+1 (208) 254-6996 [email protected]
  

capsim Board of directors report- template already provided with sample of a  5th week round according to 5th round results and reports just need to follow the already written one and capsim report file that will be attached.

MY part is round 1 and round 4 minnimum 8-9 pages of  each  round. use the same chart as used in the 5th sample round. NOT THE SAME ONE FROM FIFTH ROUND BUT THE ROUND 1 AND 4 rounds report i will attach. ITS just you have to write the results following the reports and following the templates. Its a very easy job considering everything is provided. No research or references is required. Just follow the template. I will also add 5th sample round’ results so that you have clear idea that how that report is written.  Please stick to the sample i dont need anything extra but everything around the sample and reports.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Capsim Board Of Directors Report- Template Already Provided With Sample Of A 5th Week Round According To 5th Round Results And Reports Just Need To Follow The Already Written One And Capsim Report File That Will Be Attached.
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

THE MINIMUM PAGES FOR BOTH ROUNDS WILL BE 17-18 AND maximum 22-24 in total. JUST USE THE TEMPLATE AND FILL THE ROUND 1 and 4 dont touch any other round as youll be given reports results for week 1 and 4 only.

Ill also be adding the pictures you are gonna use in round 1 and 4 like someone has used in the round 5 just make sure you do analysis based on that pictures.

THE PRICE IM gonna offer is based on the easiness of assignments sources provided, IM not ready to pay higher than that.

  • C123812
    • Front Page
    • Stock & Bonds
    • Financial Summary
    • Production Analysis
    • Traditional Segment Analysis
    • Low End Segment Analysis
    • High End Segment Analysis
    • Performance Segment Analysis
    • Size Segment Analysis
    • Market Share
    • Perceptual Map
    • HR/TQM Report
    • Ethics Report
    • Annual Report
      • Baldwin
        • Balance Sheet
        • Income Statement
  • C123812
    • Front Page
    • Stock & Bonds
    • Financial Summary
    • Production Analysis
    • Traditional Segment Analysis
    • Low End Segment Analysis
    • High End Segment Analysis
    • Performance Segment Analysis
    • Size Segment Analysis
    • Market Share
    • Perceptual Map
    • HR/TQM Report
    • Ethics Report
    • Annual Report
      • Baldwin
        • Balance Sheet
        • Income Statement

1

19

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 1

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Calendar  Description automatically generated Figure 1

Low-end:

Figure 2

High-end:

Figure 3

Performance:

Figure 4

Size:

 Figure 5

Finance

 Figure 6

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 7

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 4

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

Figure 2

High-end:

Figure 3

Performance:

Figure 4

Size:

Figure 5

Finance

Figure 6

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 7

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Customer Survey- Size

Agape Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 37 20 25 12 Buddy Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 33 51 68 86 Cure Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 44 52 52 65 Dune Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 22 25 26 36 Egg Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 6 2 2 1 Fume Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 18 19 16 6

SalesVariable Costs

(Labor,Material,

Carry)

Contribution

Margin

Contribution

Margin%/ Gross

Profit Margin

>30%

DepreciationSGA

(R&D,Promo,

Sales,Admin)

Other

(Fees,Writeoffs,

TQM,Bonuses)

EBITOperating

Profit Margin/

ROS

Interest

(Short term,

Long term)

TaxesProfit

Sharing

Net ProfitNet Profit

Margin/

Net Margin

>10%

Andrews

$117,242$86,997$30,24525.80%$9,560$17,049$1,000$2,6372.25%$10,188($2,643)$0($4,908)-4.2%

Baldwin

$150,775$117,797$32,97821.87%$9,700$26,113$1,635($4,470)-2.96%$10,025($5,073)$0($9,421)-6.2%

Chester

$115,702$78,214$37,48832.40%$8,440$24,227$1,635$3,1872.75%$7,567($1,533)$0($2,847)-2.5%

Digby

$135,979$102,007$33,97224.98%$8,440$21,099$1,175$3,2592.40%$7,003($1,310)$0($2,434)-1.8%

Erie

$70,683$53,237$17,44624.68%$7,587$8,766$0$1,0931.55%$8,627($2,637)$0($4,897)-6.9%

Ferris

$97,262$67,000$30,26231.11%$7,587$14,365$0$8,3108.54%$5,421$1,011$38$1,8401.9%

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Able Trad21% $1,700100%$3,00088%56

Baker Trad23% $1,400100%$3,00086%68

Cake Trad20% $1,400100%$3,00091%68

Daze Trad22% $1,50095%$3,00082%62

Eat Trad0% $1,00063%$1,00030%1

Fast Trad12% $2,900100%$3,00066%21

Units

Sold

InventoryRevision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr

.Marg

.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automat

ion next

Round

Capacity

Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$5.96$10.10

33%24%6.02,000123%

34%14%6.51,800114%

2,4065106-19-2024

2.9185006.214.0$28.20

1.6190007.712.3$25.49$6.16$10.11

2,29409-9-20241.4190007.112.9$24.45

$7.5326%7%5.01,800106%

2,13608-11-20241.5190007.512.5$24.99$4.9740%0%7.02,00099%$9.96

122$10.802,3588-17-20241.5190007.912.1$24.75

$8.7231%22%6.01,800118%

48400311-21-20177.1175005.514.5$28.00$9.02

-614%

0%4.01,80066%

1027$8.721,2623-4-2025

$8.38

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Acre Low20% $1,700100%$3,50086%34

Bead Low23% $1,400100%$3,00083%48

Cedar Low16% $1,400100%$3,00088%33

Candy Low9% $2,000100%$2,00088%30

Dell Low11% $1,50095%$3,00078%20

Ebb Low6% $90055%$90025%11

Feat Low11% $2,900100%$3,20070%23

Fate Low4% $2,00089%$1,50070%11

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.M

arg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automati

on next

Round

Capacity

Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$12.350%4.01,00096%

1,5077286-13-20241.7160003.216.8$19.00$7.3327%20%6.01,500116%

$6.36

$5.73

6093565-25-20241.3

30%5.01,400129%

1,4879988-16-20241.6170004.715.3$18.25$6.0718%0%6.01,65088%

2009$5.278515-24-20168.614000

600199%

25%7.01,600124%

1,19303-6-20241.4170003.616.5$18.49$8.20

2,1853026-23-20242.1170003.616.5

170003.616.4$17.99$6.98$6.3323%

100%5.0

9%

$5.7728%48%8.01,800148%2,7584389-21-20243.1175003.216.8$17.95$6.45

100%6.02,140198%3,2759816-19-20244.6

$7.56

$6.29

$6.2933%

21%

$8.5814%

$18.49$5.44

3.017.0$21.00

160004.016.0$22.00

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Adam High8% $1,700100%$3,00082%9

Aag High7% $1,00046%$1,50082%25

Bid High34% $1,400100%$3,00084%71

Cid High27% $1,400100%$3,00069%56

Duck High14% $1,50097%$2,20059%39

Echo High0% $80046%$80018%0

Fist High10% $2,900100%$3,00062%10

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$9.8832%10.39.9$38.49

90045%

393$13.504751-2-20252.524000

1,24037-24-20241.32500012.18.0$38.49$9.34

12.37.7$37.99$9.40

0%3.090072%

36%79%5.0700178%

$9.7230%

35%68%4.0950166%$15.43

$15.23

95%4.5400100%34466-24-20240.52500010.79.3$38.35$11.55$14.8431%

1,5728810-10-20241.2

36563411-27-20253.025500

25000

9.510.5$37.65$6.25$14.000%6.090065%30%

394$15.4764911-13-20241.32500011.48.6$38.00

$12.10

0%5.090096%

911684-19-20195.7230008.012.0$38.00$10.31-889%0%3.0

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Aft Pfmn18% $1,700100%$3,50075%33

Bold Pfmn33% $1,400100%$3,00081%73

Coat Pfmn22% $1,400100%$3,00067%67

Dot Pfmn18% $1,50092%$2,20058%50

Edge Pfmn2% $70038%$70017%3

Foam Pfmn7% $1,90084%$2,00040%12

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

7118211-7-20241.32700012.414.0$31.25

1,309227-21-20241.42700013.313.4$31.99

86907-15-20241.52700012.913.6$31.49

2703029-14-20252.82500010.615.5$31.49

67%4.0650165%

600124%

$10.3117%10%5.0500106%

$10.31-95%0%3.060073%

$9.39

7792215-23-20252.72850010.514.8$30.79$7.63

1210$12.28826-30-20186.5250009.415.5$33.00

$14.80

$14.6724%

$13.9924%

$8.4627%25%5.0

$9.7222%0%3.0

$14.42

30%6.5

$12.29

600130%

60099%

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Agape Size13% $1,700100%$3,50078%12

Buddy Size30% $1,400100%$3,00083%86

Cure Size31% $1,400100%$3,00067%65

Dune Size18% $1,50092%$2,00054%36

Egg Size1% $70038%$70017%1

Fume Size8% $2,900100%$2,90053%6

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.M

arg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next Round

Plant

Utiliz.

