Phân Tích Biên Lợi Nhuận Bất Ngờ Của Bàn Học Trong Ngành Cung Cấp Trang Thiết Bị Trường Học

Luận văn thạc sĩ nghiên cứu ueh unexpected margin of learniture tables a case of school outfitters company, khảo sát thực trạng, phân tích nguyên nhân, đề xuất giải pháp cải thiện

Người đăng

Ẩn danh

Thể loại

Thesis

2020

76
0
0

Phí lưu trữ

30 Point

Mục lục chi tiết

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.2. LIST OF TABLES

1.3. LIST OF FIGURES

1.4. The FFE industry (Furniture, fixture and equipment)

1.5. School Outfitters company

1.6. School Outfitters competition

1.7. FFE market situation

1.8. School Outfitters company situation and its business results

1.9. Possible problem 1: Unsuitable products for educational environment

1.10. Possible problem 2: Learniture table’s starting margin % not large enough

1.11. Possible problem 3: Learniture tables not being sold as expected

1.11.1. Potential cause 1: Sales representatives habitually offer discounted pricing to customers

1.11.2. Potential cause 2: Sales representatives feel compelled to match competitor prices

1.11.3. Potential cause 3: Sales representatives are concerned about the quality of Learniture tables

1.11.4. Potential cause 4: Sales representatives have too much visibility and control with margin %

1.12. Cause – and – effect tree

1.13. Uneffective implemented solution and evaluations

1.14. The first alternative solution: No discounting allowed

1.15. The second alternative solution: Management controlled discounting

1.16. ORGANIZATION OF ACTIONS

2. LIST OF TABLES

2.1. Table 1. School Specialty’s annual report 2015 – 2017

2.2. Table 2. Top 10 largest US school districts

2.3. Table 3. Comparison between sales representative discounted margin and undiscounted margin

2.4. Table 4. Comparison between sales representative discounted margin and undiscounted margin including 20% sales loss

2.5. Table 5. Comparison between sales representative discounted margin and controlled margin

2.6. Table 6. Action plan

3. LIST OF FIGURES

3.1. Figure 1. North American addressable school furniture market

3.2. Figure 2. School Outfitters organization structure

3.3. Figure 3. School Outfitters 2019 competition

3.4. Figure 4. Sales department organization chart

3.5. Figure 5. FTE headcount and gross margin %

3.6. Figure 6. Hoshin charts – Examples of automated processes

3.7. Figure 7. Typical breakout of margin

3.8. Figure 8. Initial actual gross margin % including Learniture tables

3.9. Figure 9. Learniture table’s starting margin % as more products are added

3.10. Figure 10. Units sold of all Learniture tables

3.11. Figure 11. Margin % of Learniture table compared to vendor’s table

3.12. Figure 12. Margin % of sales representative orders compared to margin % of web orders

Trích đoạn nội dung tài liệu

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business ------------------------- Do Thi Thu Hien UNEXPECTED MARGIN OF LEARNITURE TABLES: A CASE OF SCHOOL OUTFITTERS COMPANY MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Ho Chi Minh City, Year 2020 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business ------------------------- Do Thi Thu Hien UNEXPECTED MARGIN OF LEARNITURE TABLES: A CASE OF SCHOOL OUTFITTERS COMPANY MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THI MAI TRANG Ho Chi Minh City, Year 2020 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States (US) education market has been robust for more than twenty years. This includes the furniture, fixture and equipment industry also known as FFE. A core set of products within FFE are school chairs, desks, tables, and other staple products needed within any school classroom and building. The growth has been driven by student population growth, the need to replace old school buildings, and the belief that education pedagogies need to change. The student population has grown significantly and also there has been a significant increase in immigration. This increase in preschool to 12 grade students pushed the limits of the existing education infrastructure. That is, there have been more students than the existing school buildings could handle. Students no longer had a place to sit within existing classrooms. This forced temporary classrooms to be built and then completely new buildings to be built. Consequently, it caused the purchase of new FFE. At the same time, educators were rethinking the effectiveness of old teaching methods. The typical scenario of a lecture style classroom was no longer favored, no longer believed to be effective. Parents and teachers both started expecting education buildings and classrooms to look modern and use new teaching styles. New styles such as project based learning, collaborative learning, etc. were also driving the design and purchase of new FFE. These factors led to an increase in companies manufacturing and selling FFE. The nature of schools being distributed within urban and rural school systems across the US led to many small FFE dealers. Some manufacturers were well known and grew to supply the many FFE dealers. Overall, we can say the dealers (FFE sellers) were fragmented across the industry. There were only a few large dealers and a lot of small to medium sized dealers. The fragmented nature of the dealers created a lot of competition even with the growth in the school market. Dealers were often pushed to give lower prices to capture a customer’s order. This competition led to lower margin dollars in total. However most 1 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com of the loss in margin happened with dealers, not with manufacturers. This forced innovations and difficult choices for their business models. 