The case study: “Panera Bread Company (2010): Still Rising Fortunes?” Case 16 starting on page 16-1, will include a synopsis; using the Week 1 Addendum, identification of their resources, capabilities, and core competencies; and three findings of fact. Each finding of fact will require a justified solution, each a minimum of one page each. Support your recommended solutions with rational thought learned from the course material, other courses, and real-life experiences. The paper will be double-spaced and will not exceed 10 pages in length.
You must remain within the confines of the case study data.
Resources, capabilities, and core competencies should be in bullet point format.
1. Always a minimum of 5 of each of Resources, Capabilities and Core Competencies. Every Case we deal with, and every client I’ve ever worked with has/prefers a minimum of 5. From a client perspective, most get a sense that with less than 5 a consultant cherry picked the easy ones-ones they already knew. As consultants, we try to offer one or two they hadn’t thought of, and generally, the ones we find for them are ones they were not capitalizing on, and that helps us to form the basis for some strategic improvement.
2. Always provide a citation for each and every Resource, Capability, Competency (example Wheelen, Hunger, Hoffman and Bamford 16-3), Fact and liberal use when we begin writing Synopses. Why? In our Cases and in real world application one of the most important matters is to be able to quickly refer back to where “something” may be found. In our cases we have the case from the textbook and as we shall see at the end of every Case to come there is a “NOTES” section. These provide a fair game for digging deeper. Else most will find from here on that an uncited Fact, Resource, Capability or Competency will draw the “may I ask where did you find this in the Case or Notes?” My point isn’t to embarrass it is to draw attention to detail.
3. As with some others, I need to talk here about Mutual Exclusivity. Facts when more than one are projected into the discussion (assignment) need to be mutually exclusive. Meaning they can’t be too closely related.
In every Case we will look at in every real world case I can think of there is one pre-dominant issue that “unless we stop the bleeding” the victim shall expire. That’s what happens when we don’t look first and foremost for a money matter. I assure you in every case there is a money issue that stops or tops all others. So now knowing that, and now with your menu matters in mind, can you see where Panera Bread Company revenues lag competitors because they lack a diversified menu tended to contemporary tastes and desires? Can you see that added revenues, where expenses are well managed provided growth capital or investor appreciation in Panera’s stock? Money! Where Revenues outpace Expenses, increasingly, where firms have access to money at reasonable rates or rates more competitive to others, or net income is well managed to finance growth without the need for outside capital, try always to look for something lacking in one or all of these ways in our Cases.
Then with Money determined, find mutually exclusive “other” issues from a broad overview using SWOT analyses. By the way, this course has several assumptions one is that incumbent students are familiar with SWOT. For you and all who read, is that a valid assumption or do I need to make a post on the down and dirty of what SWOT analysis is.