4.0650170%

$9.8827%0%4.060096%

5-25-20186.6190004.011.0$33.00$10.31-266%0%3.060063%

3.0600100%

$9.5634%100%5.0600199%

$9.7731%1%

5.560082%

$12.96

$12.14

1,154010-4-2024

4984025-14-20253.3220004.89.2$32.20$6.88

1.3210006.66.7$32.99$9.4633%

3079-28-20252.6170004.98.7$33.99

27%0%

72%

321249

0$12.731,1937-15-20241.4210006.57.1$33.49

$10.16

143$12.9470110-30-20241.4210006.27.8$32.99

492$10.45

SalesVariable Costs

(Labor,Material,

Carry)

Contribution

Margin

Contribution

Margin%/ Gross

Profit Margin

>30%

DepreciationSGA

(R&D,Promo,

Sales,Admin)

Other

(Fees,Writeoffs,

TQM,Bonuses)

EBITOperating

Profit Margin

Interest

(Short term,

Long term)

TaxesProfit

Sharing

Net ProfitNet Profit

Margin/ROS/

Net Margin

>10%

Andrews

$172,555$121,525$51,03029.57%$13,240$35,814$8,280($6,303)-3.65%$18,348($8,628)$0($16,023)-9.3%

Baldwin

$259,908$182,105$77,80329.93%$11,580$29,732$15,029$21,4628.26%$6,672$5,176$192$9,4213.6%

Chester

$230,884$153,791$77,09333.39%$12,493$32,183$15,000$17,4167.54%$6,650$3,768$140$6,8583.0%

Digby

$155,539$116,486$39,05325.11%$8,940$26,085$5,550($1,522)-0.98%$8,390($3,469)$0($6,443)-4.1%

Erie

$23,331$37,638($14,307)-61.32%$7,587$8,433$0($30,327)-129.99%$50,267($28,208)$0($52,386)-224.5%

Ferris

$114,852$84,937$29,91526.05%$11,373$38,751$15,050($35,259)-30.70%$21,529($19,876)$0($36,912)-32.1

1

19

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 1

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 2

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 3

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 4

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 5

Performance Review

R&D. The main goal in Baldwin’s R&D is to deliver the best ideal position and MTBF for each round. At the same time, it focuses on reducing the R&D time and cost as delivering sooner is worth more revenue for the company.

Traditional: In traditional segment, we have delivered the top ideal position in the segment as 8.5 performance and 11.5 size. Given +0.7 & -0.7 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 19,000. One of the main challenges in this segment has always been the age of the product to be kept as 2.0 which is hard as the yearly changes in position always makes the age in half; however, we have managed to keep the age qround 1.5 each year (Figure 1).

The revision date for our product was in July after Fast and Chester being ready in March and June respectively. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Low-end: In low-end segment, as we had 981 products in inventory, we decided to not continue this product and retire the production line. Hence, we did not make any changes to the product which made it the most ideal product in the market in terms of age as 5.5 years old compared to the ideal of 7.

High-end: In high-end segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 13.3 performance and 6.7 size with our Bid product . Given +0.9 & -0.9 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 25,000. One of the main challenges in this segment has always been the age of the product to be kept as 0.0 which is impossible as under any circumstances your product will be aged as half, given the changes (Figure 2).

The revision date for our product was in July after Fist being ready in January, as this was designed in 2023 for 2025. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Our second product in this segment was introduced in July and it was one of the most ideal positions in terms of both the ideal position as 13.4 and 6.6 for performance and size. Also, it had the age of 0 as the second buying criteria with the same 25,000 MTBF (Figure 2).

Performance: In performance segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 14.4 performance and 12.5 size with our product Bold. Given +1.0 & -0.7 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 27,000. Although the ideal age of the product was 1 to be kept, we held it around 1.4 which comprised just 9% of the customers’ buying criteria.

The revision date for our product was in July after Aft and Coat had May and June revision dates. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria (Figure 3).

Size: In size segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 7.5 performance and 5.6 size with our product Buddy. Given +0.7 & -1.0 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 21,000. We could also hold the ideal age around 1.4 which comprised second buying criteria as 29% (Figure 4).

After Agape and Cure, We had the revision date in July. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Marketing:

Traditional: Aligned with out marketing strategy, we have kept out awareness as 100% so that everyone knows about our product in traditional segment. This high awareness also contributes to having the highest customer survey as 76. We spent $1,400,000 for keeping the 100% awareness based on Capsim rules (Figure 1).

Low-end: As we retired the low-end segment, we spend no budget for marketing and we still had 100% awareness with the highest customer survey as 48.

High-end: For the older product Bid, as we had reached 100% awareness in 2023, we spend $1,400,000 to keep the awareness as high as 100% aligned with our marketing strategy for having highest awareness to out differentiated products. On the other hand, as Bull was new to the market, we needed to increase its awareness as it starts with around 36%, we spend $2,500,000 to increase its awareness by 42% to have 74% awareness and it contributed well to gain the highest customer survey as 79 in the whole market segment (Figure 2).

Performance: To follow our differentiation strategy, we spend $1,400,000 to keep the awareness as high as 100% for our product Bold which helped Balwin to have the highest customer survey as 82 in the whole segment (Figure 3).

Size: Like the other products, we followed the differentiation strategy to keep our awareness as high as 100% for Buddy and spent $1,400,000 for optimum efficiency (Figure 4).

Production & operations:

Traditional: According to Figure 1, the capacity for next round remained the same as the current 2,000 capacity supports next years’ requirements. In total, 24% of second shift was used for producing 2,503 products plus 510 incentory from previous year. The production was calculated based on catching 3% more market share to jump from 23% to 26% which was realized by 1% and we could remain the market leader with 24% market share.

Calendar  Description automatically generated Figure 1

Low-end: As we terminated the low-end production line in 2024, we just kept 1 unit of capacity left so that we can sell the 981 inventory with full price. If we had terminated the whole production once, all the left inventory would be sold half price with a big loss.

High-end: As its depicted in Figure 2, Bid was produced for 2,025 units to keep the previous year’s 34% market share. We also used 198% of the total capacity to produce the target number. On the other hand, another new high-end product was launched in 2025 named Bull targeting 12% of the whole market as 643 units. The total maket share in high-end is 40% and the target is to get half the market share, at least as this segment is one of the most profitable ones.

 Figure 2

Performance: Bold could continue to keep its 33% market share and even increase it. However, the production capacity did not let Bold be produced more than 1309 pieces. Hence, the market share decreased to 1,309 and lost a high percentage of profit from this segment. Thus, 100% of second shift was used to cover the production of Bold. For the next round, we have planned introducing a new product named Ball to capture more market share (Figure 3).

 Figure 3

Size: As illustrated in Figure 4, the total produced units was 1,287 using almost 100% of second shift capacity as 28% of the market. Last year’s market share was 30% and it could increase to 33%, however, the production line capacity did not let it happen and we lost the potential profit in 2025 from the size market. We have planned to introduce a new product for having more market share.

 Figure 4

Finance

We invested the maximum amount possible for plant improvements making the plant ready for three competitive and high-pressure consequitive years from 2026 to 2028. We invested about $99 million more than any other competitor. About $59 million was from investment and the rest of $40 million was from low-end retirement.

In round 5, we lost the number 1 position to the Chester as we lost the revenue from low-end because of its retirement. In this round, we made about $10 million profit against Chester’s $20 million profit and the total cumulative profit is about $8 million in favor of Chester. The rest of the competitors are in loss so far. In terms of contribution margin, Chester is the leader with 40.2% because of higher prices and lower positions followed by Baldwin and Andrews with 33%.

Return on sales or ROS in the early rounds typically ranges from 2% to 8%. Margins in later rounds have a potential to increase because teams have cut expenses and right-sized their production capabilities. ROS typically ranges from 5% to 15% and the leader is Chester with 8% followed by Baldwin by 4.1%. ROS is a good index of what percentage of sales had turned into the net profit ( Figure 5).

 Figure 5

Asset turnover is the embodiment of how hard it is that the company works its assets to produce sales. Our 1.27 asset turnover means the company is generating $1.27 of sales for every $1.00 of assets. Chester and Digby are doing better by 1.47 and 1.39 respectively.

Return on assets or ROA determines both margins and efficiency (ROS examines margins and asset turnover examines efficiency). Note that ROA = ROS * Asset Turnover = Profits/Sales * Sales/Assets = Profits/Assets. A typical ROA in the early rounds would fall around 6%. In round 5, Chester has the highest ROA with 11.8% followed by Baldwin by 5.2%. By the latter rounds, ROA averages around 15%. An ROA between 20% and 30% is considered excellent.

