Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Retail cumulative assessment of performance (cap) score
Ähnlich wie Retail cumulative assessment of performance (cap) score (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Retail cumulative assessment of performance (cap) score
- 2. Using A CAP Score As a Diagnostic Tool
OBJECTIVE
ZENeSYS CAP Score benchmarks peer group of companies to arrive at a relative positioning in four key functional areas. By
analyzing its relative position, a firm can diagnose set new directions for improvement. Since the CAP score will be created
every quarter, a firm can monitor its score to evaluate the effectiveness of its strategic improvement initiatives.
CAP SCORE
• Four functional areas of measurement are:
• Financial Strength
• Consumer Acceptance
• Online Presence
• Operational Efficiency
• The peer groups of companies being benchmarked are WAL-MART, TARGET, MACY’S INC., J.C.PENNEY COMPANY
INC., KOHL’S CORPORATION and NORDSTROM INC.
BENEFITS OF CAP SCORE
• Key messages for sales force to become more competition aware
• Devise customized marketing campaigns
• Create customized initiative to improve Online Presence and Branding
2 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 3. 4 Step approach to measure Retail Cumulative
Assessment of Performance (CAP) Score
1. Identified four components for CAP:
a. Financial Strength
b. Consumer Acceptance & Selling Capability
c. Online Presence
d. Operational Efficiency
2. Developed indicative ratios/indices for each from public data
3. Developed the indices for Competitiors (peer firms of CLIENT)
4. Derived a cumulative score
3 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 4. CAP - Financial Strength Component
INDICES INCLUDED
1. Stock Performance:
I. Market Capitalization,
II. Stock Price,
III. P/E Ratio
2. Financial Performance:
I. Current Ratio,
II. Quick ratio
III. Interest coverage ratio.
EXPECTED TAKE AWAY
Financial performance helps in summarizing the overall positioning and sets the tone to understand how CLIENT fairs against
its competitors.
4 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 5. Financial Strength (1/2) – Stock Performance
Stock Price & P/E Ratio Market Capitalization (Bn USD)
120 250
100
200
80
60 150
Stock Price
40 Market Cap
100
P/E Ratio
20
50
0
SEARS Walmart Costco Target Kohl
-20 0
SEARS Walmart Costco Target Kohl
-40
Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices
Weights Rank Parameter
F1 - Market Capitalization 1/6 5 .833
F2 - Stock Price 1/6 4 .66
F3 - P/E Ration 1/6 5 .833
Inference
Stock performance has provided clear indication of CLIENT’ current standing vis-à-vis its peers. This lays ground for further
detailed analysis in subsequent components.
5 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 6. Financial Strength (2/2) – Financial Performance
Consumer Confidence Correlation with Revenue Growth
2 35
1.8 30
1.6 25 Interest Coverage
Growth Rate (%)
1.4 Ration
20
Current Ratio
1.2
15
1
10
0.8
5
0.6 Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices
0.4 0 Weights Rank Parameter
0.2 -5 F4- Current Ratio 1/6 3 .5
0 -10 F5 - Quick Ratio 1/6 5 .833
SEARS Wal-Mart Costco Target Kohl
F6 - Interest Coverage ratio 1/6 5 .833
Inference
Financial performance has provided clear indication of current CLIENT standing against the peers. Lays ground for further
detailed analysis in subsequent components.
6 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 7. Indicative
Financial Strength– Component Ranking
Indices Assigned CLIEN Weighted
Weights T Rank Parameter
Component Rank for CLIENT – 4.5
F1 - Market Capitalization 5 .833
1/6
F2 - Stock Price
Ideal Ranking – 1
1/6 4 .66
F3 - P/E Ration 1/6 5 .833 Best Performer Ranking (COSTCO) – 2.33
F4- Current Ratio 1/6 3 .5
F5 - Quick Ratio 1/6 5 .833
F6 - Interest Coverage ratio 1/6 5 .833
Inference
• No clear Leader as far as financial strength is concerned
7 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 8. CAP - Consumer Acceptance & Selling Capability
Component
INDICES INCLUDED
1. Market Ranking – Reflecting the Offline sales market share
2. US Consumer Confidence Correlation Index: How much better or worse has any firm performed w.r.t. the Consumer
Confidence Index
3. US Retail Sales Correlation Index: How much better or worse has any firm performed w.r.t. the US retail sale growth
4. Total Number of stores
5. Customer Sentiment Index
EXPECTED TAKE AWAY
Gauge the consumer point of view and understand how CLIENT perform on the elemental Component i.e. Attracting
consumers and resulting into successful sales
8 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 9. Dummy Data
Consumer Acceptance & Sales Capability (1/5) –
Market Rank
Revenue * Rank (Year
Firm Assigned CLIENT Weighted
(Bn USD) 2012) Indices
Weights Rank Rank
CLIENT 40 3 C1 – Market Rank 1/6 3 .5
Wal-Mart 150 1
Peer 2 30 4
Peer 3 45 2
Peer 4 25 5
Inference
• Offline retail performance of CLIENT should be a strong focus area for CLIENT marketing team.
