Greyhound case study solution

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