Return On Equity (ROE) determines the rate of return investors see on the money they put into the company. Equity cames to the company from either stock issues (Common Stock) or profits (Retained Earnings). According to Forbe’s Magazine, ROE is the single most often quoted statistic when describing a firm’s performance. It is also one of the statistics considered to be most useful by stockholders. Note that ROE = ROA * Leverage = Profits/Assets * Assets/Equity = Profits/Equity. Therefore, the only difference between ROA and ROE is Leverage, the use of debt. Line managers are often held accountable for ROA, while top management is held accountable for ROE. The highest ROE is for Chester as 19.7% followed by Baldwin as 10.6% and the rest of competitors are making loss and their ROE is negative. ROE between 10% and 15% could be considered “fair”, between 15% and 25% “good”, between 25% and 50% “excellent”, and anything above 50% “worthy of close inspection” as it might indicate trouble.

P/E ratio is the most common measure of how expensive a stock is. The higher the P/E ratio, the more the market is willing to pay for each dollar of annual earnings. The highest P/E ratio in round five is for Baldwin as 14.3 followed by Chester as 7.9 sowing the shareholders’ interest into paying more for Baldwin’s share.

HR & TQM

Like the previous years, we have been spending the maximum recruiting cost as $5 million to reduce employee turnover. Our current turnover rate is 6.2% as the lowest brand on a par with Chester. In this round, the separation cost was the highest as $1,940,000 against the competitors all at $0. The reason for high separation cost was the retirement of low-end segment as 2,140,000 capacity. On the other hand, Erie’s recruiting cost was the lowest by $70,000 as they are downsizing round by round as it has terminated working in 4 segments except the low-end.

For TQM, we used UNEP Green, GEMI TQEM, and the 6 Sigma programs to decrease labor & material costs. Also, Quality Initiative Training program was invested to decrease labor cost; and CPI and GEMI TQEM were invested to decrease material cost. In other programs, we invested for Vendor/JIT and Benchmarking to decrease material cost & admin overheads. Additionally, the Channel support system was used for increasing sales budget effectiveness plus Concurrent Engineering and the Quality Function Deployment Effort to decrease R&D time and cost. According to Capsim, $1,500,000 was spent on each of these programs to reach maximum efficiency. The result of spending $15 million was many improvements that led to $2 million real expense and below results:

· Material Cost Reduction by 11.35%

· Labor Cost Reduction 13.57%

· Reduction R&D Cycle Time 40.01%

· Reduction Admin Costs 60.02%

· Demand Increase 14.04%

Plans & strategies

Marketing Strategy. Baldwin’s marketing strategy is a customized strategy during which all the requirements af the customers need to be fulfilled. Given the four customer buying criteria as age, position, MTBF, and price, we have chosen to meet the customer demands exactly as it is. This strategy is also aligned with our business strategy as broad differentiation and the result has been the highest customer survey scores in all the 5 segments (Figure 6, Size segment).

The highest customer survey number implies that Baldwin products are the most differentiated ones with high awareness, accessibility, ideal age, position, price, and MTBF.

Figure 6

Sales Channel: As one of the most expensive activities since Round 1, we have been investing the optimum amount required to reach the highest accessibility. Through our aggressive expenditure on sales, we improved our salespeople, customer support, and delivery, we could improve on each round in each segment. In traditional segment we have 89% accessibility, 91% in high-end, 86% in performance, and 87% in size. The salient point is that for reaching 100% accessibility introducing two product to the segment is vital that we are doing this and next round we will have 2 products in both size and performance segment added to the high end with already two products present.

Human Resource strategy. Our HR strategy is aligned with our differentiation strategy especially in our high-end segments that our workers need to be well trained and have low turnover rate. Thanks to the high expenditures on HR and training as $5 million on HR costs and 80 hours training for each worker during the year, we could reach 6.2% turnover. In fact, we need our employees to be highly trained in what they do and at the same time be compensated so that we can implement our differentiation strategy properly and successfully.

Manufacturing strategy. Our manufacturing strategy has been to produce the highest quality products whether in low-end or high-end. As the competition is becoming so tight round by round, we have focused on optimizing our manufacturing processes to reduce the material and labor cost and increasing the contribution margin. We continued spending on UNEP Green, GEMI TQEM, 6 Sigma, Quality Initiative Training program, CPI, GEMI TQEM, Vendor/JIT and Benchmarking, Concurrent Engineering, and the Quality Function Deployment Effort. The maximum and efficient amount was spend as $1.5 million as total $15 million in 2025 just for improving our quality and manufacturing processes. The result so far has been material Cost reduction by 11.35%, labor cost reduction 13.57%, reduction in R&D cycle time 40.01%, and reduction in admin costs 60.02%.

Financial strategy. Baldwin’s financial strategy has been to invest in plant and equipment through issuing the long-term debt and equity. To realize this strategy, we have been keeping the balance between our debt and equity or leverage at around 2. Leverage of 2 means that we every one dollar of equity is paid for two dollars of asset. At the same time, we are keeping the balance of leverage to prevent takeover in case the equity goeas higher or prevent bankruptcy in case of higher debt.

In round 5, we issued $33,970 long-term debt to invest in the fixed assets like plant and equipment. Also, we purchased $6,233 of common stock to increase our leverage from 1.7 to 2. So far, we have the second highest long-term debt as $85,654,000 after Andrews for $91,250,000. Our total equity is $95 million after Chester’s with $106 million. We will keep the leverage of 2 while trying to pay off some of our long-term debts as we are paying around $11 million interest annualy which is the highest among among the competitors.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Given our differentiation strategy, we have focused completely on delivering the most differentiated products to each segment which incurs more operational costs on us.

Actions against business plans

According the business plan, we were supposed to hold at least 33% of the market share in Performance segment following the previous year’s. Also, we had planned to acquire more 6% market share in Round 5. However, we could produce just as much as 28% due to capacity problem and we just produced 1,309 products rather than 1,847 and lost profit opportunity as around $4.5 million.

For the Size segment, we had 30% of the market share and had planned to capture an extra 5% market share. Because of missed capacity limits, we could just produce as high as 28% by 1,287 units against the target by 1,601 losing $3.4 potential profit.

Departures from the business plans

The main departure against the business plan was the loss due to the low-end segment complete retirement. This departure prevented the potential profit of more than $5 million and resulted in the higher profit of the Chester team. According to the business plan we should have retired the low-end segment sooner and added performance and size products sooner. Hence, another departure was late launch of new products in both Performance and Size segments.

Significant events affecting company and/or market

The major event in round 5 was the retirement of the Baldwin’s low-end retirement caused more sales for Andrews, Chester, and Digby. This helped them sell more and make more profit.

Another significant event in Traditional segment was the optimistic estimation of all brands for gaining a high market share based on the probability that Baldwin might retire its traditional line after its low-end. Each of brands faced more than 800,000 inventory incurring emergency loan on them.

Introduing Bull to the high-end was another important event that acquired 12% of the market share in its first year. However, it caused cannibalization for Bid as they were direct competitors and it caused bid’s market share decline from 34% to 28%.

Goals relative to KPIs performance

The goal of achieving the leverage of 2 was met as we could decrease our equity by retiring about $4 million shares and issuing around $34 million long-term debt. The previous year, 2024, leverage was 1.7 and we could increase it by 0.3 in round 5.

Another goal was to acquire extra 3% market share for Traditional segment that only 1% increase happened from 23% to 24%. Also, the goal of gaining 6% market share for Bid and 12% for Bull in the high-end realized jut for Bull, however, did not happen for Bid due to cannibalization. For performance and size, the goal of acquiring more market share did not happen due to production capacity limits and around $8 million potential profit was lost.

The goal of reaching 100% market accessibility did not happen for high-end as two products exist in the segment as Bid and Bull, however, it increased to 91% from 82% and hopefully we will reach 100% accessibility in Round 6.

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

· The biggest mistake we made, was the retirement of the low-end segment without calculating the risk of losing profit. We overlooked the fact that newly introduced products have high fixed costs and they need at least two years to reach break-even point and become profitable.

· Second biggest mistake was the low production line capacity for performance and size segments. We lost the potential profit of up to $8 million profit because of losing this opportunity. On top of this profit loss, we lost at least 8% market share for both the Size and Performance segments.

· We could gain 40% market share aggregately with the introduction of the second product in the high-end segment. Although a high market share has been achieved, the Bull’s market share is 12% which did not provide much profit.

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 6

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 7

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 8

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Concerns

Risk Level

Mistakes

Competitive Base

Recommendations

Summarize how you have prepared your firm to compete in the future.

Individual components (approx. half page from each team member)

Lessons learned

How did you benefit from participating in the simulation?

