Tablet Company Strategy: Second Simulation Cycle Results
This paper documents the second iteration of a business simulation for a tablet manufacturer, executed in January 2012. Building on observations and cost-volume-profit analysis from the previous cycle, the company implements new strategies: discontinuing the underperforming X7 product and reallocating research and development resources entirely to the X6. The paper compares financial performance across both simulation periods and evaluates the trade-offs between short-term profitability from economies of scale and long-term viability in a rapidly innovating technology market.
- Introduction and Context: Second simulation cycle setup and objectives
- Previous Findings and Strategic Rationale: X7 abandonment decision based on CVP analysis
- Product Portfolio Decisions: X5 and X6 pricing and R&D allocation strategy
- Financial Performance Comparison: Results table across time warp periods
- Strategic Assessment and Trade-offs: Short-term gains versus long-term market positioning
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Demonstrates iterative decision-making: the author uses results from a prior simulation cycle to inform new strategic choices, showing learning and adaptation.
- Applies financial principles appropriately: correctly invokes the sunk cost fallacy to justify the X7 abandonment, avoiding a common business pitfall.
- Provides concrete quantitative evidence: the comparison table offers measurable outcomes across both simulation periods, grounding the analysis in data.
- Acknowledges strategic trade-offs: the conclusion explicitly recognizes the tension between short-term margin optimization and long-term market positioning in a dynamic industry.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper integrates cost-volume-profit (CVP) analysis with strategic portfolio management. Rather than treating the simulation as purely operational, the author uses CVP insights from a prior analysis to make forward-looking product decisions—abandoning X7 and concentrating R&D on X6. This demonstrates the practical application of quantitative business analysis to strategy, not just ex-post reporting.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a logical decision-narrative arc: it opens by establishing the simulation context and explaining how prior findings prompted strategy revision. The next sections justify the portfolio decision (X7 abandonment, X5/X6 focus) by referencing both financial metrics and lifecycle stage. A comparison table then displays the results, and the conclusion evaluates whether the strategy achieved its goals and considers unintended consequences. The brevity is appropriate for an internal simulation report.
Introduction and Context
It is January 1st, 2012 again, and the time warp has restarted. This iteration differs from the previous cycle in that the results from the last time warp (SLP 4) have been reviewed and new strategies have been developed based on those observations and cost-volume-profit (CVP) calculations. The aim of this paper is to implement the predetermined strategies and compare the results with the last time warp, evaluating whether the strategic adjustments improve overall firm performance.
Previous Findings and Strategic Rationale
Several issues were highlighted in the last time warp. The most significant concerned the X7 product, which demonstrated poor performance compared to competing products and carried a high price point. CVP analysis indicated that making this product competitive would require a significant level of investment and acceptance of a lower profit margin. Because the X7 also risked cannibalizing sales of the X5 and X6, the difficult decision was made to abandon the X7 entirely. While this means accepting sunk costs, sound financial decision-making dictates that sunk costs should not bias decisions about the future (Chadwick, 2007).
Product Portfolio Decisions
With the X7 discontinued, the firm now operates with two products: the X5 and X6. The X5 showed good performance in the previous simulation, although its product lifecycle was limited. The X6 was the most profitable and demonstrated strong market performance. Pricing levels remain unchanged at $285 for the X5 and $430 for the X6. However, because the X5 is approaching maturity, additional investment in research and development may be unwise given the limited remaining potential to recoup that investment. Conversely, because the X6 is popular and demonstrates growth potential, it will receive 100 percent of the research and development budget, allowing the firm to capitalize on this product's market opportunity.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.