Cambridge Software Corporation Case solution
2011 WordsMar 4th, 20149 Pages
CAMBRIDGE SOFTWARE CORPORATION CASE
QUESTION 1: IF CAMBRIDGE SOFTWARE IS OBLIGED TO LAUNCH JUST ONE PRODUCT, WHICH ONE SHOULD IT BE, AND HOW SHOULD IT BE PRICED?
For every single version, we have calculated the total contribution for each price that segments are willing to pay, and chosen the price that can maximize the total contribution.
SELL ONLY "STUDENT" VERSION
Seg. Dev. Costs
Small business& Consultants
Large Corporate & Small business & Consultants
Corporate…show more content…
And we also noticed that I version only caters for the first three segments, which means I version is more profitable among high-end customers. Meanwhile, under the optimal price, Student version (S) caters for all the segments and Commercial version (C) caters for the segments apart from students, which means S version can earn more from low-end customers and C version can earn more from middle-end customers.
Therefore, if CSC wants to make more profit, it can use I version to attract high-end customers and use C or S version to attract middle-to-low-end customers. So based on these logics, we have two choices, which are S+I and C+I. In these combinations, we cannot directly know which situation is the most profitable one since there are many situations where different versions cater for different segments. To achieve the precise result, we listed all the possibilities and calculated all the profits based on the assumption of consumer surplus to see which combination is most profit. (Detailed calculation process can be found in Appendix.)
S VERSION + I VERSION:
C VERSION + I VERSION:
From the above tables we can see that, S version + I version can achieve the biggest profit, which is $21,180,000. And the price should be set at $50 for S version and not more than 1950 for I version.
In conclusion, the Student version and Industrial
As Borland evolved over the last 25 years, acquiring companies and shifting business strategies, the delivery organization had become a collection of teams with different cultures, processes, release cycles and levels of performance. The cost structure of the organization wasn’t aligned with the strategic objectives of the company, and the teams were struggling to consistently meet delivery goals.
When you have a team of people somewhat new to Agile, it can be difficult to keep them aggressively moving forward on a business goal while also staying true to Agile principles. The reality is that people tend to revert back to behavior that has personally served them well in the past. At the start of our transition, we made a concerted effort to ensure that both teams and management kept their eyes on the long term goal—the business outcome we were striving for—which was not to successfully implement Agile, but to improve productivity and team performance. Thus, when formulating our “base” team structure, we made the following decisions. They felt it important to have someone who could mentor new Scrum Masters while coaching the teams and evangelizing the Scrum as we expanded it across the broader organization.
Many people—including some of our own management—were under the impression that Agile methods imply random chaos and cowboy development. What we have learned is quite the contrary—Agile methods drive accountability, ownership and responsibility down to the lowest and most appropriate levels. Team members are held accountable not by some faceless process, but by their peers – peers that they must face each and every day at the daily stand-up meeting. Some of the core practices of Agile promote these characteristics naturally, and as we navigated our transformation we developed further practices to drive accountability and transparency across the organization.
- 100% increase in number of product releases per year
- Greatly improved relationships with strategic customers, who have participated in over 50 sprint reviews
- Reduced administrative and planning overhead by an average of 15 hours per sprint
- Eliminated 6 days a month of vice president and director time spent reporting per product group
- Increased product quality, reducing issues from release to release by 50%
- Increased team productivity and employee retention through enhanced morale
Full Case Study: http://bit.ly/RxrcpD