Are there any lessons that you can take into the business world

Customer Survey- Size

Agape Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 37 20 25 12 25 Buddy Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 33 51 68 86 96 Cure Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 44 52 52 65 72 Dune Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 22 25 26 36 43 Egg Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 6 2 2 1 0 Fume Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 18 19 16 6 23

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Adam High4% $2,000100%$3,00090%27

Aag High13% $2,00076%$3,00090%59

Bid High28% $1,400100%$2,00091%74

Bull High12% $2,50074%$2,00091%79

Cid High22% $1,400100%$3,00076%60

Duck High10% $1,40098%$1,80055%41

Fist High12% $1,800100%$3,00073%19

2.02550011.68.4$35.45$13.63

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$5.719%0%6.090055%

68211612-3-20250.82500012.37.8$32.65$13.95$9.2030%100%4.5450198%

19093911-27-2025

6.01,800198%

63587-5-20250.52500013.46.6$37.49$14.29$8.9538%97%5.090095%

1,4914787-17-20251.32500013.3

1.42500013.07.1$37.99$13.98

$8.9836%100%6.7$37.49$14.22

$7.5442%100%5.01,100199%

53046411-7-20251.22500012.87.4$38.15$15.42$9.7028%0%3.090067%

1,2131827-2-2025

6765851-2-20252.22500011.28.5$7.1237%0%6.090096%$37.49$12.89

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Agape Size18% $2,000100%$3,00084%25

Buddy Size28% $1,400100%$3,00087%96

Cure Size26% $1,400100%$3,00074%72

Dune Size21% $1,40095%$1,80053%43

Egg Size0% $70038%$70011%0

Fume Size6% $1,500100%$2,90061%23

2.4220006.17.6$31.55$11.48

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$6.7137%17%5.5616116%

1,28707-18-20251.4210007.55.6$32.49$12.00$8.9836%100%5.01,150198%

8442505-14-2025

5.01,000199%

9771510-12-20251.3210007.06.3$33.10$12.94$11.0829%43%3.0600141%

1,19306-25-20251.5210007.2

7.6190004.011.0$33.00$9.53

$7.5442%100%6.1$32.99$11.72

$10.80-3679%0%3.060063%

2727989-28-20251.9200007.57.6$33.49$10.86$8.3122%0%5.060096%

31,6225-25-2018

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Aft Pfmn21% $2,000100%$3,00081%50

Bold Pfmn28% $1,400100%$3,00086%82

Coat Pfmn25% $1,400100%$3,00074%63

Dot Pfmn18% $1,40095%$1,80059%55

Edge Pfmn1% $70038%$70012%0

Foam Pfmn8% $1,50092%$2,00049%35

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

100%5.01,200198%

1,0153445-23-20252.22850012.413.9$29.25$13.27

7-18-20251.42700014.412.5$30.99$13.60$8.9827%

73%

1,168

1.22700013.912.9$31.30$14.85$11.3017%53%4.0750152%

9.415.5$33.00$11.61$10.80

-538%

0%3.0600

86712611-10-2025

241,6226-30-20187.525000

256-25-20251.52700013.912.9$32.99$13.30$7.5437%100%5.01,000199%

$6.3129%92%6.5600190%

1,3090

$7.1228%0%5.050096%3963899-14-20252.02700011.913.0$31.49$12.40

SalesVariable Costs

(Labor,Material,

Carry)

Contribution

Margin

Contribution

Margin%/ Gross

Profit Margin

>30%

DepreciationSGA

(R&D,Promo,

Sales,Admin)

Other

(Fees,Writeoffs,

TQM,Bonuses)

EBITOperating

Profit Margin

Interest

(Short term,

Long term)

TaxesProfit

Sharing

Net ProfitNet Profit

Margin/ROS/

Net Margin

>10%

Andrews

$213,449$141,319$72,13033.79%$14,040$37,921$15,774$4,3942.06%$24,113($6,902)$0($12,817)-6.0%

Baldwin

$245,554$163,047$82,50733.60%$13,769$30,244$11,871$26,62310.84%$10,885$5,508$205$10,0254.1%

Chester

$261,387$156,367$105,02040.18%$15,267$32,922$16,000$40,83115.62%$8,017$11,485$427$20,9028.0%

Digby

$179,192$138,105$41,08722.93%$10,240$22,456$6,300$2,0911.17%$6,777($1,640)$0($3,046)-1.7%

Erie

$17,644$41,066($23,422)-132.75%$7,587$8,394$0($39,402)-223.32%$75,985($40,385)$0($75,002)-425.1%

Ferris

$154,811$101,346$53,46534.54%$12,920$31,544$15,000($6,000)-3.88%$31,865($13,253)$0($24,612)-15.9

1

19

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 1

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 2

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 3

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 4

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 5

Performance Review

R&D. The main goal in Baldwin’s R&D is to deliver the best ideal position and MTBF for each round. At the same time, it focuses on reducing the R&D time and cost as delivering sooner is worth more revenue for the company.

Traditional: In traditional segment, we have delivered the top ideal position in the segment as 8.5 performance and 11.5 size. Given +0.7 & -0.7 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 19,000. One of the main challenges in this segment has always been the age of the product to be kept as 2.0 which is hard as the yearly changes in position always makes the age in half; however, we have managed to keep the age qround 1.5 each year (Figure 1).

The revision date for our product was in July after Fast and Chester being ready in March and June respectively. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Low-end: In low-end segment, as we had 981 products in inventory, we decided to not continue this product and retire the production line. Hence, we did not make any changes to the product which made it the most ideal product in the market in terms of age as 5.5 years old compared to the ideal of 7.

High-end: In high-end segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 13.3 performance and 6.7 size with our Bid product . Given +0.9 & -0.9 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 25,000. One of the main challenges in this segment has always been the age of the product to be kept as 0.0 which is impossible as under any circumstances your product will be aged as half, given the changes (Figure 2).

The revision date for our product was in July after Fist being ready in January, as this was designed in 2023 for 2025. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Our second product in this segment was introduced in July and it was one of the most ideal positions in terms of both the ideal position as 13.4 and 6.6 for performance and size. Also, it had the age of 0 as the second buying criteria with the same 25,000 MTBF (Figure 2).

Performance: In performance segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 14.4 performance and 12.5 size with our product Bold. Given +1.0 & -0.7 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 27,000. Although the ideal age of the product was 1 to be kept, we held it around 1.4 which comprised just 9% of the customers’ buying criteria.

The revision date for our product was in July after Aft and Coat had May and June revision dates. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria (Figure 3).

Size: In size segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 7.5 performance and 5.6 size with our product Buddy. Given +0.7 & -1.0 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 21,000. We could also hold the ideal age around 1.4 which comprised second buying criteria as 29% (Figure 4).

After Agape and Cure, We had the revision date in July. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Marketing:

Traditional: Aligned with out marketing strategy, we have kept out awareness as 100% so that everyone knows about our product in traditional segment. This high awareness also contributes to having the highest customer survey as 76. We spent $1,400,000 for keeping the 100% awareness based on Capsim rules (Figure 1).

Low-end: As we retired the low-end segment, we spend no budget for marketing and we still had 100% awareness with the highest customer survey as 48.

High-end: For the older product Bid, as we had reached 100% awareness in 2023, we spend $1,400,000 to keep the awareness as high as 100% aligned with our marketing strategy for having highest awareness to out differentiated products. On the other hand, as Bull was new to the market, we needed to increase its awareness as it starts with around 36%, we spend $2,500,000 to increase its awareness by 42% to have 74% awareness and it contributed well to gain the highest customer survey as 79 in the whole market segment (Figure 2).

Performance: To follow our differentiation strategy, we spend $1,400,000 to keep the awareness as high as 100% for our product Bold which helped Balwin to have the highest customer survey as 82 in the whole segment (Figure 3).

Size: Like the other products, we followed the differentiation strategy to keep our awareness as high as 100% for Buddy and spent $1,400,000 for optimum efficiency (Figure 4).

Production & operations:

Traditional: According to Figure 1, the capacity for next round remained the same as the current 2,000 capacity supports next years’ requirements. In total, 24% of second shift was used for producing 2,503 products plus 510 incentory from previous year. The production was calculated based on catching 3% more market share to jump from 23% to 26% which was realized by 1% and we could remain the market leader with 24% market share.

Calendar  Description automatically generated Figure 1

Low-end: As we terminated the low-end production line in 2024, we just kept 1 unit of capacity left so that we can sell the 981 inventory with full price. If we had terminated the whole production once, all the left inventory would be sold half price with a big loss.

High-end: As its depicted in Figure 2, Bid was produced for 2,025 units to keep the previous year’s 34% market share. We also used 198% of the total capacity to produce the target number. On the other hand, another new high-end product was launched in 2025 named Bull targeting 12% of the whole market as 643 units. The total maket share in high-end is 40% and the target is to get half the market share, at least as this segment is one of the most profitable ones.

 Figure 2

Performance: Bold could continue to keep its 33% market share and even increase it. However, the production capacity did not let Bold be produced more than 1309 pieces. Hence, the market share decreased to 1,309 and lost a high percentage of profit from this segment. Thus, 100% of second shift was used to cover the production of Bold. For the next round, we have planned introducing a new product named Ball to capture more market share (Figure 3).

 Figure 3

Size: As illustrated in Figure 4, the total produced units was 1,287 using almost 100% of second shift capacity as 28% of the market. Last year’s market share was 30% and it could increase to 33%, however, the production line capacity did not let it happen and we lost the potential profit in 2025 from the size market. We have planned to introduce a new product for having more market share.

 Figure 4

Finance

We invested the maximum amount possible for plant improvements making the plant ready for three competitive and high-pressure consequitive years from 2026 to 2028. We invested about $99 million more than any other competitor. About $59 million was from investment and the rest of $40 million was from low-end retirement.

