed to be changed for the main focus to become the most profitable market segments. Prices were not competitive which in turned decreased revenue, market share, and profitability. To become more competitive we altered the prices in each market segment. The Workhorse product was the first to change, the price was lowered to $2500 in an attempt to increase sales; at this price Team 4 was still making a profit on this product, as well as making the price much more competitive. The Workhorse sales priority was also lowered to 3rd in Americas and 4th in APAC and EMEA. This product was not selling as well as we had hoped, and was no longer as profitable as it once was which led to this decision. Next, the Innovator product’s price was adjusted; this involved a price increase to $4100. This price was adjusted to include the new