CURRENT TRIPOD STRATEGY EVALUATION

Track and organize your meetings within your company

Kom i gang. Det er Gratis
eller tilmeld med din email adresse
CURRENT TRIPOD STRATEGY EVALUATION af Mind Map: CURRENT TRIPOD STRATEGY EVALUATION

1. Is the company achieving its stated financial and strategic objectives?

1.1. Yes

1.1.1. 1

1.1.1.1. Yes based on CFOs report

1.2. No

1.2.1. 8

1.2.1.1. Aggressive competition resulting in decline in Dine-in TC

1.2.1.2. Still has opportunity to improve and drive the decline TC in dine in

1.2.1.3. Tighter competition, Pricewar, rising commodities.

1.2.1.4. Deficit in topline target YTD of 14M

1.2.1.5. Effective campaigns by the competition

1.2.1.6. Lack of focus from concerned departments

1.2.1.7. Lack of collaboration between departments

1.2.1.8. We are short vs projected budget

2. Is the company an above average industry performer?

2.1. Yes

2.1.1. 9

2.1.1.1. Continuously innovating and growing to remain as the leading and preferred pizza restaurant in the country.

2.1.1.2. First Mover, Innovator, always thinking of what’s next

2.1.1.3. Has consistently growing double digit for the past 14 years

2.1.1.4. We are the leading and preferred pizza restaurant in the country right now

2.1.1.5. SPAVI leads the full service industry with a brand share of 26%. Double-digit growth in 14 years.

2.1.1.6. Chosen as the No 1 Pizza Chain and No. 1 Family-casual dining restaurant

2.1.1.7. 14 years-double digit growth

2.1.1.8. Leading financial metrics compared to same category restaurants

2.1.1.9. Relative to other brands we are still registering good comps and growth numbers

2.2. No

3. Is there consistent success in meeting performance targets?

3.1. Yes

3.2. No

3.2.1. 8

3.2.1.1. Declining Dine-in TC & delayed New Store Openings

3.2.1.2. Delays in NSO and declining TC from Comps Store.

3.2.1.3. We are not consistent in meeting the double digit growth

3.2.1.4. Not across all metrics Topline is up but down in NI

3.2.1.5. Hit and Miss. We hit our target in June but there's other deficit in other months.

3.2.1.6. Failure of departments to deliver targets consistently

3.2.1.7. External pressures from suppliers and collaborators

3.2.1.8. Varying segment performance results of each BU

4. Is the sales growing faster than the market as a whole and resulting in a rising market share?

4.1. Yes

4.1.1. 1

4.1.1.1. Euromonitor predicted a CAGR of pnly 2% for the full-service industry versus SPAVI’s CAGR of 18% in the past 14 years.

4.2. No

4.2.1. 8

4.2.1.1. Delivery & Carry out growing; Dine-in declining

4.2.1.2. With pressing issue for Dine-In. Delivery has very big potential

4.2.1.3. Emergence of other players.

4.2.1.4. Eroding SSSG due to internal cannibalization

4.2.1.5. Declining Dine-in TC due to stiff competition

4.2.1.6. Delivery and online is growing fast, but declining dine-in TC is pulling down overall performance.

4.2.1.7. There is intense competition in the industry even if we hold big market share

5. Is the company acquiring new guests at an attractive rate as well as retaining existing guests?

5.1. Yes

5.1.1. 4

5.1.1.1. A continuous double digit growth in delivery particularly in Web and App and #777 that help drive the non 777 sales

5.1.1.2. We still have our loyal guests and were increasing the millennials crowd

5.1.1.3. Healthy TC comps / NSO

5.1.1.4. Yes because of the new store opening in virgin territories like Antique, Kalibo, Iligan.

5.1.1.5. Yes because of the consistent high Supercard sales

5.2. No

5.2.1. 6

5.2.1.1. Declining dine-in sales performance, however, expanding market reach by exponential growth in digital/on-line sales

5.2.1.2. Big potential to mine Scard User for repeat business.

5.2.1.3. Continuous decline in dine-in TC

5.2.1.4. No because of the declining Dine-in TC

5.2.1.5. Company is gaining ground in delivery business and building e-commerce capability, but we need to build relevance and affinity to younger market.