In round 5, we lost the number 1 position to the Chester as we lost the revenue from low-end because of its retirement. In this round, we made about $10 million profit against Chester’s $20 million profit and the total cumulative profit is about $8 million in favor of Chester. The rest of the competitors are in loss so far. In terms of contribution margin, Chester is the leader with 40.2% because of higher prices and lower positions followed by Baldwin and Andrews with 33%.

Return on sales or ROS in the early rounds typically ranges from 2% to 8%. Margins in later rounds have a potential to increase because teams have cut expenses and right-sized their production capabilities. ROS typically ranges from 5% to 15% and the leader is Chester with 8% followed by Baldwin by 4.1%. ROS is a good index of what percentage of sales had turned into the net profit ( Figure 5).

 Figure 5

Asset turnover is the embodiment of how hard it is that the company works its assets to produce sales. Our 1.27 asset turnover means the company is generating $1.27 of sales for every $1.00 of assets. Chester and Digby are doing better by 1.47 and 1.39 respectively.

Return on assets or ROA determines both margins and efficiency (ROS examines margins and asset turnover examines efficiency). Note that ROA = ROS * Asset Turnover = Profits/Sales * Sales/Assets = Profits/Assets. A typical ROA in the early rounds would fall around 6%. In round 5, Chester has the highest ROA with 11.8% followed by Baldwin by 5.2%. By the latter rounds, ROA averages around 15%. An ROA between 20% and 30% is considered excellent.

Return On Equity (ROE) determines the rate of return investors see on the money they put into the company. Equity cames to the company from either stock issues (Common Stock) or profits (Retained Earnings). According to Forbe’s Magazine, ROE is the single most often quoted statistic when describing a firm’s performance. It is also one of the statistics considered to be most useful by stockholders. Note that ROE = ROA * Leverage = Profits/Assets * Assets/Equity = Profits/Equity. Therefore, the only difference between ROA and ROE is Leverage, the use of debt. Line managers are often held accountable for ROA, while top management is held accountable for ROE. The highest ROE is for Chester as 19.7% followed by Baldwin as 10.6% and the rest of competitors are making loss and their ROE is negative. ROE between 10% and 15% could be considered “fair”, between 15% and 25% “good”, between 25% and 50% “excellent”, and anything above 50% “worthy of close inspection” as it might indicate trouble.

P/E ratio is the most common measure of how expensive a stock is. The higher the P/E ratio, the more the market is willing to pay for each dollar of annual earnings. The highest P/E ratio in round five is for Baldwin as 14.3 followed by Chester as 7.9 sowing the shareholders’ interest into paying more for Baldwin’s share.

HR & TQM

Like the previous years, we have been spending the maximum recruiting cost as $5 million to reduce employee turnover. Our current turnover rate is 6.2% as the lowest brand on a par with Chester. In this round, the separation cost was the highest as $1,940,000 against the competitors all at $0. The reason for high separation cost was the retirement of low-end segment as 2,140,000 capacity. On the other hand, Erie’s recruiting cost was the lowest by $70,000 as they are downsizing round by round as it has terminated working in 4 segments except the low-end.

For TQM, we used UNEP Green, GEMI TQEM, and the 6 Sigma programs to decrease labor & material costs. Also, Quality Initiative Training program was invested to decrease labor cost; and CPI and GEMI TQEM were invested to decrease material cost. In other programs, we invested for Vendor/JIT and Benchmarking to decrease material cost & admin overheads. Additionally, the Channel support system was used for increasing sales budget effectiveness plus Concurrent Engineering and the Quality Function Deployment Effort to decrease R&D time and cost. According to Capsim, $1,500,000 was spent on each of these programs to reach maximum efficiency. The result of spending $15 million was many improvements that led to $2 million real expense and below results:

· Material Cost Reduction by 11.35%

· Labor Cost Reduction 13.57%

· Reduction R&D Cycle Time 40.01%

· Reduction Admin Costs 60.02%

· Demand Increase 14.04%

Plans & strategies

Marketing Strategy. Baldwin’s marketing strategy is a customized strategy during which all the requirements af the customers need to be fulfilled. Given the four customer buying criteria as age, position, MTBF, and price, we have chosen to meet the customer demands exactly as it is. This strategy is also aligned with our business strategy as broad differentiation and the result has been the highest customer survey scores in all the 5 segments (Figure 6, Size segment).

The highest customer survey number implies that Baldwin products are the most differentiated ones with high awareness, accessibility, ideal age, position, price, and MTBF.

Figure 6

Sales Channel: As one of the most expensive activities since Round 1, we have been investing the optimum amount required to reach the highest accessibility. Through our aggressive expenditure on sales, we improved our salespeople, customer support, and delivery, we could improve on each round in each segment. In traditional segment we have 89% accessibility, 91% in high-end, 86% in performance, and 87% in size. The salient point is that for reaching 100% accessibility introducing two product to the segment is vital that we are doing this and next round we will have 2 products in both size and performance segment added to the high end with already two products present.

Human Resource strategy. Our HR strategy is aligned with our differentiation strategy especially in our high-end segments that our workers need to be well trained and have low turnover rate. Thanks to the high expenditures on HR and training as $5 million on HR costs and 80 hours training for each worker during the year, we could reach 6.2% turnover. In fact, we need our employees to be highly trained in what they do and at the same time be compensated so that we can implement our differentiation strategy properly and successfully.

Manufacturing strategy. Our manufacturing strategy has been to produce the highest quality products whether in low-end or high-end. As the competition is becoming so tight round by round, we have focused on optimizing our manufacturing processes to reduce the material and labor cost and increasing the contribution margin. We continued spending on UNEP Green, GEMI TQEM, 6 Sigma, Quality Initiative Training program, CPI, GEMI TQEM, Vendor/JIT and Benchmarking, Concurrent Engineering, and the Quality Function Deployment Effort. The maximum and efficient amount was spend as $1.5 million as total $15 million in 2025 just for improving our quality and manufacturing processes. The result so far has been material Cost reduction by 11.35%, labor cost reduction 13.57%, reduction in R&D cycle time 40.01%, and reduction in admin costs 60.02%.

Financial strategy. Baldwin’s financial strategy has been to invest in plant and equipment through issuing the long-term debt and equity. To realize this strategy, we have been keeping the balance between our debt and equity or leverage at around 2. Leverage of 2 means that we every one dollar of equity is paid for two dollars of asset. At the same time, we are keeping the balance of leverage to prevent takeover in case the equity goeas higher or prevent bankruptcy in case of higher debt.

In round 5, we issued $33,970 long-term debt to invest in the fixed assets like plant and equipment. Also, we purchased $6,233 of common stock to increase our leverage from 1.7 to 2. So far, we have the second highest long-term debt as $85,654,000 after Andrews for $91,250,000. Our total equity is $95 million after Chester’s with $106 million. We will keep the leverage of 2 while trying to pay off some of our long-term debts as we are paying around $11 million interest annualy which is the highest among among the competitors.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Given our differentiation strategy, we have focused completely on delivering the most differentiated products to each segment which incurs more operational costs on us.

Actions against business plans

According the business plan, we were supposed to hold at least 33% of the market share in Performance segment following the previous year’s. Also, we had planned to acquire more 6% market share in Round 5. However, we could produce just as much as 28% due to capacity problem and we just produced 1,309 products rather than 1,847 and lost profit opportunity as around $4.5 million.

For the Size segment, we had 30% of the market share and had planned to capture an extra 5% market share. Because of missed capacity limits, we could just produce as high as 28% by 1,287 units against the target by 1,601 losing $3.4 potential profit.

Departures from the business plans

The main departure against the business plan was the loss due to the low-end segment complete retirement. This departure prevented the potential profit of more than $5 million and resulted in the higher profit of the Chester team. According to the business plan we should have retired the low-end segment sooner and added performance and size products sooner. Hence, another departure was late launch of new products in both Performance and Size segments.

Significant events affecting company and/or market

The major event in round 5 was the retirement of the Baldwin’s low-end retirement caused more sales for Andrews, Chester, and Digby. This helped them sell more and make more profit.

Another significant event in Traditional segment was the optimistic estimation of all brands for gaining a high market share based on the probability that Baldwin might retire its traditional line after its low-end. Each of brands faced more than 800,000 inventory incurring emergency loan on them.

Introduing Bull to the high-end was another important event that acquired 12% of the market share in its first year. However, it caused cannibalization for Bid as they were direct competitors and it caused bid’s market share decline from 34% to 28%.

Goals relative to KPIs performance

The goal of achieving the leverage of 2 was met as we could decrease our equity by retiring about $4 million shares and issuing around $34 million long-term debt. The previous year, 2024, leverage was 1.7 and we could increase it by 0.3 in round 5.

Another goal was to acquire extra 3% market share for Traditional segment that only 1% increase happened from 23% to 24%. Also, the goal of gaining 6% market share for Bid and 12% for Bull in the high-end realized jut for Bull, however, did not happen for Bid due to cannibalization. For performance and size, the goal of acquiring more market share did not happen due to production capacity limits and around $8 million potential profit was lost.