2 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was conducted as my thesis for Master of Business Administration program. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Nguyen Thi Mai Trang for all of her encouragement, enthusiasm, continuous support, which helped me in all the time of research and writing this thesis. My sincere thanks also goes to School Outfitters’ representatives for their continuous support and encouragement, to my family and friends for greatly supporting me in completing this research. 3 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 3 LIST OF TABLES . 6 LIST OF FIGURES . The FFE industry (Furniture, fixture and equipment). School Outfitters company . School Outfitters competition . FFE market situation . School Outfitters company situation and its business results . Possible problem 1: Unsuitable products for educational environment . Possible problem 2: Learniture table’s starting margin % not large enough . Possible problem 3: Learniture tables not being sold as expected. Potential cause 1: Sales representatives habitually offer discounted pricing to customers. Potential cause 2: Sales representatives feel compelled to match competitor prices . Potential cause 3: Sales representatives are concerned about the quality of Learniture tables . Potential cause 4: Sales representatives have too much visibility and control with margin % . Cause – and – effect tree . Uneffective implemented solution and evaluations . The first alternative solution: No discounting allowed . 39 4 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail. The second alternative solution: Management controlled discounting. ORGANIZATION OF ACTIONS . 73 5 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com LIST OF TABLES Table 1. School Specialty’s annual report 2015 – 2017 Table 2. Top 10 largest US school districts Table 3. Comparison between sales representative discounted margin and undiscounted margin Table 4. Comparison between sales representative discounted margin and undiscounted margin including 20% sales loss Table 5. Comparison between sales representative discounted margin and controlled margin Table 6. Action plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. North American addressable school furniture market Figure 2. School Outfitters organization structure Figure 3. School Outfitters 2019 competition Figure 4. School Outfitters sales volume Figure 5. FTE headcount and gross margin % Figure 6. Hoshin charts – Examples of automated processes Figure 7. Typical breakout of margin Figure 8. Initial actual gross margin % including Learniture tables Figure 9. Learniture table’s starting margin % as more products are added Figure 10. Units sold of all Learniture tables Figure 11. Margin % of Learniture table compared to vendor’s table Figure 12. Margin % of sales representative orders compared to margin % of web orders 6 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail. The FFE industry (Furniture, fixture and equipment) The education FFE industry can be considered to be fragmented, that there is only one large dealer in the industry. All the other companies are considered to be small to medium sized. As defined by Hitesh Bhasin1 “The fragmented market is defined as a marketplace where no single organization has enough influence to move the industry in a single direction. Fragmented market consists of several small and medium organizations that compete with one another and with large organizations, but there is no one single company that dominates the entire market.” Using this definition, the size of dealers and their product offering in the PreKindergarten to 12th grade school market can be shown to be fragmented. There is only one large dealer which is School Specialty. However School Specialty is actually a combination of businesses such as curriculum, supplies, audio visual technology, and school furniture. Its school furniture business is $190 million based on the published public annual report at the end of 2017. School Specialty’s annual report 2015 – 2017 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Thirty-Five Fiscal Year Ended Ended Weeks Ended Ended April December 30, December 31, December 26, 25, 2015 2017 2016 2015 Distribution revenues by product line Supplies $305,423,000 $315,986,000 $233,919,000 $314,615,000 Furniture 190,766,000 183,060,000 141,280,000 132,150,000 Instruction & Intervention 43,294,000 37,117,000 29,372,000 54,429,000 AV Tech 17,200,000 18,023,000 13,171,000 24,510,000 Planners 34,157,000 41,126,000 47,193,000 53,153,000 Freight Revenue 10,326,000 9,396,000 4,443,000 9,050,000 Customer Allowances/ Discounts (6,211,000) (5,868,000) (3,055,000) (4,133,000) Total Distribution Segment $594,955,000 $598,840,000 $466,323,000 $583,774,000 Curriculum revenues by product line Science $63,428,000 $57,482,000 $37,955,000 $38,094,000 Total Curriculum Segment $63,428,000 $57,482,000 $37,955,000 $38,094,000 Total revenues $658,383,000 $656,322,000 $504,278,000 $621,868,000 (Source: School Specialty’s annual reports) 7 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com The school furniture market is estimated to be $4 billion to $5 billion between 2018 and 2022. With School Specialty being the largest dealer in the market, it has less than 5% of the total market. This matches the definition of a fragmented market – no one dealer has a significant portion or control of the market. North American addressable school furniture market (Source: Global School Furniture Market 2017 – 20212) 1. School Outfitters company School Outfitters started in 1998 as a very small furniture, fixture, and equipment (FFE) dealer. It was created just before the onset of the Internet being used for retail sales. It offered a typical assortment of FFE products such as school chairs, teacher chairs, school desks, and whiteboards, that is similar to most dealers at the time. It reached customers by sending FAXes to each school and offering a paper catalog or products and prices. It targeted the largest school districts in the US as they had the most funding. School funding is largely determined by the number of students and the property values of the school’s community. The federal government provides a small amount of funding for schools. 8 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail. Top 10 largest US school districts Rank Name of district State Enrollment 1 New York City NY 989,012 2 Los Angeles Unified CA 653,826 3 City of Chicago (SD 299) IL 396,641 4 Dade County FL 356,233 5 Clark County NV 320,532 6 Broward County FL 262,666 7 Houston ISD TX 211,552 8 Hillsborough County FL 203,439 9 Orange County FL 187,092 10 Hawaii Department of Education HI 186,825 (Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics3) As a startup company, with only 2 employees, School Outfitters needed to first focus on “following the money”, that is targeting large districts. There was not, at that time, anything that specifically differentiated it from competitors. At the time of using FAXes to market to schools, School Outfitters target customer was Kindergarten (K) to 12th grade (also known as K12) school districts. Today the target audience is only slightly changed by including Preschool, PreKindergarten (PreK) and continuing through today, School Outfitters target customer is public and private PreKindergarten to 12 grade (PK12) school districts. School Outfitters was launched with just a few employees in 1998. Today it has approximately 170 employees. Additionally, it hires many temporary employees during the busy season, the peak buying season for schools. This is typically from June to August when schools receive their funding from the government, know how many students they will have and can start purchasing for additional FFE, replacement FFE, or small projects. School Outfitters has a top level structure as shown in the organization chart below. It has very typical departments of accounting, customer service, human resources, information technology, marketing, sales, and supply chain. 9 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com School Outfitters CEO President and COO Chief Revenue Officer Chief Supply Chain Officer Chief Innovation and Finance Marketing Officer Sales Customer Buyers Logistics Sourcing Operations Technology Marketing Service Improvement Figure 2. School Outfitters organization structure (Source: Internal Data) 1. School Outfitters competition In the beginning, School Outfitters competition was against other dealers. These companies relied on suppliers to provide products that School Outfitters and its competitors would market and sell. In the early stages of the company, many competitors were still sending paper catalogs in the mail and faxes through phone lines. So the competition was small at first once School Outfitters started marketing and having a good ecommerce website. Many of the competitors were still doing things the old way (catalogs, faxes). Over time most of the competitors realized the Internet was a better way to get leads because customers were starting to shift away from catalogs and towards Internet search engines. Still, the competitors had to learn how to market online and School Outfitters was already doing it. Some dealers became proficient at marketing online and others did not. Today the competition is different. School Outfitters gets products both from traditional suppliers and also has its private labels that it gets directly from manufactures. The chart below shows some of the competitors based on School Outfitters model of being both a dealer and supplier. 10 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com The chart compares core assets and capabilities of the competitors. Some, like Virco, are only suppliers and do not have a good direct to purchaser model. Others, like School Specialty and Wayfair, are both dealers and suppliers similar to School Outfitters. Since School Outfitters lives in both worlds it’s useful to have context like this to understand their strengths.

Nội dung được bảo vệ bản quyền — Tải xuống đầy đủ