9 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 10. Dummy Data
Consumer Acceptance & Sales Capability (2/5) –
Consumer Confidence Correlation Index
Consumer Confidence Correlation with Revenue Growth
7 Firm Delta Delta Delta Delta Total Delta
(Q1) Q2 Q3 Q4
6
CLIENT -2 +2 -1.5 -1.5 -3
Consumer
Growth Rate (%)
5 Confidence Index Wal-Mart +.5 +3.5 +.5 -2.5 +11
4 Peer 2 -2.5 +.5 -1.5 -3.5 -7
SEARS
3
Walmart
2 Assigned CLIEN Weighted
Indices Weights T Rank Rank
1 Peer 2 C2 – Consumer Confidence
Correlation
1/6 2 .33
0
March'12 June'12 Sept'12 Dec'12
Inference
• Wal-Mart has consistently beaten the consumer confidence index
• CLIENT witnessed exceptional season during Quarter 2.
10 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 11. Dummy Data
Consumer Acceptance & Sales Capability (3/5) –
US Retail Sale Correlation Index
US Retail Index Correlation with Revenue Growth
7 Firm Delta Delta Delta Delta Total Delta
(Q1) Q2 Q3 Q4
6
CLIENT 0 +2 -1.5 -1.5 -1
US Retail Sale
Growth Rate (%)
5 Growth Wal-Mart +.5 +3.5 +.5 -2.5 +11
4 Peer 2 -2.5 +.5 -1.5 -3.5 -7
SEARS
3
Walmart
2 Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices Weights Rank Rank
1 Peer 2 C3 – US Retail Sale Correlation
Index
1/6 2 .33
0
March'12 June'12 Sept'12 Dec'12
Inference
• Wal-Mart has consistently beaten the consumer confidence index
• CLIENT witnessed below market performance in last two quarters
11 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 12. Dummy Data
Consumer Acceptance & Sales Capability (4/5) –
No. of Stores & Revenue Per Store
Firm No of Rank Revenue Rank
Stores Per Store Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices Weights Rank Rank
(Mn USD)
C4 – No. of Stores 1/6 2 .33
CLIENT 2000 2 10 5 C5 – Revenue Per Store 1/6 5 .83
Wal-Mart 4400 1 100 1
Peer 2 400 4 25 4
Peer 3 1700 3 30 3
Peer 4 40 5 31 2
Inference
CLIENT Scores high on overall market reach, but the revenue per store is the lowest amongst peers. This calls for due
diligence for each Store’s business case.
12 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 13. Dummy Data
Consumer Acceptance & Sales Capability (5/5) –
Consumer Sentiments
Net Sentiment
Net Sentiment Score Firm
Score (%)
Rank
60
CLIENT 6 1
50
Positive Sentiment
Wal-Mart 5 2
Growth Rate (%)
40 Negative Sentiment Peer 2 -4 4
Net Sentiment Score Peer 3 0 3
30
Peer 4 -5 5
20
10 Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices
Weights Rank Parameter
0
SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4
C6- Consumer Sentiment 1/6 1 .166
-10
Inference
• CLIENT Clearly enjoys net positive consumer sentiment
• Can be leveraged for both online and offline sales
• Will be interesting to understand the demographical
break up of this index
13 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 14. Indicative
Consumer Acceptance & Sales Capability–
Component Ranking
Assigned CLIEN Weighted
Indices
Weights T Rank Parameter
Component Rank for CLIENT – 2.5
C1 – Market Rank 1/6 3 .5
C2 – Consumer Confidence
1/6 2 .33 Ideal Ranking – 1
Correlation
C3 – US Retail Sale Correlation Index 1/6 2 .33 Best Performer Ranking (Wal-Mart)– 1.3
C4 – No. of Stores 1/6 2 .33
Worst Performer Ranking (Peer 4) – 4.8
C5 – Revenue Per Store 1/6 5 .83
C6- Consumer Sentiment 1/6 1 .166
Inference
• CLIENT scores high on consumer sentiment.
• Revenue per store index has been key dampener for CLIENT in this Component.
14 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 15. CAP - Online Presence Component
INDICES INCLUDED
1. Online Market Share
2. Website Acceptance: Analysis of CLIENT business via online channel with competitors on parameters such as : CLIENTch
Traffic rank, Reach, Page views, Reputation.
3. Social media popularity index: A percentage share of the internet influence of CLIENT with respect to top 6 department
stores on Social media Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Google trends
4. CLIENTch Intensity Index : Measures how often a firms’ name has been used while CLIENTching any product. Indicates a
brand recall/association amongst the consumers.
EXPECTED TAKE AWAY
Understand how CLIENT is positioned to adopt the next phase of retail i.e.. Online Retail and E-Commerce
15 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 16. Dummy Data
Online Presence (1/4) – Online Market Share
Firm Market Share Rank
Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Walmart.com 14 1 Indices Weights Rank Rank
O1 – Online Market Share 1/6 4 .667
Target.com 4.1 2
Kohls.com 3.6 3
CLIENT.com 2.5 4
Macy’2 2 5
Inference
• CLIENT clearly lags behind when it comes to commercial activity on CLIENT website. Subsequent analysis may throw in
better comprehension.
16 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 17. Dummy Data
Online Presence (2/4) – Website Acceptance
Page View & Bounce Rate Time Spent on Website
8 60%
8
7 7
50%
6 Page View/User
6
Time Spent (Mins)
Time Spent (Mins)
Page View (No.)
40% Bounce Rate
5
5
4 30% 4
3
3
20% 2
2
10% 1
1 0
0 0% SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4
SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4
Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices Weights Rank Rank
O2 – Page View/User 1/6 2 .33
O3 – Bounce Rate 1/6 3 .5
O4 – Time on Site 1/6 2 .33
Inference
• CLIENT can definitely leverage comfortable website acceptance level.
• Makes a string case for increased web based product sales and marketing, especially given that currently the online
market share for CLIENT is low (People do visit CLIENT often, but it doesn't reflect in online sales). Probably online
efficiency will throw in better light on this.
17 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 18. Dummy Data
Online Presence (3/4) – Social Media Popularity
Social Media & CLIENTch Trend Share
40%
35%
30% Facebook
Share in Social Media (%)
Twitter
25%
Google Trends
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices
Weights Rank Rank
O5 – Social Media Popularity 1/6 3 .5
Inference
• Except Wal-Mart, all the peers are still very nascent when it comes to establishing presence in Social media. A white
space opportunity for CLIENT, especially given their relatively better position in Google CLIENTch trends.
18 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 19. Dummy Data
Online Presence (4/4) – CLIENTch Intensity Index
60
50
Assigned CLIENT Weighted
40 SEARS Indices Weights Rank Rank
CLIENTch Intensity Index
Wal-Mart
O6 – CLIENTch Intensity Index 1/6 3 .5
30 Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
20
10
0
Home Appliance Kitchen Appliance Exercise Equipment Garden Equipment
Inference
• Product association for Kitchen equipment and home appliances is high for CLIENT
• Clear need to re-position itself as an exercise equipment and garden equipment retailer
as well
19 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 20. Indicative
Online Presence– Component Ranking
Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices
Weights Rank Parameter
Component Rank for CLIENT – 3
O1 – Online Market Share 1/6 5 .833
O2 – Page View/User 1/6 2 .33 Ideal Ranking – 1
O3 – Bounce Rate 1/6 3 .5 Best Performer Ranking (Wal-Mart)– 1.01
O4 – Time on Site 1/6 2 .33
O5 – Social Media Popularity 1/6 3 .5
Worst Performer Ranking (Peer 2) – 4.8
O6 – CLIENTch Intensity Index 1/6 3 .5
Inference
• Wal-mart has clear monopoly when it comes to Online presence
• CLIENT lags behind Wal-Mart but has a clear lead over other peers. It must leverage this position.