The goal of reaching 100% market accessibility did not happen for high-end as two products exist in the segment as Bid and Bull, however, it increased to 91% from 82% and hopefully we will reach 100% accessibility in Round 6.

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

· The biggest mistake we made, was the retirement of the low-end segment without calculating the risk of losing profit. We overlooked the fact that newly introduced products have high fixed costs and they need at least two years to reach break-even point and become profitable.

· Second biggest mistake was the low production line capacity for performance and size segments. We lost the potential profit of up to $8 million profit because of losing this opportunity. On top of this profit loss, we lost at least 8% market share for both the Size and Performance segments.

· We could gain 40% market share aggregately with the introduction of the second product in the high-end segment. Although a high market share has been achieved, the Bull’s market share is 12% which did not provide much profit.

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 6

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 7

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 8

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Concerns

Risk Level

Mistakes

Competitive Base

Recommendations

Summarize how you have prepared your firm to compete in the future.

Individual components (approx. half page from each team member)

Lessons learned

How did you benefit from participating in the simulation?

Are there any lessons that you can take into the business world

Customer Survey- Size

Agape Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 37 20 25 12 25 Buddy Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 33 51 68 86 96 Cure Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 44 52 52 65 72 Dune Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 22 25 26 36 43 Egg Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 6 2 2 1 0 Fume Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 18 19 16 6 23

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Adam High4% $2,000100%$3,00090%27

Aag High13% $2,00076%$3,00090%59

Bid High28% $1,400100%$2,00091%74

Bull High12% $2,50074%$2,00091%79

Cid High22% $1,400100%$3,00076%60

Duck High10% $1,40098%$1,80055%41

Fist High12% $1,800100%$3,00073%19

2.02550011.68.4$35.45$13.63

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$5.719%0%6.090055%

68211612-3-20250.82500012.37.8$32.65$13.95$9.2030%100%4.5450198%

19093911-27-2025

6.01,800198%

63587-5-20250.52500013.46.6$37.49$14.29$8.9538%97%5.090095%

1,4914787-17-20251.32500013.3

1.42500013.07.1$37.99$13.98

$8.9836%100%6.7$37.49$14.22

$7.5442%100%5.01,100199%

53046411-7-20251.22500012.87.4$38.15$15.42$9.7028%0%3.090067%

1,2131827-2-2025

6765851-2-20252.22500011.28.5$7.1237%0%6.090096%$37.49$12.89

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Agape Size18% $2,000100%$3,00084%25

Buddy Size28% $1,400100%$3,00087%96

Cure Size26% $1,400100%$3,00074%72

Dune Size21% $1,40095%$1,80053%43

Egg Size0% $70038%$70011%0

Fume Size6% $1,500100%$2,90061%23

2.4220006.17.6$31.55$11.48

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$6.7137%17%5.5616116%

1,28707-18-20251.4210007.55.6$32.49$12.00$8.9836%100%5.01,150198%

8442505-14-2025

5.01,000199%

9771510-12-20251.3210007.06.3$33.10$12.94$11.0829%43%3.0600141%

1,19306-25-20251.5210007.2

7.6190004.011.0$33.00$9.53

$7.5442%100%6.1$32.99$11.72

$10.80-3679%0%3.060063%

2727989-28-20251.9200007.57.6$33.49$10.86$8.3122%0%5.060096%

31,6225-25-2018

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Aft Pfmn21% $2,000100%$3,00081%50

Bold Pfmn28% $1,400100%$3,00086%82

Coat Pfmn25% $1,400100%$3,00074%63

Dot Pfmn18% $1,40095%$1,80059%55

Edge Pfmn1% $70038%$70012%0

Foam Pfmn8% $1,50092%$2,00049%35

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

100%5.01,200198%

1,0153445-23-20252.22850012.413.9$29.25$13.27

7-18-20251.42700014.412.5$30.99$13.60$8.9827%

73%

1,168

1.22700013.912.9$31.30$14.85$11.3017%53%4.0750152%

9.415.5$33.00$11.61$10.80

-538%

0%3.0600

86712611-10-2025

241,6226-30-20187.525000

256-25-20251.52700013.912.9$32.99$13.30$7.5437%100%5.01,000199%

$6.3129%92%6.5600190%

1,3090

$7.1228%0%5.050096%3963899-14-20252.02700011.913.0$31.49$12.40

SalesVariable Costs

(Labor,Material,

Carry)

Contribution

Margin

Contribution

Margin%/ Gross

Profit Margin

>30%

DepreciationSGA

(R&D,Promo,

Sales,Admin)

Other

(Fees,Writeoffs,

TQM,Bonuses)

EBITOperating

Profit Margin

Interest

(Short term,

Long term)

TaxesProfit

Sharing

Net ProfitNet Profit

Margin/ROS/

Net Margin

>10%

Andrews

$213,449$141,319$72,13033.79%$14,040$37,921$15,774$4,3942.06%$24,113($6,902)$0($12,817)-6.0%

Baldwin

$245,554$163,047$82,50733.60%$13,769$30,244$11,871$26,62310.84%$10,885$5,508$205$10,0254.1%

Chester

$261,387$156,367$105,02040.18%$15,267$32,922$16,000$40,83115.62%$8,017$11,485$427$20,9028.0%

Digby

$179,192$138,105$41,08722.93%$10,240$22,456$6,300$2,0911.17%$6,777($1,640)$0($3,046)-1.7%

Erie

$17,644$41,066($23,422)-132.75%$7,587$8,394$0($39,402)-223.32%$75,985($40,385)$0($75,002)-425.1%

Ferris

$154,811$101,346$53,46534.54%$12,920$31,544$15,000($6,000)-3.88%$31,865($13,253)$0($24,612)-15.9

1

19

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 1

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 2

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 3

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 4

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 5

Performance Review

R&D. The main goal in Baldwin’s R&D is to deliver the best ideal position and MTBF for each round. At the same time, it focuses on reducing the R&D time and cost as delivering sooner is worth more revenue for the company.

Traditional: In traditional segment, we have delivered the top ideal position in the segment as 8.5 performance and 11.5 size. Given +0.7 & -0.7 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 19,000. One of the main challenges in this segment has always been the age of the product to be kept as 2.0 which is hard as the yearly changes in position always makes the age in half; however, we have managed to keep the age qround 1.5 each year (Figure 1).

The revision date for our product was in July after Fast and Chester being ready in March and June respectively. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Low-end: In low-end segment, as we had 981 products in inventory, we decided to not continue this product and retire the production line. Hence, we did not make any changes to the product which made it the most ideal product in the market in terms of age as 5.5 years old compared to the ideal of 7.

High-end: In high-end segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 13.3 performance and 6.7 size with our Bid product . Given +0.9 & -0.9 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 25,000. One of the main challenges in this segment has always been the age of the product to be kept as 0.0 which is impossible as under any circumstances your product will be aged as half, given the changes (Figure 2).

The revision date for our product was in July after Fist being ready in January, as this was designed in 2023 for 2025. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Our second product in this segment was introduced in July and it was one of the most ideal positions in terms of both the ideal position as 13.4 and 6.6 for performance and size. Also, it had the age of 0 as the second buying criteria with the same 25,000 MTBF (Figure 2).

Performance: In performance segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 14.4 performance and 12.5 size with our product Bold. Given +1.0 & -0.7 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 27,000. Although the ideal age of the product was 1 to be kept, we held it around 1.4 which comprised just 9% of the customers’ buying criteria.

The revision date for our product was in July after Aft and Coat had May and June revision dates. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria (Figure 3).

Size: In size segment, we have delivered the top ideal positions in the segment as 7.5 performance and 5.6 size with our product Buddy. Given +0.7 & -1.0 drift rate for this segment, the main challenge has been to prepare the new ideal position for sales. The MTBF has also been one of the main criteria to meet customer demands as 21,000. We could also hold the ideal age around 1.4 which comprised second buying criteria as 29% (Figure 4).

After Agape and Cure, We had the revision date in July. The main reason for this delay, beside spending on TQM as having 40% reduction in R&D time, was the process of keeping the ideal position against the other products that did not meet this criteria.

Marketing:

Traditional: Aligned with out marketing strategy, we have kept out awareness as 100% so that everyone knows about our product in traditional segment. This high awareness also contributes to having the highest customer survey as 76. We spent $1,400,000 for keeping the 100% awareness based on Capsim rules (Figure 1).

Low-end: As we retired the low-end segment, we spend no budget for marketing and we still had 100% awareness with the highest customer survey as 48.

High-end: For the older product Bid, as we had reached 100% awareness in 2023, we spend $1,400,000 to keep the awareness as high as 100% aligned with our marketing strategy for having highest awareness to out differentiated products. On the other hand, as Bull was new to the market, we needed to increase its awareness as it starts with around 36%, we spend $2,500,000 to increase its awareness by 42% to have 74% awareness and it contributed well to gain the highest customer survey as 79 in the whole market segment (Figure 2).

