The paper "The Changing Strategic Environment and Company Performance at Andrews Company Ltd " is a perfect example of a business case study. Andrews Company Ltd is a manufacturing company dealing with the production of sensors that are in high demand since they are used by a number of organizations in their electrical appliances. Andrews Company Ltd was formed as a result of the Government’ s move to split a previously existing company known as Sensor Inc. which used to manufacture the sensors. Sensors Inc. was the only company at the time manufacturing those products hence used to enjoy a monopoly in the market.
The company used to take advantage of the increasing demand for sensors and thus charge prices at the same time producing low-quality sensors so as to satisfy the large market base (Dickinson & Dickinson 2012). After the formation of Andrews Company Ltd, the company started off with sales total amounting to $100m, the demand for the sensors was relatively high with different market segments; There was an increased number of customers who demanded sensors that have reasonable sizes compared to the ones they had procured from Sensor Inc. In addition, there were those low-end customers who demanded the price of these products to be reduced a little bit regardless of the size of the sensors or their level of performance.
These customers also wished to have these sensors even if the gadgets are as old as seven years (Curtin, Finn & Cawley 2011). According to Hornyak & Snyder (2014), the market had also those customers, who were relatively traditional, that is, they demanded sensors that are at least medium in size even if it would force them to part with some little amount.
In comparison to the low-end customers, they wanted sensors that would at least function for sometimes. However, they wanted sensors that are not very old at most two years was There were those customers who were regarded as high-end customers; they preferred very high-quality sensors that are reliable in terms of performance and at the same time very small in size.
Backhaus, K., & Heiner, K. 2014. The Effects of Group-Level and Individual Contributions on Business Simulation Team Performance. Organization Management Journal, 11(3), 172-179.
Brooks, W., Burson, E., & Cox, S. 2012. Increasing Complexity in Marketing Simulations: Critically Examining the Trends (No. 2012-02).
Chasteen, L. 2014. Simulations for Strategy Courses: Comparing Online and on-Campus Courses. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 41.
Curtin, B., Finn, A., Czosnowski A., Whitman, B., & Cawley J. 2011. Computer-based simulation training to improve learning outcomes in mannequin-based simulation exercises. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 75(6).
Dickinson, J., & Dickinson, C. 2012. The effect of introducing coaching from an experienced business professional on performance in a computer simulation classroom exercise. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 8(2), 6.
Hornyak, J., Peach, B., & Snyder, J. 2014. Assessment and simulations: Measuring the academic learning compacts within. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 34.
Kilburn, R., & Kilburn, J. 2012. The team vs. the individual: Login activity as a predictor of web-based simulation team success. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(3), 15.
Kulkarni, B., & Sivaraman, V. 2013. Using Business Simulations to Introduce Business Concepts. In ABSEL Conference Proceedings, Oklahama City, USA.
Naraharisetty, P., & Vanka, S. 2012, July. Effectiveness of Computer Based Management Simulations--A Case Study. In Technology for Education (T4E), 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on (pp. 31-37). IEEE.
Nugent, M. 2014. Business Simulation Team Performance after Completing an Individual Practice Module. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 41.