The case revolves around Pakistan Telecommunication and Mobilink cellular mobile services providers. Cellular mobile services began very early when there were only two licensed companies who were allowed to provide the mobile services. The two licensed companies were Paktel and Pac Com. Over the years, there has been a steady growth in the cellular market that is majorly caused by the increased number of monthly cellular mobile service subscribers. It is highlighted in the case that as at 2007, there were 76.9 million subscribers, which was a rise in the number of subscription from the previous years. For instance, in 2006, there was a total of 34.5 million subscribers, which was also a rise in the number of the total subscribers in 2005 that recorded a total amount of 12.7 million cellular mobile service subscribers.
The competitive nature of the mobile market in Pakistan has also been highlighted in the case, causing various mobile service providers to explore new markets in order to survive, as well as provision of better services to their customers. In relation to this, it is indicated that Mobilink began to experience some changes, which caused major problems. The company decided to get rid of prepaid services, which meant that there were no more data and/or call offers and packages for all the customers who operated on a pre-paid basis. The company settled down on only offering postpaid services to its customers, which was also accompanied by increased rates. This made the company go through a lot of problems related to customer satisfaction as well as its overall performance. In addition to that, it also affected its annual budget, significantly, because as a result of the decreased income that it received from its services to customers, the company had a lot of challenges adjusting its budget to the amount of revenue that it had achieved. It had to allocate other operations fewer finances, compared to the previous years, in order to keep the company up and running.
Planning and Data Analysis
The planning phase for the company was based on a number of important attributes, which were given key consideration in order to ensure that the company would be successful. The attributes mainly revolved around the total packages allocation per year, the different states to venture into and by how much, and the total amount of finances to be allocated to each customer per city. In addition to that, the total amount allocated per each of the company’s branches per year as well as the total customers present per year were to be given key consideration.
These attributes were important to look into because they for part of the company’s foundation through which it would use to develop itself slowly if the correct amount of finances is allocated to each of the various aspects allocated above as highlighted by El-Santawy and Mohamed (2014). In relation to this, the case indicates that in terms of the total package allocation per year, the company’s budget was highest in 2011, where it amounted to a total of $310 million, followed by $300 million, which was the budgeted amount for 2010. In 2013, the budgeted amount was $220 million, which was closely followed by 2012’s $210 million. The budgeted amount for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 were the lowest of them all, with only $20 million allocated to each of the packages to be distributed to the customers.
In relation to the order of priority given to all the states of the identified region, Sindh was given priority with 54.58% of the company being allocated to that state. This was closely followed by Balochistan’s 21.41% and Sarhad’s 18.88%. Punjab was the state to be given the least attention with only 5.13% of the total company being allocated too it. Similarly, in relation to the budget allocated to each of the company’s branches, Quetta was given key priority in 2011, with finances worth $310 million. This was the highest amount so far between the years ranging from 2010 to 2017. In 2010, Bahawalpur was given priority, with total finances amounting to $300 million being allocated to it in the company’s budget. This amount was an improvement from $220 million in 2012, which was allocated to Islamabad. Gilgit, Faislabad, Karachi, and Lahore were each allocated $20 million in 2014, 2014, 2016, and 2017 respectively.
Finally, in relation to the financial allocation per number of customers in each city, Lahore had the highest number of customers, who amounted to 4,792,746 and were allocated $20 million. This amount was also allocated to Faislabad’s 5,416,247 customers, Karachi’s 4,344,247 customers, and Gilgit’s 3,854,247 customers. However, Islamabad, which had a total of 4334247 customers, was allocated $220 million while Larkana that had a total of 3,754,247 was allocated $220 million. This figure was closely followed by Bahawalpur’s 3053247 customers, who were allocated $300 million. This was the branch that had the least number of customers of all the branches that the company had. Finally, Quetta, which had a total of 4,075,247 customers, was allocated $310 million.
Analysis Result and Discussion
From the data highlighted above, it is evident that there are various relationships formed between the different variables that were used to allocate resources to various branches of the company in various states of the country. In addition to that, the aspect of the number of customers present in each branch of the company was given consideration. For instance, according to the data provided in the case, it has been clearly indicated that the amount allocated to the company does not necessarily rely on number of packages per year. This is based on the fact that there were irregular figures as far as the packages for each year is concerned that also corresponded to a fluctuating financial allocation for each of the packages. In terms of allocation of finances for each of the company’s branches, the budget highly depended on the amount of returns that each of the branches would yield for the company. This means that the branches that were likely to have minimal returns were not invested in as much as the branches of the company that would yield substantial returns.
On the other hand, it is easily noticeable that the number of customers that each of the company’s branches had was not a key driving factor that determined the amount of finances to be allocated to each branch. This is based on the fact that it has been highlighted that Lahore had the highest number of customers, who amounted to 4,792,746 but were allocated only $20 million. This amount was also allocated to Faislabad’s 5,416,247 customers, Karachi’s 4,344,247 customers, and Gilgit’s 3,854,247 customers. However, Islamabad, which had a total of 4334247 customers, was allocated $220 million while Larkana that had a total of 3,754,247 was allocated $220 million. This figure was closely followed by Bahawalpur’s 3053247 customers, who were allocated $300 million, yet it was the branch that had the least number of customers of all the branches that the company had. Finally, Quetta, which had a total of 4,075,247 customers, was allocated $310 million.
Recommendations and Findings
In order to improve on the company’s investment feasibility, it is recommended that the company should conduct a thorough research and development procedure that would give the company an assurance that the projects that it invests in would add value to the company by ensuring that it gets substantial returns that would be able to sustain all its operations (Willcocks 2013). In terms of customer satisfaction, it is recommended that the company should offer both the pre-paid and the post-paid services to its customers. This is based on the fact that each of its customers have different tastes and preferences, therefore, offering a variety of different services to the customer is likely to attract a larger pool of customers as pointed out by Kärnä (2014).
In relation to improving on the company’s revenue, it is recommended that the company should invest in projects that would cost an amount that is likely to be equal to or slightly less that the returns that it would get on the project settled upon because it would mean that it would only be breaking even r receiving very minimal profits. However, it should lay its focus on projects and strategies that would be highly beneficial to it financially (Fiig, Cholak, Gauchet, and Cany 2015, p. 127).
Finally, in order to increase and retain the number of the customers that the company has, it is recommended that it settles down on a favorable pricing strategy that all the customers would be comfortable with as well as offering both the pre-paid and the post-paid services to its customers because of their different tastes and preferences as highlighted by Tripathi (2014).
El-Santawy, M.F. and Mohamed, A.T., 2014. On Using MCDM Techniques for Budgeting Allocation. Computing & Information Systems, 18(2).
Fiig, T., Cholak, U., Gauchet, M. And Cany, B., 2015. What is the Role of Distribution in Revenue Management? –Past and Future. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 14(2), Pp.127-133.
Kärnä, S., 2014. Analysing Customer Satisfaction and Quality in Construction–The Case of Public and Private Customers. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 2.
Tripathi, M.N., 2014. Customer Satisfaction and Engagement-Customer Retention Strategies for Brand Manager. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, 11(1).
Willcocks, L., 2013. Information Management: The Evaluation of Information Systems Investments. Springer.