Performance: To follow our differentiation strategy, we spend $1,400,000 to keep the awareness as high as 100% for our product Bold which helped Balwin to have the highest customer survey as 82 in the whole segment (Figure 3).

Size: Like the other products, we followed the differentiation strategy to keep our awareness as high as 100% for Buddy and spent $1,400,000 for optimum efficiency (Figure 4).

Production & operations:

Traditional: According to Figure 1, the capacity for next round remained the same as the current 2,000 capacity supports next years’ requirements. In total, 24% of second shift was used for producing 2,503 products plus 510 incentory from previous year. The production was calculated based on catching 3% more market share to jump from 23% to 26% which was realized by 1% and we could remain the market leader with 24% market share.

Calendar Description automatically generated Figure 1

Low-end: As we terminated the low-end production line in 2024, we just kept 1 unit of capacity left so that we can sell the 981 inventory with full price. If we had terminated the whole production once, all the left inventory would be sold half price with a big loss.

High-end: As its depicted in Figure 2, Bid was produced for 2,025 units to keep the previous year’s 34% market share. We also used 198% of the total capacity to produce the target number. On the other hand, another new high-end product was launched in 2025 named Bull targeting 12% of the whole market as 643 units. The total maket share in high-end is 40% and the target is to get half the market share, at least as this segment is one of the most profitable ones.

Figure 2

Performance: Bold could continue to keep its 33% market share and even increase it. However, the production capacity did not let Bold be produced more than 1309 pieces. Hence, the market share decreased to 1,309 and lost a high percentage of profit from this segment. Thus, 100% of second shift was used to cover the production of Bold. For the next round, we have planned introducing a new product named Ball to capture more market share (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Size: As illustrated in Figure 4, the total produced units was 1,287 using almost 100% of second shift capacity as 28% of the market. Last year’s market share was 30% and it could increase to 33%, however, the production line capacity did not let it happen and we lost the potential profit in 2025 from the size market. We have planned to introduce a new product for having more market share.

Figure 4

Finance

We invested the maximum amount possible for plant improvements making the plant ready for three competitive and high-pressure consequitive years from 2026 to 2028. We invested about $99 million more than any other competitor. About $59 million was from investment and the rest of $40 million was from low-end retirement.

In round 5, we lost the number 1 position to the Chester as we lost the revenue from low-end because of its retirement. In this round, we made about $10 million profit against Chester’s $20 million profit and the total cumulative profit is about $8 million in favor of Chester. The rest of the competitors are in loss so far. In terms of contribution margin, Chester is the leader with 40.2% because of higher prices and lower positions followed by Baldwin and Andrews with 33%.

Return on sales or ROS in the early rounds typically ranges from 2% to 8%. Margins in later rounds have a potential to increase because teams have cut expenses and right-sized their production capabilities. ROS typically ranges from 5% to 15% and the leader is Chester with 8% followed by Baldwin by 4.1%. ROS is a good index of what percentage of sales had turned into the net profit ( Figure 5).

Figure 5

Asset turnover is the embodiment of how hard it is that the company works its assets to produce sales. Our 1.27 asset turnover means the company is generating $1.27 of sales for every $1.00 of assets. Chester and Digby are doing better by 1.47 and 1.39 respectively.

Return on assets or ROA determines both margins and efficiency (ROS examines margins and asset turnover examines efficiency). Note that ROA = ROS * Asset Turnover = Profits/Sales * Sales/Assets = Profits/Assets. A typical ROA in the early rounds would fall around 6%. In round 5, Chester has the highest ROA with 11.8% followed by Baldwin by 5.2%. By the latter rounds, ROA averages around 15%. An ROA between 20% and 30% is considered excellent.

Return On Equity (ROE) determines the rate of return investors see on the money they put into the company. Equity cames to the company from either stock issues (Common Stock) or profits (Retained Earnings). According to Forbe’s Magazine, ROE is the single most often quoted statistic when describing a firm’s performance. It is also one of the statistics considered to be most useful by stockholders. Note that ROE = ROA * Leverage = Profits/Assets * Assets/Equity = Profits/Equity. Therefore, the only difference between ROA and ROE is Leverage, the use of debt. Line managers are often held accountable for ROA, while top management is held accountable for ROE. The highest ROE is for Chester as 19.7% followed by Baldwin as 10.6% and the rest of competitors are making loss and their ROE is negative. ROE between 10% and 15% could be considered “fair”, between 15% and 25% “good”, between 25% and 50% “excellent”, and anything above 50% “worthy of close inspection” as it might indicate trouble.

P/E ratio is the most common measure of how expensive a stock is. The higher the P/E ratio, the more the market is willing to pay for each dollar of annual earnings. The highest P/E ratio in round five is for Baldwin as 14.3 followed by Chester as 7.9 sowing the shareholders’ interest into paying more for Baldwin’s share.

HR & TQM

Like the previous years, we have been spending the maximum recruiting cost as $5 million to reduce employee turnover. Our current turnover rate is 6.2% as the lowest brand on a par with Chester. In this round, the separation cost was the highest as $1,940,000 against the competitors all at $0. The reason for high separation cost was the retirement of low-end segment as 2,140,000 capacity. On the other hand, Erie’s recruiting cost was the lowest by $70,000 as they are downsizing round by round as it has terminated working in 4 segments except the low-end.

For TQM, we used UNEP Green, GEMI TQEM, and the 6 Sigma programs to decrease labor & material costs. Also, Quality Initiative Training program was invested to decrease labor cost; and CPI and GEMI TQEM were invested to decrease material cost. In other programs, we invested for Vendor/JIT and Benchmarking to decrease material cost & admin overheads. Additionally, the Channel support system was used for increasing sales budget effectiveness plus Concurrent Engineering and the Quality Function Deployment Effort to decrease R&D time and cost. According to Capsim, $1,500,000 was spent on each of these programs to reach maximum efficiency. The result of spending $15 million was many improvements that led to $2 million real expense and below results:

· Material Cost Reduction by 11.35%

· Labor Cost Reduction 13.57%

· Reduction R&D Cycle Time 40.01%

· Reduction Admin Costs 60.02%

· Demand Increase 14.04%

Plans & strategies

Marketing Strategy. Baldwin’s marketing strategy is a customized strategy during which all the requirements af the customers need to be fulfilled. Given the four customer buying criteria as age, position, MTBF, and price, we have chosen to meet the customer demands exactly as it is. This strategy is also aligned with our business strategy as broad differentiation and the result has been the highest customer survey scores in all the 5 segments (Figure 6, Size segment).

The highest customer survey number implies that Baldwin products are the most differentiated ones with high awareness, accessibility, ideal age, position, price, and MTBF.

Figure 6

Sales Channel: As one of the most expensive activities since Round 1, we have been investing the optimum amount required to reach the highest accessibility. Through our aggressive expenditure on sales, we improved our salespeople, customer support, and delivery, we could improve on each round in each segment. In traditional segment we have 89% accessibility, 91% in high-end, 86% in performance, and 87% in size. The salient point is that for reaching 100% accessibility introducing two product to the segment is vital that we are doing this and next round we will have 2 products in both size and performance segment added to the high end with already two products present.

Human Resource strategy. Our HR strategy is aligned with our differentiation strategy especially in our high-end segments that our workers need to be well trained and have low turnover rate. Thanks to the high expenditures on HR and training as $5 million on HR costs and 80 hours training for each worker during the year, we could reach 6.2% turnover. In fact, we need our employees to be highly trained in what they do and at the same time be compensated so that we can implement our differentiation strategy properly and successfully.

Manufacturing strategy. Our manufacturing strategy has been to produce the highest quality products whether in low-end or high-end. As the competition is becoming so tight round by round, we have focused on optimizing our manufacturing processes to reduce the material and labor cost and increasing the contribution margin. We continued spending on UNEP Green, GEMI TQEM, 6 Sigma, Quality Initiative Training program, CPI, GEMI TQEM, Vendor/JIT and Benchmarking, Concurrent Engineering, and the Quality Function Deployment Effort. The maximum and efficient amount was spend as $1.5 million as total $15 million in 2025 just for improving our quality and manufacturing processes. The result so far has been material Cost reduction by 11.35%, labor cost reduction 13.57%, reduction in R&D cycle time 40.01%, and reduction in admin costs 60.02%.

Financial strategy. Baldwin’s financial strategy has been to invest in plant and equipment through issuing the long-term debt and equity. To realize this strategy, we have been keeping the balance between our debt and equity or leverage at around 2. Leverage of 2 means that we every one dollar of equity is paid for two dollars of asset. At the same time, we are keeping the balance of leverage to prevent takeover in case the equity goeas higher or prevent bankruptcy in case of higher debt.

In round 5, we issued $33,970 long-term debt to invest in the fixed assets like plant and equipment. Also, we purchased $6,233 of common stock to increase our leverage from 1.7 to 2. So far, we have the second highest long-term debt as $85,654,000 after Andrews for $91,250,000. Our total equity is $95 million after Chester’s with $106 million. We will keep the leverage of 2 while trying to pay off some of our long-term debts as we are paying around $11 million interest annualy which is the highest among among the competitors.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Given our differentiation strategy, we have focused completely on delivering the most differentiated products to each segment which incurs more operational costs on us.

