09 Dec 2019 18:10 IST

Analytical approach, enhanced with millennial gut feel

Interesting and offbeat solutions to Zomato’s problems were recommended by many of the entries

We had a larger than usual numbers of participants for the IBS-BLoC Case Study contest on “Can Zomato continue its deep discounting strategy?” With the food services sector being a familiar everyday touch-point for the millennial, the general expectation was that the case analysis would bring out a range of interesting viewpoints from students. Though, many a time, the line of thought was similar in many of the case analyses, we did come across a few interesting and offbeat analytical approaches.

The key factors considered in evaluating the cases were the ability of the student to clearly state the major challenge Zomato is facing and explain the ramifications of the problem for all the stakeholders concerned. Due weightage was given when the analysis clearly explained why the problem occurred in the first place and the various alternative courses of action.

A logical evaluation of alternatives, based on the facts and issues mentioned in the case, as well as assumptions made by the student along with the use of management frameworks, were given due consideration. Finally, the evaluation also placed emphasis on how the student arrived at the best course of action and the extent of details in the recommended action plan.

Winner: Raghvendra Tolia, IIM Kozhikode

The case analysis first touched upon the larger issue facing the food service industry and the initiatives required at the industry level. This was followed by the clear evaluation of the problem confronted by Zomato. Logical presentation of alternative courses of action, possible changes in the business model and a clear, step-by-step action plan for redesigning the deep discount strategy was presented. Overall, a very holistic approach to analysis was taken.

First Runners-Up: Kartikeya J and Praveen G, SIBM Bengaluru

The basic issues that each stakeholder faced were defined, and alternative options for resolution were given. A very detailed and graphic analysis of the action plan was offered that involved some number crunching. This enables one to figure out in detail the impactof tweaking the discount sharing model. Besides, a multi-tiered loyalty programme was chalked out for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Second Runner-Up: Daphne Thresa D and Gomes Anson Joseph, LIBA Chennai

The analysis was well-written with a top-down approach and with the focus moving from industry to stakeholders to company. The key problem was clearly stated and its ramifications elucidated. Logical alternative courses of action were given. The action plan was, however, brief and could have been more detailed.

Third Runner-Up: Gunda Babi Harsha and Harshil Doshi, XIME Kochi

The analysis listed the pain-points of all stakeholders followed by a series of alternative courses of actions. The recommended action plan could have been elaborated upon better, with the intended outcomes.

Fourth Runner-Up: Adarsh AN and Joshua Victor, LIBA Chennai

While the analysis listed various solutions to the problem at hand, it did not fully consider the information available or the limitations that might arise as a result of a recommended alternatives being implemented.

(The writer is a Research Faculty at the IBS Case Research Centre.)