20 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 21. CAP - Operational Efficiency Component
INDICES INCLUDED
1. Retail Floor Space Utilization: Average revenue per Square feet area
2. Manpower Utilization: Average revenue per employee
3. Inventory Management: This index includes Inventory Turnover ratio and inventory Day Sales
4. Online efficiency: Average load time, CLIENTch engine reference, speed, success rate
EXPECTED TAKE AWAY
Identify key operational improvement areas and understand industry benchmarks.
21 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 22. Dummy Data
Operational Efficiency (1/3) – Retail Floor Space
Utilization & Manpower Utilization
Retail Floor Utilization Employee Utilization
600 350
300
500
Revenue/ Employee
250
Revenue/Square
400 200
feet($/sqft)
(000$/sqft)
300 150
200 100
100 50
0 0
SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4
SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4
Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Indices
Weights Rank Rank
E1 – Retail Floor Utilization 1/6 4 .66
E2 – Employee Utilization 1/6 4 .66
Inference
• Clear transformational opportunity for CLIENT in terms of improving employee and floor space utilization
22 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 23. Dummy Data
Operational Efficiency (2/3) – Inventory
Management
Inventory Management
14 0.04
12
10 0.03 Indices
Assigned CLIENT Weighted
Inventory Turnover Weights Rank Rank
8
0.02 Ratio (%) E3 – Inventory Turnover Ratio 1/6 4 .66
6
Inventory Day Sales E4 – Inventory Day Sales 1/6 1 .166
4 0.01
2
0 0
SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4
Inference
• CLIENT has a low Inventory day sales and thus is managing inventory better. CLIENT should keep this ratio to the lowest
as possible and maintain it.
• CLIENT is not able to sell as regularly as Walmart or Peer 3 and has a Low Inventory Turnover. This may be due to
inaccurate forecast of demand or poor sales. CLIENT has to improve inventory turnover.
23 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 24. Dummy Data
Operational Efficiency (3/3) – Online Efficiency
Online Efficiency
4 101.0%
3.5 100.0%
3 99.0% Response Time
Response Time (Sec)
98.0% Success Rate
2.5
97.0%
2
96.0%
1.5
95.0%
1 Assigned CLIENT Weighted
94.0% Indices Weights Rank Rank
0.5 93.0% E5 – Response Time 1/6 5 .833
0 92.0% E6 – Success rate 1/6 2 .33
SEARS Wal-Mart Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4
Inference
• Response Time of CLIENT is also well above the peers.
• These could be due to the design of the CLIENT website which needs to be looked into.
• However, CLIENT website has a success rate of 99.9%, which is well above the “Top Retailer Index” of 99.5%.
24 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 25. Indicative
Online Presence– Component Ranking
Assigned CLIEN Weighted
Indices Weights T Rank Parameter
E1 – Retail Floor Utilization 1/6 4 .66
E2 – Employee Utilization 1/6 4 .66 Component Rank for CLIENT – 3.3
E3 – Inventory Turnover Ratio 1/6 4 .66 Ideal Ranking – 1
E4 – Inventory Day Sales 1/6 1 .166
E5 – Response Time 1/6 5 .833 Best Performer Ranking (Peer 2)– 2
E6 – Success rate 1/6 2 .33 Worst Performer Ranking (Peer 3) – 3.9
Inference
• Clearly the weakest link in CLIENT’ CAP score. Opportunity for Transformational initiatives.
25 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 26. Indicative
Cumulative Assessment of Performance Score
Financial Strength (25%) Online Presence (25%)
Component Rank – 4.5 Component Rank – 3
CLIENT CAP
Score = 3.4
Operational Excellence Consumer Acceptance &
(25%) Selling Capability (25%)
Component Rank- 3.3 Component Rank – 2.5
Industry Best Performer CAP
Score = 1.9
Value in brackets indicate weightages of each Component to calculate CAP Score
Inference
• CLIENT does enjoy relatively comfortable consumer acceptance. However, lower operational efficiency and online presence
may dampen the leverage.
26 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting
- 27. Thank You!!!
27 Copyright © Zenesys & Kuber Professional Services Training & Consulting