Dominion Motors and Controls Case Analysis

Dominion Motors And Controls Ltd Case Analysis

Submitted By- Group 28 

Navonil Rahut (13430)



Ashish Jaiswal (13510)



Ankit Khurana (13605)



Roshan Nepal (13735)

Introduction:

Problem Statement:

Evaluating Alternatives:

 Alternative 1:

 Alternative 2: This alternative deals with reengineering the present 7.5 hp motor to increase its starting torque at least equal to that of Spartan 7.5 hp motor. It might provide relief only for a very short period. Both the ways suggested as a part of this alternative clearly fails to comply with the NEMA standards. This, although does not affect the operations, it might be perceived negatively at the customers’ end and thus the strategy might backfire. Moreover the cost of manufacturing associated with both ways is substantially high and is very much close to that of a 10 hp unit. Thus it will result in reduced profit margin, as the customers might not be willing to pay a premium for a tweaked product with no distinct benefits.  Alternative 3: This seems to be a viable option. The alternative suggests that DMC should move to designing a definite-purpose oil motor for the oil well pumping market. This option is best suited because of the following reasons: 



  

Manufacturing cost of $665 is approximately equal to that of the current 7.5 hp unit which is $663.51 DMC will have the first mover edge of offering the market with a product that directly tailors to the need DMC will maintain its image of following all NEMA standards It can moreover be considered as an extension to the present product line Due to better mapping of market needs, DMC can charge a premium for such a product in the long run

However one of the potential drawbacks associated with tis is that it will take four to five months and competitors can gain advantage and market-share in the short run, keeping in mind the fact that the oil well motor market was rapidly becoming active after its usual winter slump.

 Alternative 4: The fourth alternative targets at falsifying the necessity of the report by Bridges. As per the case, Bridges takes utmost pride in the authorship and thus any attempt to pursue him might be detrimental. Moreover, it is evident from the associates of DMC that they have lesser starting torque as compared to that of its competitors, although it is not desired for functioning. Thus for the benefit in the long run DMC should target at focusing on the other three alternatives rather than trying to defend itself. Recommendation

We propose a mixed alternative of option 1 and 3. For benefits in the long run, DMC must invest onto R&D and develop a 5 hp motor that serves the purpose of increased starting torque thus catering to the market needs. At the same time, in order to avoid the risk of losing market share in the short run, it must reduce the price of its 10 hp unit, as suggested in alternative 1. On parallel lines, it must promote to its customers about the development of the definite purpose oil motor. This will help DMC retain its market share, achieve competitive advantage, abide to NEMA standards and also help in generating new leads for the product in the market.