| OVERALL INDUSTRY POSITION
| U
|
| Slightly favourable position|
|
|
| | ENTRY BARRIERS
| U
|
| Slightly favourable position| Economies of scale
|
| UUU
| Hi vol esp of engines| Proprietary product differences
|
| ,
| | Brand identity
|
| UUU
| | Switching costs
|
| UU
| | Capital requirements
|
| UUU
| Inventory vs JIT/QF| Access to distribution
|
| UU
| Extensive/expensive dealership| Absolute cost advantage
|
| Y
| | Proprietary learning curve
|
| UU
| Depth of experience of Cat and dealers| Access to necessary inputs
|
| Y
| US steel vs Japanese, other components| Proprietary low-cost product design
|
| U
| | Government policy
|
| YYY
| US funding cuts| Expected retaliation
|
| YY
| Jap competitors very tough|
|
|
| |
|
|
| | SUPPLIER POWER
| ,
|
| Neutral position| Differentiation of inputs
|
| UUU
| Steel, raw materials etc (90%bkwd integrt)| Switching costs
|
| UUU
| | Presence of substitute inputs
|
| UUU
| | Supplier concentration
|
| ,
| | Importance of volume to supplier
|
| ,
| May be signft to local steel mfr| Cost relative to total purchases
|
| Y
| | Impact of inputs on cost or differentiation
|
| YY
| Steel adds 5% diff to Cat costs (signfct)| Relative threat of backward integration
|
| YYY
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| | SUBSTITUTION THREAT
| UUU
|
| Very favourable position| Relative price performance
|
| UUU
| | Switching costs
|
| UUU
| | Buyer propensity to substitute
|
| UUU
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| | BUYER POWER
| ,
|
| Neutral position| Bargaining leverage
|
|
| | Buyer concentration
|
| Y
| Forgn Govt infrast progrms| Buyer volume
|
| U
| | Buyer switching costs
|
| YY
| | Ability to backward integrate
|
| UUU
| | Substitute products
|
| YYY
| | Pull-through
|
| ,
| | Price Sensitivity
|
|
| | Price/total purchases
|
| ,
| | Product differences
|
| U
| | Brand identity
|
| UUU
| | Impact on quality/performance
|
| YY
| | Buyer profits
|
| Y
| | Decision makers' incentives
|
| ,
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| | RIVALRY DETERMINANTS
| Y
|
| Slightly unfavourable position| Industry growth
|
| Y
| Current vs long term| Fixed costs/value added
|
| YY
| | Intermittent overcapacity
|
| Y
| Cat is at low cost end but not lowest| Product differences
|
| Y
| +10-15% vs Komatsu| Brand identity
|
| UUU
| Under attack?| Switching costs
|
| YYY
| For new devlpmt projects (clean slate)| Concentration and balance
|
| Y
| Dominant but dcreasing| Informational complexity
|
| U
| | Diversity of competitors
|
| YYY
| Some highly specialised & successful| Corporate stakes
|
| YY
| | Exit barriers
|
| YYY
| Exit into what? Ag mach = worse|
|
|
| |
|
|
| | Key: a tick indicates in favour, a cross indicates against, maximum possible is 3 of either | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Get your own Free Home Page