MOD001112 Business Analysis Project

Running head: BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Business Analysis Project
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note
Course ID

1BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Case context of analysis:............................................................................................................2
Company Background:...............................................................................................................2
Key Issues:.................................................................................................................................3
Comparative Value Proposition:................................................................................................3
Rationale of My Choice of Company:.......................................................................................4
Financial Analysis;.....................................................................................................................4
Ratio Analysis:...........................................................................................................................5
Profitability: Return on Invested Capital:..................................................................................5
Net Profit Margin:......................................................................................................................6
Return on Assets:.......................................................................................................................7
Liquidity: Current Ratio.............................................................................................................8
Quick ratio:.................................................................................................................................9
Financial Health: Financial Leverage......................................................................................10
Solvency: Cash flow per sale:..................................................................................................11
Strategic Analysis:...................................................................................................................12
Business Environment Analysis:..............................................................................................12
PESTLE Analysis:...................................................................................................................12
Competitive forces Analysis:...................................................................................................13
Porter’s Five Forces:................................................................................................................13

2BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
New forces in Restaurant Industry:..........................................................................................16
Operations and Organisational Analysis:.................................................................................16
Key Success Factors:................................................................................................................17
Balance Scorecard:...................................................................................................................17
Identifying Strategies:..............................................................................................................18
Ansoff’s Matrix:.......................................................................................................................18
Diversification:.........................................................................................................................19
Limitations of Financials models and Conventional Analysis:................................................19
Limitations of Financials models in Analysing Performance:.................................................19
Conclusion:..............................................................................................................................19
Recommendations:...................................................................................................................20
Recommendations Modelling:.................................................................................................20
Modelling:................................................................................................................................21
Scenario Forecasting:...............................................................................................................21
Scenario Description:...............................................................................................................21
Outcome:..................................................................................................................................22
Scenario Forecast Graph:.........................................................................................................22
Reference List:.........................................................................................................................24

3BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Introduction:
The report will provide an in depth critical appraisal of the competitive position of the
Wing Stop Inc and will benchmark the performance of the company with KFC and
McDonald. The present study will take into the considerations the several management and
business competitive issues that is faced by the Wing Stop Inc as a comparison is performed
to benchmark the performance with companies such as KFC and McDonald. The analysis is
considered to be holding significant relevance since it would offer an in depth understanding
of the central issues surrounding the company and its senior managers. Apart from this
appropriate recommendation will provided to address the issues faced by Wing Stop Inc so
that it can boost its productivity.
Case context of analysis:
The WingStop Inc is a chain of nostalgic aviation-themed restaurants where the
ultimate amount of focus is placed on the chicken wings. The company has grown in a chain
having more than 1,000 restaurants either in the form of open or development. Over the span
of years, the company has developed into the retail expansion of the outlets chains in the
industry. The growth and sustainability of the organization has been facilitated by the
important developments in terms of the consumer likeness towards the food products along
with the market growth that have helped in the growth of the business.
Company Background:
Wing stop restaurant Inc is a chain of nostalgic aviation themed restaurants that
entirely focuses on the chicken wings. Wingstop locations is located are decorated with the
theme of aviation. The restaurant chain was first founded in the year 1944 in the state of
Texas and started offering franchises in the year 1998. Ever since then Wingstop Inc
developed into the chain of restaurants having more than 1000 restaurants that are either open

4BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
or have developed. The chain of restaurant has been headquartered in the Dallas, Texas. Over
the period of time the business has continued to experience growth by opening new outlets
and offering quality food to its customers.
Key Issues:
The primary issue that is surrounding the discussion of the company is the
competitive position of the Wing Stop Inc in respect of the benchmark companies. Wing Stop
Inc faces direct competition from other players in the market that are present both
domestically and internationally. The present top competing firms that Wing Stop Inc
combats with in comprises of KFC and McDonald. In spite of facing aggressive competition
from such firms the company is constantly implementing new and competitive strategy,
which would enable the company to expand significantly across the world with over 1000
store and outlets that are operated by the company (Osterwalder et al. 2014). Ever since the
inception of the company Wing Stop Inc has opened number of outlets as the company has
reported to have opened more than 1000 outlets across the world.
Comparative Value Proposition:
Wing Stop Inc KFC McDonalds
Target Customer Local customers that
prefer
Medium to high
class customers
having preference
for premium food
products
Consumers with
speedy and
convenient purchase
priority
Benefits Offers domestic
taste products under
the tidy dining setup
Offers relaxed and
soothing
environment with
The quality of food
is average however
offers variety of

5BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
high quality fresh
food
products in its menu
Price Offers price
discounts on
premium products
15 percent premium 10 percent premium
Customer Value Local taste chicken
wings with lower
price premium
Higher quality food
at a significant price
premium
Medium to average
price premium
quality food
products.
Rationale of My Choice of Company:
The central reason for choosing to analyse Wingstop Inc is the continuous growth and
set up of outlets reported by the company since the company provides local taste foods under
the environment of high competition faced by its rivals. The reason for selecting the company
is based on the existence of company for a decade long to analyse the competitive position
with other firms.
Financial Analysis;
Financial can be defined as the evaluation of the profitability, stability and viability of
the company by analysing the financial reports (Deegan 2013). Ratio analysis is one medium
of financial analysis that is used to understand an organization financial performance.

6BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Ratio Analysis:
Profitability: Return on Invested Capital:
ROIC is a profitability ratio that assess the return from an investment derived for those that
have invested capital (Williams 2014).
Wingstop Inc has reported a higher return on invested capital in comparison to the
KFC and McDonalds. Wingstop Inc has reported a ROIC of 16.81 and 24.98 for the year
2015 and 2016. While its counterparts have reported a ROIC of 10.33 and 20.25 for the year
2016 respectively. WingStop Inc provides higher return on investment than its cost in order
to raise the capital required for investment and is earning higher return than its rivals KFC
and McDonalds.
Profitability: Return on Invested Capital %
Return On Invested Capital 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
WingStop Inc 0 23.57 14.74 16.81 24.98
KFC Inc 2.16 -0.8 2.8 9.03 10.33
McDonalds 21.33 20.68 18.38 17.5 20.25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
ROIC %
Graph 1: Representing ROIC of WingStop, KFC and McDonalds

7BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
(Source: As Created by Author)
Net Profit Margin:
Net profit margin represents the percentage of revenue that is remained following the
expense have been subtracted from sales (Weil, Schipper and Francis 2013).
The net profit margin reported by Wingstop Inc is moderate as the company reported
a moderate net profit margin of 12.96 and 16.89 for the year 2016. While its rival KFC
reported lower net profit margin of 4.87 and 5.96 respectively for the year 2015 and 2016.
McDonalds Corp conversely reported a higher net profit of 17.82 and 19.03 in the year
successive year of 2015 and 2016. In Terms of Net Profit Margin, McDonald’s is better
placed whereas Wingstop Inc has reported a moderate net profit margin than McDonalds.
Net Margin
Cash Flow Per Sale % 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
WingStop Inc 6.94 12.76 13.32 12.96 16.89
KFC Inc 1.2 -0.93 1.65 4.87 5.96
McDonalds 19.82 19.87 17.34 17.82 19.03
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Net Margin
Axis Title
Graph 2: Representing Net Profit Margin of WingStop, KFC and McDonalds

8BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
(Source: As Created by Author)
Return on Assets:
Return on assets is the reflector of profitability position of the company that is relative
to the total assets. ROA provides the efficiency of the management in using the assets to
derive returns (Bushman 2014).
The ROA reported by Wingstop Inc is on the moderate side since the company has
reported an ROA of 8.37 and 13.25 for the year 2015 and 2016 respectively while KFC has
reported a lower ROA of 6.37 and 7.28 respectively for 2015 and 2016. McDonalds have
relatively reported a higher ROA of 12.54 and 13.59 which ultimately represents the
efficiency of McDonalds in generating profit from its assets. Wingstop Inc has wisely
allocated its resources and is simultaneously making little profit from its investment.
Return On Assets
Return On Assets % 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
WingStop Inc Nil 6.64 7.69 8.37 13.25
KFC Inc 1.41 -0.88 1.84 6.37 7.28
McDonalds 15.98 15.51 13.42 12.54 13.59
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Return on Assets
Graph 3: Representing ROA of WingStop, KFC and McDonalds

9BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
(Source: As Created by Author)
Liquidity: Current Ratio
The current ratio assesses the ability of the company in meeting its short-term
obligations. This asset tests the ability of the liquidity of company in meeting its current
liabilities (Pratt 2016).
The current ratio reported by the Wingstop Inc has been somewhat fluctuating current
ratio of 1.56 in 2015 and 0.66 in the subsequent year of 2016. While its rival KFC has
reported a better current ratio of 1.28 and 1.52 in the subsequent years of 2015 and 2016.
McDonalds on the other hand reported declining trend of current ratio of 2.27 and 1.39 for
2015 and 2016 respectively. The ratio provides sense that Wingstop Inc has reported an
efficient operating cycle since the overall current ratio is stable for the company.
Current Ratio
Current Ratio 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
WingStop Inc 0.72 1.1 1.56 0.66
KFC Inc 1.25 1.32 1.36 1.28 1.52
McDonalds 1.45 1.59 1.52 3.27 1.39
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Current Ratio

10BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Graph 4: Representing Current Ratio of WingStop, KFC and McDonalds
(Source: As Created by Author)
Quick ratio:
Quick ratio assess how well an organization meets its short-term financial abilities.
The quick ratio of Wingstop Inc indicates that the company might face difficulties in meeting
its short term obligations. Wingstop Inc reported a relatively lower quick ratio of 1.12 and
0.42 while KFC and McDonalds has reported a quick ratio of 1.04 and 0.78 respectively.
Given that Wingstop Inc has long-term prospects, it might borrow against the prospects to
meet its current obligations.
Quick Ratio
Quick Ratio 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
WingStop Inc Nil 0.42 0.74 1.12 0.42
KFC Inc 1.07 1.09 1.15 0.97 1.04
McDonalds 1.09 1.3 1.2 3.05 0.78
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Quick Ratio
Graph 5: Representing Quick Ratio of WingStop, KFC and McDonalds
(Source: As Created by Author)

11BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Financial Health: Financial Leverage
Financial leverage represents the amount of debt an organization uses to purchase
more assets (Bushman 2014). Wingstop has a negative reported a negative trend of financial
leverage over the years with latest reported figure stood negatively (2.02) for the year 2016.
KFC reported a financial leverage of 0.02 in 2016 with Mcdonalds reporting a negative
figures of (11.76). Wingstop Inc has higher financial leverage with higher amount of debt to
equity and has been aggressive in financing its growth.
Financial Leverage
Cash Flow Per Sale % 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
WingStop Inc 0 -5.6 -10.42 -9.82 -2.02
KFC Inc 2.81 2.59 2.57 2.43 2.07
McDonalds 2.31 2.29 2.67 5.35 -11.76
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Financial Leverage
Axis Title
Graph 6: Representing Financial Leverage of WingStop, KFC and McDonalds
(Source: As Created by Author)

12BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Solvency: Cash flow per sale:
The cash flow per sale is a comparative analysis of a company’s operating cash flow
to its net sales revenue to reflect the solvency of the organization (Williams 2014).
Wingstop Inc has reported a higher cash flow per sale of 14.28 and 22.01 respectively
for 2016 whereas its rival KFC has reported a lower cash flow per sale ratio of 5.76 and
(2.68). McDonald’s has reported somewhat moderate cash flow per sale ratio of 18.59 and
17.21 respectively for 2015 and 2016.
Cash Flow Per Sale %
Cash Flow Per Sale % 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
WingStop Inc 17.06 14.85 19.07 14.28 22.01
KFC Inc -3.67 6.8 1.86 5.76 -2.68
McDonalds 14.21 15.29 15.11 18.59 17.21
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cash Flow Per Sale %
Graph 7: Representing Cash Flow per Sale of WingStop, KFC and McDonalds
(Source: As Created by Author)

13BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Strategic Analysis:
Strategic analysis is used to assess the macro and micro environment of the business
environment.
Business Environment Analysis:
PESTLE Analysis:
PESTLE analysis is the tool to assess the external business environment of the
company in terms of the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and
Environmental aspects (Jurevicius 2013).
Political:
Ever since the election the political drift has divided the nation into two parts. After
the recent scandal of corruption in Malaysia, the political situation in the country is somewhat
tumultuous and might result significant impact on the currency and economy (Ho 2014). The
increasing political crisis is the central contributor of currency depreciation and economic
recession in Malaysia. However positive government policy of reformation can be seen as a
growth for restaurant and food industry in Malaysia.
Economical:
International fluctuations in price of oil have hurt Malaysia with Malaysian labour
force becoming expensive a large number of companies does consider manufacturing in
Malaysia with political situation between current and former Prime minister might force
investors to rethink their decision (Gupta 2013).
Social factors:
Social issues namely, poverty, unemployment and labour exploitation is low. The
purchasing behaviour of consumer has been shifting and this might offer companies such as

14BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Wingstop Inc to understand the consumer behaviour emplacing social life (Hill, Jones and
Schilling 2014). The experts have expressed that Fast food restaurants have the opportunity to
develop. Simultaneously, Wingstop Inc can develop a chain of food in their menus to meet
the changing needs of consumer.
Technological:
Several firms across the world have outsourced their manufacturing with well-
equipped workers having productive skills (Peppard and Ward 2016). With new development
in IT and marketing strategy Wingstop Inc can facilitate the consumer and increase their
perceived value.
Environmental:
Air pollution has increased in the country with toxic gases from vehicles and industry
is emitted in the atmosphere (Hollensen 2015). Malaysia is placed 4th in world for emitting
most amount greenhouse gases per capita. Pollution control constituents is affecting the
production of the companies in Malaysia.
Legal:
Government application of GST has forced investing industries to increase their cost.
Amid the environment of economic crisis, the legal factors become significant for investing
companies.
Competitive forces Analysis:
Porter’s Five Forces:
Porters five force analysis is used to assess the structure of the industry so that a firm
can create numerous critical issues identified during analysis.

15BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Buyer Power:
Purchasers wants to purchase the best offerings available to them and this creates
pressure on the Wingstop Inc profitability during the long run (Goworek and McGoldrick
2015). The small is the consumer base for Wingstop Inc the higher will be bargaining power
of the customers with greater ability to seek discounts.
Suppliers Power:
Most of the companies in restaurant industry purchase their raw materials from
several suppliers. Suppliers in dominant position can lower the margins for Wingstop Inc,
which it can earn in the market (Armstrong et al. 2015). The overall impact of the higher
bargaining power of supplier can reduce the overall profitability of Wingstop Inc.
Threat of New Entrant:
New entrants in the industry of restaurants introduces new means of doing things and
this ultimately puts pressure on the Wingstop Inc because of lower pricing strategy (Keller
and Kotler 2016). However, with innovating new products and service, the threat of new
entrant is low for Wingstop Inc and it has built effective barrier to safeguard its competitive
edge.
Threat of substitute:
The threat of substitute product can be considered to be from moderate to high as it
provides higher value proposition from current offering in the industry (Jooste and Strydom
2014). However, being service oriented Wingstop Inc has produced product that are product
oriented that can understand the consumer buying behaviour.
Competitive rivalry:

16BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Rivalry among the current firms in the industry is intense and this can drive the price
down and reduce the overall profitability of the industry (Peppard and Ward 2016). The
competition in the industry can take toll on the long run profit of Wingstop Inc and
competitive rivalry is high for this firm.
Five Forces Level of Forces Impact to Industry
Buyer’s Power Medium Favourable
Suppliers Power Medium Neutral
Threat of New Entrants Moderate Favourable
Threat of Substitute High Favourable
Competitive Rivalry High Favourable
Graph 8: Graph Representing Sales of Restaurant Industry
(Source: Hollensen 2015)

17BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
New forces in Restaurant Industry:
Apart from the Porter’s five forces there are other factors that effects the restaurant
industry namely Digitalization. With increasing trend of the IT structure of the industry is old
and has transformed fundamentally due to development in IT and Globalization (Goworek
and McGoldrick 2015). With advancement in Digitalization and IT the standard of living has
transformed where consumers are more product focussed and can compares the prices after
the increasing development in IT.
Operations and Organisational Analysis:
The Wingstop Inc has regularly considered approaching new deal to open new
restaurant and combat the organizational issues faced by the company. The management of
the company appreciates the role of the effective operational management in order to create a
competitive position in the market. However, there are certain issues such as the selection of
franchise in Malaysia or partners to open new restaurants (Hollensen 2015). The company
has employed operational strategy such as value integration and trust which can help the
company to expand through its franchises.
Wingstop Inc also places issues from the management from the changing consumer
demands. Alterations in the market conditions requires Wingstop Inc to possess more
knowledge when it comes to the quality of food served by the restaurant. Wingstop Inc
understands the taste of different consumers and would prefer to select food from their list of
menus. This has exerted pressure on the management to perform extensive research and taste
for their customers. Another challenge faced by the company is the rising competitive rivalry
in the industry. Indeed, there are other competing firms that provide wide range of foods and
has to compete for a share in the market.

18BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Key Success Factors:
Considering the key factors of Wingstop Inc there are positive implications for the
company such as
a. Diversity of food offered in its menu
b. Wide number of restaurant outlets
c. Quality of foods offered to its customers
The passion of Wingstop Inc to offer quality food under the organizational culture has
been well maintained by the co-founders and has been passed down to the staff. Considering
on the side of product innovation Wingstop Inc has innovative menu for the target market.
Balance Scorecard:
Following the personal observation and evaluation, it is noticed that there are certain
areas of operational management and customer service should be improved by Wingstop Inc
to cement customer loyalty and improve operational efficiency.
Balance
Scorecard
Industry
Specific KPI
Wingstop Inc KFC McDonalds
Operational
efficiency
Improvement of
food menu
Quality control
and
development.
Not Regular
At times
inferior
Regularly
Moderately
better
Regularly
Always Better
Customer
perspective
Degree of
customer
satisfaction
Moderate High Very High

19BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Market
reputation
Average Good Very good
Financial
perspective
Financial
leverage
Quick Ratio
-2.02
0.42
2.07
1.04
-11.76
0.78
Identifying Strategies:
Ansoff’s Matrix:
Ansoff’s matrix is used to assess the alternative strategies of a company at the time of
defining business strategies (Thijsen, Tong and Van 2014).
Market penetration:
The current market penetration strategy for Wingstop Inc is targeted for adopting and
revising the price, sales activities so that the company can attract customers through coupon
discounts and reward for lunch with combo menu offer.
Product development:
Wingstop Inc can create a strategy towards product development by adding more
value to its product which will help in increasing market share for the company (Hussain et
al. 2014). It can introduce new menu with a mix of western and vegetable flair to attract more
customers.
Market development:

20BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Under this process Wingstop Inc must explore other market for existing products in
different targeted geographical areas or other forms of market segments that are located
outside the urban cities.
Diversification:
Diversification is a significant alternative and even risky to adopt. For Wingstop Inc
new mix of western flavour foods can be developed to export in other overseas market for a
new market penetration.
Limitations of Financials models and Conventional Analysis:
Considering the limitations of the analysis Porter’s five forces is an outdate mode of
analysis and the same should be modified to meet the growing business. In the age of
globalization and Digitalization business goals are growing and porters five forces is old
mode of analysis. The PESTLE is restricted to the external environment and ignores the
internal environment of the business.
Limitations of Financials models in Analysing Performance:
The financial. Model used suffers from limitations as companies under an ideal
method. Additionally, financial models generally presumes that the companies have identical
line of operations however companies are use different methods and might not provide
accurate results. As a result they fail to provide sufficient interpretation of the impacts of
changes in tax, accounting rules and legislations.
Conclusion:
To conclude with, considering the financial analysis it is understood that
organizations have experienced a positive growth which is reflected from their financial
stability. Consistent performance has been posted by the companies in reporting positive
gross and net profit growth. Meanwhile, the competitive rivalry reflects that the companies

21BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
were focussed on attaining market share and product diversification to outclass their rivals.
The management has placed emphasis on the more opening of restaurant with improvement
in managerial operational for business growth.
Recommendations:
The below stated are the recommendations for the company are as follows;
a. Creating more diversified food with western culture mix would help in greater profit
for company
b. Paying additional importance on consumer preference would help in promoting
consume loyalty with better consumer retention in the market.
Recommendations Modelling:
Recommendation
s
Impacted
areas of
business
Anticipate
d
outcomes
Suitability Acceptability Feasibility
Product
diversification
Promoting
extensive
research and
developmen
t
Better
consumer
attraction
90%
Appropriat
e for
business in
meeting
competitio
n
100%
Customer
prefer
diversificatio
n
100%
Requires
managemen
t approval
Customer loyalty
Placing
additional
emphasis on the
Promoting
the
marketing
department
Increasing
the sales
80% would
provide
business
with
90%
Will result in
flexible
management
90%
Aggressive
capital base
can result in

22BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
threats possessed
by the competing
firms
competitiv
e edge
enforcing
the policy
Modelling:
Scenario Forecasting:
The scenario modelling is implemented to project the Wingstop Inc performance if
the strategy is applied in foreseeable time. The financial modelling will assimilate the
components of finance, economics and business philosophy generated from the assumptions.
The table below provides the modelling under three variables namely, best case, moderate
case and worst case respectively.
Scenario Description:
Financial KPI’s Best Case
Scenario
Description Worst Case
Forecast
Description
Net profit
margin
2017: 9.48
2018: 9.95
2019: 10.45
For the past five
years the
company has
reported a
positive income
2017: 9.93
2018: 9.93
2019: 9.43
Wingstop Inc
even though in
the environment
of unexpected
changes would
report a positive

23BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
situation.
ROIC 2017: 6.20
2018: 6.51
2019: 6.84
WingStop Inc is
recommended
to implement
actions towards
better ROIC
2017: 6.49
2018: 6.50
2019: 6.17
The company
can report a
strong
performance in
worst case
situation.
Current ratio 2017: 1.91
2018: 2.10
2019: 2.21
The current
ratio for
WingStop Inc is
better and can
meet its
obligations
2017: 1.90
2018: 2.00
2019: 1.80
The liquidity
ratio is positive
even though it
is a worst case.
Cash flow per
sale
2017: 18.80
2018: 19.74
2019: 20.73
There is a
stability of
growth to meet
its capability
2017: 17.86
2018: 18.76
2019: 19.69
Wingstop has
stated that in
worst situation
it can report a
higher cash
Outcome:
Wingstop Inc has generated a net profit for a continuous span of five years and the
best case will be the most probable scenario. The worst case scenario is forecasted through -
5% change and it is not likely to take place in the future. The moderate case reflects the
average percentage that may happen when new strategy is developed.

24BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Scenario Forecast Graph:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Net Margin %
Moderate
Case 6.94 12.76 13.32 12.96 16.89
Worse Case 1.2 -0.93 1.65 4.87 5.96
Best Case 19.82 19.87 17.34 17.82 19.03
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Net Margin
Moderate Case Worse Case Best Case
Return on Assets:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Return on Assets
%
Moderate
Case Nil 6.64 7.69 8.37 13.25
Worse Case 1.41 -0.88 1.84 6.37 7.28
Best Case 15.98 15.51 13.42 12.54 13.59

25BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Return on Assets
Moderate Case Worse Case Best Case
Reference List:
Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., Harker, M. and Brennan, R., 2015. Marketing: an introduction.
Pearson Education.
Goworek, H. and McGoldrick, P., 2015. Retail marketing management: Principles and
practice. Pearson Higher Ed.
Hill, C.W. and Jones, G.R., 2013. Strategic management theory. South-Western/Cengage
Learning.
Hill, C.W., Jones, G.R. and Schilling, M.A., 2014. Strategic management: theory: an
integrated approach. Cengage Learning.
Hollensen, S., 2015. Marketing management: A relationship approach. Pearson Education.
Hussain, S., Khattak, J., Rizwan, A. and Latif, M.A., 2013. ANSOFF matrix, environment,
and growth-an interactive triangle. Management and Administrative Sciences Review, 2(2),
pp.196-206.
Jooste, C. and Strydom, J.W., 2014. Marketing management.

26BUSINESS ANALYSIS PROJECT
Keller, K.L. and Kotler, P., 2016. Marketing management. Pearson.
Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., Ancarani, F. and Costabile, M., 2014. Marketing management 14/e.
Pearson.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G. and Smith, A., 2014. Value proposition design:
How to create products and services customers want. John Wiley & Sons.
Peppard, J. and Ward, J., 2016. The strategic management of information systems: Building a
digital strategy. John Wiley & Sons.
Thijsen, T., Tong, T. and van Leer, J., 2014. Ansoff Model. Marketing.