greyhound case study solution
TRANSCRIPT
BUSINESS POLICY
CASE STUDY
GREYHOUND
Maryam Latif (1303) Zonash Ghaffar (1413) Anam Farooq (1414) M.Fahad Tariq (1427)
INTRODUCTION
Greyhound Lines Inc. is the nation's largest intercity bus company, and the only long-haul, nationwide provider of bus service in the United States.
The company serves more than 2,600 urban and rural destinations in the 48 contiguous states and Mexico.
The company maintains a fleet of 2,400 buses, which cover 60,000 route miles.
The focus of Greyhound's business is scheduled passenger transportation, but it also offers limited charter passenger service. In addition, the company operates express package delivery and food service at some locations.
HISTORY 1913:
Carl Wickman started Hibbing Transportation, bussing miners from the city to the mine.
1925:
Wickman leaves Hibbing and purchases White Bus Line. 1926:
White Bus merges with several other lines to form Motor Transit Corporation, nicknamed Greyhound.
1930:
Motor Transit becomes Greyhound Corporation. 1946:
Wickman retires Greyhound is the leading bus line.
Cont…..
1962:
Greyhound purchases Booth Leasing and becomes the largest industrial leasing company in the world.
1970:
Greyhound acquires Armour Foods, keeping only its meat packing business.
1987:
Trail ways, Greyhound's last remaining rival, is bought out. 1997:
Greyhound acquires Valley Transit and 49 percent of Crucero, a Mexican bus line.
Carl Lentzsch 1994
VISION
Greyhound believes in complete and through provision of services so that we can survive in long run as well by building and growing in order to create that people feel proud to a associated with us.
MISSION
“Our mission is to provide complete costumer satisfaction through the superior quality services that can better reflect our aim to maximize the benefits of our stakeholders so that we can better facilitate our internal costumer as well.”
SERVICE CATEGORIES
PASSENGER SERVICE FOOD SERVICE PACKAGER EXPRESS SERVICE CHARTER
OUR COMPETITORS TRIALWAYS AMTRAK US AIRWAYS
STAGE 1(Input Stage) Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) External Factor Evaluation (EFE) Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)
Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE)
Key Internal factorsKey Internal factors WeightWeight RatingRating Weighted Weighted ScoreScore
Strengths
Good will
Brand name & icons
Affordable and travelling
Safe and reliable
Increasing profit
Advertising
Service quality
Market share
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.30
0.30
Weaknesses
Discourtesy towards customer
Management team
Bad IT system
training
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
1
1
1
2
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
Total 1.00 2.75
External Factor Evaluation (EFE)
Key External factorsKey External factors WeightWeight RatingRating Weighted ScoreWeighted Score
Opportunities
•Partnership Mexican bus line) 0.10 4 0.40
•Baby boomer 0.10 3 0. 30
•New Asian and Mexican immigration
•Alliance to provide mix mode transportation
0.10
0.15
2
3
0.20
0.45
Threats
•Rapidly changing trend 0.15 4 0.60
•Changing customer prefrences 0.10 3 0.30
•No entry barries
•Airline & railway service
•Increase in bank loan
0.10
0.10
0.10
3
3
3
0.30
0.30
0.30
Total 1.00 3.15
Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)
Critical success factor
weightGreyhound AmtrakRating Score Rating Score
Good will 0.15 3 0.45 4 0.60Brand name & icons
0.10 3 0.30 3 0.30
Service Quality
0.10 3 0.30 3 0.30
Management 0.15 1 0.15 3 0.45Advertising 0.05 3 0.15 2 0.10Financial Position
0.20 2 0.40 3 0.60
Customer Loyalty
0.10 2 0.20 4 0.40
Market share 0.15 1 0.15 4 0.60Total 1.00 2.10 3.35
STAGE 2 (The Matching Stage)
SWOT Matrix SPACE Matrix BCG Matrix IE Matrix Grand Strategy Matrix
SWOT Matrix
SWOT
MATRIX
Strengths - S
1. Good will
2. Brand name
3. Affordable travelling
4. Safe & Reliable
5. Ads
6. Service quality
7. Increase in profit & market share
Weakness – W
1. Discourtesy towards customer
2. Management team
3. Bad IT system
4. training
Opportunities – O
1. Partnership
2. Baby boomer
3. New Asian & Mexican immigration.
4. Alliance of mix mode transportation.
SO - strategies
(S1, S5,O2,O3)
(Market Development)
WO – strategies
By improving management team and proper training can provide mix mode of transportation(W2, W4,O4)
(Conglomerate Diversification)
Threats - T
1. Rapidly changing trend.
2. Change customer preferences.
3. No entry barriers.
4. Airline & Railways service.
5. Increase in automobile due to bank loan.
ST – strategies
(S1, S2,S6 T3)
(Market Penetration)
WT – strategies
(T1, T2, W2)
(Product Development)
SPACE Matrix
Internal Strategic Position External Strategic position
Financial Strengths (FS) Environmental Stability (ES)
Return on Investment
leverage
Working Capital
Liquidity
Total
average
+4
+5
+3
+4
+16
4
Technological changes
Rate of Inflation
Price range of Competing aervice
Barriers to entry
Competitive pressure
Risk involved in business
Demand variability
Price elasticity of demand
Total
Average
-4
-4
-6
-2
-6
-2
-2
-3
-29
-3.62
Competitive Advantage (CA) Industry Strength (IS)
Market Share
Service Quality
Customer Loyalty
Service life cycle
Technological know-how
Total
Average
-4
-1
-2
-2
-3
-12
-2.4
Growth Potential
Profit Potential
Financial Stability
Resource UtilizationCapacity utilization
Technological know-how
Total
Average
+5
+4
+3
+5
+5
+4+26
+4.34
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 +5 +6
+6
+5
+4
+3
+2
+1
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
AggressiveAggressiveConservativeConservative
CompetitiveCompetitiveDefensiveDefensive
ISISCACA
X-axis =CA + IS
-2.4+4.34=1.94
Y-axis = FS + ES
4+(-3.67)=0.33
Boston Consulting Group Matrix (BCG)
MARKET SHARE POSITIONHIGH LOW
STAR QUESTION MARKS
GREYHOUND
MARKET GROWTH
CASH COW DOGS
Lady Greyhound
AMEGOS
AMERICANOS
IE Matrix
i ii
GREYHOUND
iii
iv V Vi
vii viii ix
Strong 3.0 – 4.0 Average 2.0 – 2.99 Weak 1.0 – 1.992.03.04.0
IFE Total Weighted Score 2.70
1.0
2.0
3.0
Low
1.0 – 1.99
Medium
2.0 – 2.99
High
3.0 – 4.0
EF
E T
OT
AL
WE
IGH
TE
D S
CO
RE
2.6
5
Grand Strategy Matrix
Quadrant ii Quadrant i
Quadrant iii
GREYHOUND
Quadrant iv
Slow market growth
Rapid market growth
Stro
ng
com
peti
tive
pos
itio
n
Wea
k c
ompe
titi
ve p
osit
ion
Stage 3 (The Decision Stage) Quantitative Strategic Planning
Matrix (QSPM)
Strategic alternatives
Key Internal Factors Concentric Diversification
Conglomerate Diversification
Strengths Weight AS TAS AS TAS
Good will 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40
Brand name & icons 0.10 4 0.40 3 0.30
Affordable travelling 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40
safe and reliable 0.10 3 0.30 4 0.40
Increase in profit 0.05 3 0.15 1 0.05
Advertising 0.05 2 0.15 3 0.15
Service quality 0.10 3 0.30 4 0.40
Market share 0.10 2 0.20 3 0.30
Weaknesses
Discourtesy towards customers 0.10 2 0.20 3 0.30
Management team 0.10 1 0.10 3 0.30
Bad IT system 0.05 2 0.10 2 0.10
training 0.05 2 0.10 3 0.15
Total Attractive Score 2.8 3.25
Strategic alternatives
Key External Factors Market Penetration Concentric Diversification
Opportunities weight AS TAS AS TAS
Partnership 0.10 - - - -
Baby boomer 0.10 3 0.45 3 0.45
New asian and mexican 0.10 2 0.30 3 0.45
Alliance for mix mode of transportation 0.15 2 0.30 4 0.60
Threats
Changing customer prefences 0.15 2 0.30 4 0.60
Rapidly changing trend 0.10 2 0.20 3 0.30
No entry barries 0.10 - - - -
Increase in bank loan 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40
Airline and railway service 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40
Total Attractive Score 1.00 2.35 3.2
Sum Total Attractive Score 5.15 6.45
THANK YOU