5.2.1.6. We are losing heavily on DI TC, Growth is in Delivery where we are gaining what we lost last year

6. Is the company’s profit margins increasing and is better than rival firms?

6.1. Yes

6.1.1. 2

6.1.1.1. VS. MGI at least. SPAVI nets 762M in 2017(with 8.3B topline) while MGI is only at 562M (with 15.3B topline)

6.2. No

6.2.1. 7

6.2.1.1. Rising raw materials’ cost leading to GP compression

6.2.1.2. Raw material increase affect our bottom line and weak cost efficiency programs.

6.2.1.3. Challenges in Bottom line, not all stores are hitting targets

6.2.1.4. Cost pressures from Suppliers

6.2.1.5. Inefficiencies internally

6.2.1.6. Peso devaluation

6.2.1.7. Some firms registering better numbers eg. Mcdo

7. Is the firm’s image and reputation with its guests growing stronger?

7.1. Yes

7.1.1. 6

7.1.1.1. Vigorous in building new and better stores, innovation and value-offerings.

7.1.1.2. Yes. Very Strong Brand Image and Recalll.

7.1.1.3. Became innovative in new stores designs

7.1.1.4. Were still maintaining the wholesome crowd despite of putting up the bar concept

7.1.1.5. Total sales per unit is higher than competitors

7.1.1.6. High reception for new products

7.1.1.7. Top of mind of Lessors (Malls and Lot Owners)

7.1.1.8. High Franchise inquiry and application

7.1.1.9. Yes, with existing market (Gen X) but weak in affinity and relevance to younger market.

7.2. No

7.2.1. 2

7.2.1.1. There are both gains and losses as consumer expectation is increasing

8. Is the company stronger against it’s rivals in:

8.1. Technology

8.1.1. Yes

8.1.2. No

8.1.2.1. 9

8.1.2.1.1. IT as a utility (e.g. like Electricity, water) not yet achieved;

8.1.2.1.2. Weak Data Management

8.1.2.1.3. Still has a lot to improve in tech infra

8.1.2.1.4. YC and PH have better website UX than us. Aside from web loading performance, this must be substantiated through a UX study conducted by 3rd party, to guide SPAVI on future tech investments for online channel development

8.1.2.1.5. Promised advancements are not yet implemented

8.1.2.1.6. Online business is growing aggressively but still catching up in digital marketing and e-commerce capability. We need to rebuild our new app soon also.

8.1.2.1.7. Other brands have digital technology and back end systems way ahead of ours;

8.2. Product Innovation

8.2.1. Yes

8.2.1.1. 6

8.2.2. No

8.2.2.1. 3

8.2.2.1.1. Our pizza innovations are impressive and commendable, but there is an opportunity to segment our communications and products to different markets. (ex. Hero/ BOL to millennials; Group Meals to GenX)

8.3. Guest service

8.3.1. Yes

8.3.1.1. 7

8.3.1.1.1. Positive casual dining experience.

8.3.2. No

8.3.2.1. 2

8.4. Product quality

8.4.1. Yes

8.4.1.1. 4

8.4.2. No

8.4.2.1. 5

8.4.2.1.1. Started to notice that our food is become saltier.

8.4.2.1.2. Focus of store team to product quality is declining evident in QSCH results and store visits

8.5. Delivery time

8.5.1. Yes

8.5.1.1. 4

8.5.2. No

8.5.2.1. 5

8.5.2.1.1. Has still tertiary and some key areas in MM

8.5.2.1.2. Del time improved a lot but not yet at the desired state of 99.5%

8.5.2.1.3. Inconsistent. Sometimes on time and delayed.

8.6. Price

8.6.1. Yes

8.6.1.1. 4

8.6.1.1.1. No negative feedback on Price increases and Value for money is still evident

8.6.1.1.2. Great value for our products.

8.6.2. No

8.6.2.1. 4

8.6.2.1.1. With room for improvement in terms of price point and with better value.

8.7. Getting newly developed products to market quickly

8.7.1. Yes

8.7.1.1. 4

8.7.1.1.1. Shakey’s can launch new products at a pace other players can’t match

8.7.1.1.2. Known for our new pizza flavors.

8.7.2. No

8.7.2.1. 4

8.8. All other relevant factors on which buyers base their choices?

8.8.1. Yes

8.8.1.1. 2

8.8.1.1.1. Our stores are beautiful with lots of parking spaces, our products are good for sharing without denting much the guests’ pocket

8.8.2. No

8.8.2.1. 5

8.8.2.1.1. We need to build brand affinity and relevance to younger segment.

9. Is the key measure of operating performance (such as quality, productivity, costs etc.) improving?

9.1. Yes

9.1.1. 1

9.2. No

9.2.1. 4

9.2.1.1. Not on the expected rate.

9.2.1.2. QSCH below target, stores with minus 50

9.2.1.3. Profitability target not met, QSCH target not met