Actions against business plans

According the business plan, we were supposed to hold at least 33% of the market share in Performance segment following the previous year’s. Also, we had planned to acquire more 6% market share in Round 5. However, we could produce just as much as 28% due to capacity problem and we just produced 1,309 products rather than 1,847 and lost profit opportunity as around $4.5 million.

For the Size segment, we had 30% of the market share and had planned to capture an extra 5% market share. Because of missed capacity limits, we could just produce as high as 28% by 1,287 units against the target by 1,601 losing $3.4 potential profit.

Departures from the business plans

The main departure against the business plan was the loss due to the low-end segment complete retirement. This departure prevented the potential profit of more than $5 million and resulted in the higher profit of the Chester team. According to the business plan we should have retired the low-end segment sooner and added performance and size products sooner. Hence, another departure was late launch of new products in both Performance and Size segments.

Significant events affecting company and/or market

The major event in round 5 was the retirement of the Baldwin’s low-end retirement caused more sales for Andrews, Chester, and Digby. This helped them sell more and make more profit.

Another significant event in Traditional segment was the optimistic estimation of all brands for gaining a high market share based on the probability that Baldwin might retire its traditional line after its low-end. Each of brands faced more than 800,000 inventory incurring emergency loan on them.

Introduing Bull to the high-end was another important event that acquired 12% of the market share in its first year. However, it caused cannibalization for Bid as they were direct competitors and it caused bid’s market share decline from 34% to 28%.

Goals relative to KPIs performance

The goal of achieving the leverage of 2 was met as we could decrease our equity by retiring about $4 million shares and issuing around $34 million long-term debt. The previous year, 2024, leverage was 1.7 and we could increase it by 0.3 in round 5.

Another goal was to acquire extra 3% market share for Traditional segment that only 1% increase happened from 23% to 24%. Also, the goal of gaining 6% market share for Bid and 12% for Bull in the high-end realized jut for Bull, however, did not happen for Bid due to cannibalization. For performance and size, the goal of acquiring more market share did not happen due to production capacity limits and around $8 million potential profit was lost.

The goal of reaching 100% market accessibility did not happen for high-end as two products exist in the segment as Bid and Bull, however, it increased to 91% from 82% and hopefully we will reach 100% accessibility in Round 6.

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

· The biggest mistake we made, was the retirement of the low-end segment without calculating the risk of losing profit. We overlooked the fact that newly introduced products have high fixed costs and they need at least two years to reach break-even point and become profitable.

· Second biggest mistake was the low production line capacity for performance and size segments. We lost the potential profit of up to $8 million profit because of losing this opportunity. On top of this profit loss, we lost at least 8% market share for both the Size and Performance segments.

· We could gain 40% market share aggregately with the introduction of the second product in the high-end segment. Although a high market share has been achieved, the Bull’s market share is 12% which did not provide much profit.

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 6

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 7

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Baldwin BOD Report- Round 8

Performance Review

R&D.

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Marketing:

Traditional:

Low-end:

High-end:

Performance:

Size:

Production & operations:

Traditional:

Figure 1

Low-end:

High-end:

Figure 2

Performance:

Figure 3

Size:

Figure 4

Finance

Figure 5

HR & TQM

Plans & strategies

Figure 6

Sales Channel:

Human Resource strategy.

Manufacturing strategy.

Financial strategy.

Business Strategy and Performance Assessment

Actions against business plans

Departures from the business plans

Significant events affecting company and/or market

Goals relative to KPIs performance

Why we achieved or not achieved our goals — what were the

causes of your better than, or weaker than expected performance? (candidness here is

very important)

Concerns

Risk Level

Mistakes

Competitive Base

Recommendations

Summarize how you have prepared your firm to compete in the future.

Individual components (approx. half page from each team member)

Lessons learned

How did you benefit from participating in the simulation?

Are there any lessons that you can take into the business world

Customer Survey- Size

Agape Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 37 20 25 12 25 Buddy Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 33 51 68 86 96 Cure Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 44 52 52 65 72 Dune Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 22 25 26 36 43 Egg Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 6 2 2 1 0 Fume Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 18 19 16 6 23

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Adam High4% $2,000100%$3,00090%27

Aag High13% $2,00076%$3,00090%59

Bid High28% $1,400100%$2,00091%74

Bull High12% $2,50074%$2,00091%79

Cid High22% $1,400100%$3,00076%60

Duck High10% $1,40098%$1,80055%41

Fist High12% $1,800100%$3,00073%19

2.02550011.68.4$35.45$13.63

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$5.719%0%6.090055%

68211612-3-20250.82500012.37.8$32.65$13.95$9.2030%100%4.5450198%

19093911-27-2025

6.01,800198%

63587-5-20250.52500013.46.6$37.49$14.29$8.9538%97%5.090095%

1,4914787-17-20251.32500013.3

1.42500013.07.1$37.99$13.98

$8.9836%100%6.7$37.49$14.22

$7.5442%100%5.01,100199%

53046411-7-20251.22500012.87.4$38.15$15.42$9.7028%0%3.090067%

1,2131827-2-2025

6765851-2-20252.22500011.28.5$7.1237%0%6.090096%$37.49$12.89

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Agape Size18% $2,000100%$3,00084%25

Buddy Size28% $1,400100%$3,00087%96

Cure Size26% $1,400100%$3,00074%72

Dune Size21% $1,40095%$1,80053%43

Egg Size0% $70038%$70011%0

Fume Size6% $1,500100%$2,90061%23

2.4220006.17.6$31.55$11.48

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next Round

Plant

Utiliz.

$6.7137%17%5.5616116%

1,28707-18-20251.4210007.55.6$32.49$12.00$8.9836%100%5.01,150198%

8442505-14-2025

5.01,000199%

9771510-12-20251.3210007.06.3$33.10$12.94$11.0829%43%3.0600141%

1,19306-25-20251.5210007.2

7.6190004.011.0$33.00$9.53

$7.5442%100%6.1$32.99$11.72

$10.80-3679%0%3.060063%

2727989-28-20251.9200007.57.6$33.49$10.86$8.3122%0%5.060096%

31,6225-25-2018

Name Primary

Segment

Market

Share

Promo

Budget

Cust.

Aware-

ness

Sales

Budget

Cust.

Access-

ibility

Dec.

Cust

Survey

Aft Pfmn21% $2,000100%$3,00081%50

Bold Pfmn28% $1,400100%$3,00086%82

Coat Pfmn25% $1,400100%$3,00074%63

Dot Pfmn18% $1,40095%$1,80059%55

Edge Pfmn1% $70038%$70012%0

Foam Pfmn8% $1,50092%$2,00049%35

Labor

Cost

Contr.

Marg.

2nd

Shift &

Over-

time

Automation

next Round

Capacity

Next

Round

Plant

Utiliz.

Units

Sold

Unit

inventory

Revision

Date

Age,

Dec.31

MTBFPfmn

Coord

Size

Coord

PriceMaterial

Cost

100%5.01,200198%

1,0153445-23-20252.22850012.413.9$29.25$13.27

7-18-20251.42700014.412.5$30.99$13.60$8.9827%

73%

1,168

1.22700013.912.9$31.30$14.85$11.3017%53%4.0750152%

9.415.5$33.00$11.61$10.80

-538%

0%3.0600

86712611-10-2025

241,6226-30-20187.525000

256-25-20251.52700013.912.9$32.99$13.30$7.5437%100%5.01,000199%

$6.3129%92%6.5600190%

1,3090

$7.1228%0%5.050096%3963899-14-20252.02700011.913.0$31.49$12.40

SalesVariable Costs

(Labor,Material,

Carry)

Contribution

Margin

Contribution

Margin%/ Gross

Profit Margin

30%

DepreciationSGA

(R&D,Promo,

Sales,Admin)

Other

(Fees,Writeoffs,

TQM,Bonuses)

EBITOperating

Profit Margin

Interest

(Short term,

Long term)

TaxesProfit

Sharing

Net ProfitNet Profit

Margin/ROS/

Net Margin

10%

Andrews

$213,449$141,319$72,13033.79%$14,040$37,921$15,774$4,3942.06%$24,113($6,902)$0($12,817)-6.0%

Baldwin

$245,554$163,047$82,50733.60%$13,769$30,244$11,871$26,62310.84%$10,885$5,508$205$10,0254.1%

Chester

$261,387$156,367$105,02040.18%$15,267$32,922$16,000$40,83115.62%$8,017$11,485$427$20,9028.0%

Digby

$179,192$138,105$41,08722.93%$10,240$22,456$6,300$2,0911.17%$6,777($1,640)$0($3,046)-1.7%

Erie

$17,644$41,066($23,422)-132.75%$7,587$8,394$0($39,402)-223.32%$75,985($40,385)$0($75,002)-425.1%

Ferris

$154,811$101,346$53,46534.54%$12,920$31,544$15,000($6,000)-3.88%$31,865($13,253)$0($24,612)-15.9

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHELP