chapter 9 analysis of the case studies:...

CHAPTER 9

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE STUDIES: EVIDENCES FOR

SUPPORT OF HYPOTHESIS

The previous chapters 5 to 8 deals with turnaround cases, which is developed by the researcher

as illustrative cases based on the findings in Chapter 4. The cases illustrated are two successful

turnarounds in each public and private sectors in Karnataka and two unsuccessful turnarounds

each in public and private sector organisations in Karnataka. In the present chapter the researcher

has made an endeavor to compare the published companies� findings with the illustrative cases.

Thus, an attempt has been made to compare the causes of sickness and turnaround strategies of

published companies and illustrative cases of both public and private sector which are both

successful and unsuccessful and to prove the hypothesis stated in the research design.

For illustrating the cases in the chapters 5 to 8, the data-collection was carried out through

interview schedule. The researcher visited eight organizations in Karnataka and carried

interviews with the people involved in the turnarounds. The interview covered mainly three

categories of people namely, (1) the lower level employees (2) middle level personnel from

various departments involved in turnarounds, and (3) members of the top management. In all, the

researcher visited over eight locations across the state and interviewed more than 80 people over

a period of the study. The interview schedules were conducted around a variety of causes and

turnaround strategies, as listed in Appendix 6.

The interview data was further supplemented by secondary data from the internal documents and

records of the respective companies. An in-depth eight case studies analysis was carried out to

identify the causes of sickness and turnaround strategies among the eight case studies which

were developed. The analysis of the two categories revealed causal variables of industrial

sickness and turnaround strategies. A frequency count of each such causes and turnaround

strategies along with their percentages for each group is given in Table-2.

id15020265 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com

Commonly observed causes of sickness

Hypothesis-1: External causes of organisational sickness can adversely affect an organization�s

health only if the organisation is internally weak with respect to the systems and competencies in

dealing with the developments in the external environment.

Table 9.1. Table showing the commonly observed causes of Industrial sickness of Illustrative cases

Item Causal factor no.

Number

(N=8)

%

1 IC1: Ambitious expansion 8 100

2 IC2: High cost of debt due to escalation of projects 4 50

3 IC3:slow initial growth 4 50

4 IC4: Poor financial structure 6 75

5 IC5: Poor marketing strategy 6 75

6 IC6: Incompetent management 7 87.5

7 IC7: Obsolete technology 8 100

8 IC8: High operating cost 6 75

9 IC9: High non-performing assets(NPA�s) 6 75

10 IC10: Inadequate capital 5 62.5

11 IC11: Operating Inefficiency 6 75

12 IC12: Large investment in new product line 6 75

13 IC13: Inefficient workers 7 87.5

14 IC14: Poor market demand 5 62.5

15 IC15: Low quality production 5 62.5

16 IC16: Low capacity utilisation 6 75

17 IC17: Low sales turnover 8 100

18 IC18: drop in exports 6 75

19 IC19: Fall in share Prices 5 62.5

20 IC20: Delay in projects 4 50

21 IC21: Excess employees 8 100

22 IC22: Huge stock of inventory 8 100

23 IC23: Low employee morale 6 75

24 IC24: High employee cost 4 50

25 IC25: Lack of liquidity 7 87.5

26 IC26: Improper utilisation of funds 8 100

27 IC27: Lack of market orientation 6 75

28 EC1: High input cost 8 100

29 EC2: Dumping from overseas market 5 62.5

30 EC3: Competitive advantage 5 62.5

31 EC4: High interest Cost 6 75

32 EC5: Market recession and lack of demand 4 50

33 EC6: Government constraints 4 50

34 EC7: Changes in the needs and demands of the customer 8 100

35 EC8: Forex fluctuations and weakening of rupee 2 25

36 EC9: Stagnant price of product 3 37.5

From the above table 9.1 it is evident that majority of the causes of sickness are internal to the

organization, adding up for 27 out of 36 causes. The various internal causes of sickness are IC1-

ambitious expansion, IC2-High cost of debt due to escalation of project, IC3-slow initial growth,

IC4-Poor financial structure, IC5-poor marketing strategy, IC6-incompetent management, IC7-

obsolete technology, IC8-high operating cost, IC9-high nonperforming assets(NPA�s), IC10-

poor capital, IC11-operating inefficiencies, IC12-large investment in new product line, IC13-

inefficient workers, IC14-poor market demand, IC15- quality production, IC16-low capacity

utilization, IC17-Low turnover/sales, IC18-drop in exports, IC19-depression in capital markets,

IC20-delay in projects IC21-heavily overstaffed, IC22-huge stock of inventory, IC23-low

employee morale, IC24-high employee cost, IC25-lack of liquidity, IC26-improper utilization of

funds, IC27-lack of market orientation. While, only 9 out of 36 are external causes of Industrial

sickness. The various external causes of sickness are EC1-high input cost, EC2-dumping from

overseas market, EC3-competitive advantage, EC4-high interest cost, EC5-Market recession and

lack of demand, EC6-Regulations by the government, EC7-Changes in the needs and demands of

the customer, EC8-Foreign exchange fluctuations and weakening of rupee, EC9-Stagnant price

of the Product.

Graph 9.1.a Graph showing the commonly observed internal causes of Industrial sickness

of Illustrative cases

Graph 9.1.b Graph showing the commonly observed external causes of Industrial sickness

of Illustrative cases

This proves the hypothesis 1 in both illustrative cases that there is a relationship between internal

weakness and the impact of external causes and is supported by Table 9.1, Graph 9.1.a and

Graph 9.1.b

Hypothesis-2: Multiplicity of causes can be a major reason for turnaround failures; organisations

that are afflicted by one or a few causes are likely to experience greater success in turnaround.

Table 9.2: Table showing the comparative Principal factors of causal variables of successful and unsuccessful turnarounds of illustrative cases

Sl.

No.

Causal factor no. and name with variable descriptions

Successful Turnarounds

Unsuccessful Turnarounds

Number

(N=4)

%

Number

(N=4)

%

Factor-1 (C1): Growth unsupported by resources and demand

1 IC4: High debt equity 2 50 4 100

2 IC19: Fall in share Prices 1 25 4 100

3 EC4: High interest Cost 2 50 4 100

4 IC9: High non-performing assets(NPA�s) 2 50 4 100

5 IC1: Ambitious expansion 4 100 4 100

6 IC2: High cost of debt due to escalation of projects 1 50 3 75

Factor-2 (C2): Recessionary conditions

7 EC5: Market recession and lack of demand 1 25 3 75

8 EC9: Stagnant price of product 1 25 3 75

9 IC12: Large investment in new product line 2 50 4 100

Factor-3 (C3): Operational inefficiency

10 IC25: Lack of liquidity 3 75 4 100

11 EC6: Government constraints 1 25 3 75

12 IC11: Operating Inefficiency 2 50 4 100

Factor-4 (C4): Inadequate utilisation of resources

13 IC21: Excess employees 4 100 4 100

14 IC10: Inadequate capital 4 100 4 100

15 IC22: Huge stock of inventory 4 100 4 100

16 IC16: Low capacity utilisation 2 50 4 100

17 IC26: Improper utilisation of funds 4 100 4 100

Factor -5 (C5): Low proactiveness vis-à-vis market and technology

18 IC14: Poor market demand 1 25 4 100

19 IC7: Obsolete technology 4 100 4 100

20 IC5: Poor market strategy 2 50 4 100

21 IC17: Low sales turnover 4 100 4 100

Factor-6 (C6): Poor adaptability

22 EC8: Forex fluctuations and weakening of rupee 1 25 2 50

23 IC16: Drop in exports 2 50 4 100

24 IC6: Incompetent management 3 75 4 100

25 EC1: High input cost 4 100 4 100

26 IC27: Lack of market orientation 2 50 4 100

27 IC13: Inefficient workers 4 100 4 100

It is clear from table 9.2 that almost 22 causes of industrial sickness out of 27 are prevalent in all

four unsuccessful turnarounds illustrative cases, while 9 out of 27 causes of sickness are

prevalent in all four successful turnaround illustrative cases. This indicates that 82% of the

causes of sickness are prevalent in all four unsuccessful turnarounds illustrative cases, while only

33% of the causes of sickness are prevalent in successful turnarounds illustrative cases, which

makes it very difficult for organizations with multiple causes of industrial sickness to turnaround

which proves the hypothesis in the illustrative cases also that unsuccessful cases have large

number of causes than the successful cases.

Graph 9.2. a. Graph showing the comparative principal factor-1 of causal variables of

successful and unsuccessful turnarounds of illustrative cases

Graph 9.2 b. Graph showing the comparative principal factor-2 of causal variables of


Graph 9.2 c. Graph showing the comparative principal factor-3 of causal variables of


Graph 9.2 d. Graph showing the comparative principal factor-4 of causal variables of


Graph 9.2 e. Graph showing the comparative principal factor-5 of causal variables of


9.2 f. Graph showing the comparative principal factor-6 of causal variables of successful

and unsuccessful turnarounds of illustrative cases

ii. A Comparative Analysis of Successful and Unsuccessful Cases of Turnaround

Hypothesis-3: Lean management strategy is likely to be used more frequently by successful

turnarounds than unsuccessful ones.

Hypothesis-4: As the most characteristic feature of a sick organisation is the cash crunch, Cost

management strategies are likely to be used more frequently by successful turnarounds than

unsuccessful ones.

Hypothesis-5: Refocussing on core business as well as customers is likely to be used more by all

turnaround efforts in an attempt to regain their erstwhile market position. However, finding and

developing markets make be more characteristic of successful turnarounds.

Hypothesis-6: Strategies for increasing operational efficiencies in the existing operations are

likely to be used more or less equally by both successful turnarounds and unsuccessful

turnarounds. However, investments in R&D for improving existing technologies and/or

developing new technologies are likely to be used more frequently by the successful ones.

Hypothesis-7: Corporate restructuring and image building are likely to be used more or less

equally by both successful and unsuccessful turnarounds.

Table 9.3: Table showing the commonly observed turnaround strategies in illustrative cases

Item Strategy variables of turnaround Number

(N=8)

Percentage

1 MS1- Innovative Marketing Strategies 3 37.5

2 MS2-reassessment of product mix 6 75

3 MS3-transition from seller market to buyers market 5 62.5

4 MS4-focus on core markets 8 100

5 MS5- entering newer markets 2 25

6 MS6-focus on promotional activities 5 62.5

7 MS7-aggressive pricing 6 75

8 MS8-entering newer markets 6 75

9 FS1-Debt restructuring 6 75

10 FS2-Reduction in cost of assets 6 75

11 FS3-efficiency in short term financing 6 75

12 FS4-Infusion of funds 8 100

13 FS5-Cost cutting 5 62.5

14 FS6-Cost of reduction of funds 6 75

15 HRS1-Huge retrenchment 8 100

16 HRS2-employee training 2 25

17 HRS3-Change in the top management 3 37.5

18 HRS4-Incentives to employees 6 75

19 HRS5-Motivating employees 4 50

20 HRS6-Culture building 5 62.5

21 HRS7-Employee involvement 4 50

22 HRS8-information dissemination 8 100

23 POS1-Efficiency measures for operations 7 87.5

24 POS2-Investment in R&D 6 75

25 POS3-reduction in the cost of raw materials 2 25

26 POS4-modernisation 5 62.5

27 POS5- Technical collaboration 5 62.5

28 POS6- Improvement in process 5 62.5

29 CPS1- Corporate social responsibility 5 62.5

30 CPS2-restructure the organisation 7 87.5

Table 9.4: Table showing the Principal factors of strategy variables in successful and unsuccessful turnarounds in illustrative cases

Strategy factor no. and name with variable descriptions

Successful turnarounds

(N=4)

Unsuccessful turnarounds

(N=4)

Factor-1 (S1): Employee engagement

HRS4: Incentives to employees 4 100 2 50

HRS7: Employee involvement 3 75 1 25

HRS5: Motivating employees 3 75 1 25

HRS6: Culture building 4 100 1 25

Factor-2 (S2): Aggressive promotion of products in markets

MS3: Transition from sellers market to buyers market 4 100 1 25

MS6: Focus on promotional activities 4 100 1 25

Factor-3 (S3): Cost management strategies

FS6: Reduction in cost of funds 4 100 2 50

FS5: Cost cutting 4 100 1 25

PS3: Reduction in raw material cost 4 100 2 50

Factor-4 (S4): Investments in new markets and R&D

MS8: Entering new markets 4 100 2 50

POS2: Investment in R&D 4 100 2 50

POS1: Efficiency measures for operations 4 100 3 75

Factor-5 (S5): Focus on core business

FS4: Infusion of funds 4 100 4 100

HRS1: Huge retrenchment 4 100 4 100

MS4: Focus on core business 4 100 4 100

Factor-6 (S6): Changes in product mix and pricing

MS7: Aggressive pricing 4 100 2 50

MS2: Reassessment of product mix 4 100 2 50

Factor-7 (S7): Lean management

FS2: Reduction in assets 4 100 2 50

FS9: Enhance shareholders value 4 100 2 50

FS1: Debt restructuring 4 100 2 50

CPS2: Restructure the organisation 4 100 3 75

FS3: Efficiency in short term financing 4 100 2 50

Factor-8 (S8): Image building

HRS8: Information Dissemination 4 100 4 100

From Table No. 9.4 it is evident that Factor-7 (S7): Lean management which has the variables

FS2: Reduction in assets, FS9: Enhance shareholders value, FS1: Debt restructuring, CPS2:

Restructure the organization and FS3: Efficiency in short term financing are used by all the four

illustrative successful turnaround cases, while on an aggregate less than 2 out of 4 (50%) of the

unsuccessful companies use this strategy for turnaround. This proves the hypothesis-3 that, lean

management strategy is likely to be used more frequently by successful turnarounds than

unsuccessful ones is evident in the illustrative cases also.

Table No. 9.4 also shows that Factor-3 (S3): Cost management strategies whose variables are

FS6: Reduction in cost of funds, FS5: Cost cutting and PS3: Reduction in raw material cost are

used by all the four(100%) illustrative successful turnaround cases, while on an aggregate less

than 2 out of 4 (50%) of the unsuccessful companies use this strategy for turnaround, which

proves the hypothesis 4 that the most characteristic feature of a sick organisation is the cash

crunch and that Cost management strategies are likely to be used more frequently by successful

turnarounds than unsuccessful ones is also seen in the illustrative cases as well.

Table No. 9.4 also states that Factor-5 (S5): Focus on core business whose variables are FS4:

Infusion of funds, HRS1: Huge retrenchment and MS4: Focus on core business which used by all

the eight illustrative successful and unsuccessful turnaround cases, while on an aggregate less

than 2 out of 4 (50%) of the unsuccessful companies use Factor-4 (S4): Investments in new

markets and R&D, whose variables are MS8: Entering new markets, POS2: Investment in R&D

and POS1: Efficiency measures for operation, which proves the hypothesis that the hypothesis-

5, which states that Refocussing on core business as well as customers is likely to be used more

by all turnaround efforts in an attempt to regain their erstwhile market position. However,

finding and developing markets make be more characteristic of successful turnarounds is seen in

the illustrative cases also.

It is evident from the Table 9.4 that all the 4 (100%) illustrative cases in the successful

turnarounds and 3 out of 4 (75%) illustrative cases in unsuccessful turnarounds adopt

improvement in operational efficiencies in the existing operations. This supports the hypothesis-

6 that strategies for increasing operational efficiencies in the existing operations are likely to be

used more or less equally by both successful turnarounds and unsuccessful turnarounds. While,

investment in R&D is used by all 4 (100%) of the illustrative cases in the successful turnarounds

and only 2 out of 4 (50%)of the illustrative unsuccessful turnarounds adopt this strategy. This

proves the second part of hypothesis-6 that investments in R&D for improving existing

technologies and/or developing new technologies are likely to be used more frequently by the

successful ones.

It is evident from the Table 9.4 that all four illustrative successful turnarounds and 3 out of 4

(75%) illustrative unsuccessful turnarounds use corporate restructuring as their turnaround

strategies. While all the four illustrative cases each in successful and unsuccessful turnarounds

adopt image building as their strategies for turnarounds. This proves the hypothesis-7 that

corporate restructuring and image building are likely to be used more or less equally by both

successful and unsuccessful turnarounds.

Graph 9.3.a: Graph showing the commonly observed turnaround strategies in illustrative

cases Marketing (M) and Financial(F).

Graph 9.3.b: Graph showing the commonly observed turnaround strategies in illustrative

cases Human Resources (HR), Production (POS and Corporate Planning(CP)

Graph 9.4.a: Graph showing the principal factor-1 of strategy variables in successful and

unsuccessful turnarounds in illustrative cases

Graph 9.4.b: Graph showing the principal factor-2 of strategy variables in successful and


Graph 9.4.c: Graph showing the principal factor-3 of strategy variables in successful and


Graph 9.4.d: Graph showing the principal factor-4 of strategy variables in successful and


Graph 9.4.e: Graph showing the principal factor-5 of strategy variables in successful and


Graph 9.4.f: Graph showing the principal factor-6 of strategy variables in successful and


Graph 9.4.g: Graph showing the principal factor-7 of strategy variables in successful and


Graph 9.4.h: Graph showing the principal factor-8 of strategy variables in successful and


iii. A Comparative Analysis of Private and Public Sector Turnarounds

Hypothesis-8: Sickness in the public sector may be caused more by exogenous factor such as

governance structure, stakeholder complexities and resource inadequacy, whereas in the private

sector the causes may relate more to internal inefficiencies aggravated by general economic

conditions.

Table 9.5: Table showing the Principal factors of causal variables in private and public sector turnarounds in illustrative cases

Sl.

No.

Causal factor no. and name with variable descriptions

Private sector Turnaround(N=4)

Public sector Turnarounds(N=4)

Number % Number %

Factor-1 (C1): Growth unsupported by resources and demand

1 IC4: High debt equity 4 100 2 50

2 IC19: Fall in share Prices 4 100 2 50

3 EC4: High interest Cost 4 100 2 50

4 IC9: High non-performing assets(NPA�s) 3 75 3 75

5 IC1: Ambitious expansion 3 75 2 50

6 IC2: High cost of debt due to escalation of projects

2 50 2 50

Factor-2 (C2): Recessionary conditions

7 EC5: Market recession and lack of demand 3 75 1 25

8 EC9: Stagnant price of product 3 75 1 25

9 IC12: Large investment in new product line 4 100 4 100

Factor-3 (C3): Operational inefficiency

10 IC25: Lack of liquidity 4 100 1 25

11 EC6: Government constraints 3 75 1 25

12 IC11: Operating Inefficiency 4 100 2 50

Factor-4 (C4): Inadequate utilisation of resources

13 IC21: Excess employees 4 100 4 100

14 IC10: Inadequate capital 4 100 4 100

15 IC22: Huge stock of inventory 4 100 4 100

16 IC16: Low capacity utilisation 4 100 2 50

17 IC26: Improper utilisation of funds 4 100 4 100

Factor -5 (C5): Low proactiveness vis-à-vis market and technology

18 IC14: Poor market demand 3 75 2 50

19 IC7: Obsolete technology 4 100 4 100

20 IC5: Poor market strategy 4 100 2 50

21 IC17: Low sales turnover 4 100 4 100

Factor-6 (C6): Poor adaptability

22 EC8: Forex fluctuations and weakening of rupee

3 75 0 0

23 IC16: Drop in exports 4 100 2 50

24 IC6: Incompetent management 3 75 1 25

25 EC1: High input cost 4 100 4 100

26 IC27: Lack of market orientation 4 100 2 50

27 IC13: Inefficient workers 4 100 4 100

From Table 9.5, it is evident that majority of causes of sickness in the public sector are not

exogenous in nature, which does support the first part of hypothesis 8. However, the second part

of the hypothesis 8 is supported, which was about the private sector being more affected by

external causes of sickness .Thus, majority of private sector organizations have been affected by

external causes of sickness. Wherein, 3 out of 4 (75%) private sector organizations have

operational inefficiency and recessionary conditions as the prominent causes of sickness. This

does not support the hypothesis-8 that public sector cases have causes of sickness as exogenous

in nature. While, the second part of the hypothesis is supported.

Graph 9.5.a: Graph showing the Principal factor-1 of causal variables in private and public

sector turnarounds in illustrative cases

Graph 9.5.b: Graph showing the Principal factor-2 of causal variables in private and

public sector turnarounds in illustrative cases

Graph 9.5.c: Graph showing the Principal factor-3 of causal variables in private and public


Graph 9.5.d: Graph showing the Principal factor-4 of causal variables in private and


Graph 9.5.e: Graph showing the Principal factor-5 of causal variables in private and public


Graph 9.5.f: Graph showing the Principal factor-6 of causal variables in private and public


Hypothesis-9: Employee engagement strategy is likely to be used more frequently by public

sector turnarounds than private sector ones.

Hypothesis-10: Since public sector organisations often have monopoly positions in the market

they are traditionally known to be lethargic about product quality and promotion. However, in a

turnaround situation they have to have special focus on these two critical aspects for regaining

market acceptance. Hence, we propose that there would be a greater focus on changing product

mix, pricing and promotion in the public sector compared to private which have been active in

these matters.

Hypothesis-11: Public and private sector organisations are unlikely to differ in the substantive

turnaround strategies relating to cost and lean management strategies, focus on core business,

investments in markets and R&D and image building.

Table 9.6: Table showing the Principal factors of strategy variables in private and public sector turnarounds in illustrative cases

Strategy factor no. and name with variable descriptions Private sector turnarounds

(N=4)

Public sector turnarounds

(N=4)

Factor-1 (S1): Employee engagement % %

HRS4: Incentives to employees 3 75 3 75

HRS7: Employee involvement 2 50 2 50

HRS5: Motivating employees 2 50 2 50

HRS6: Culture building 2 50 2 50

Factor-2 (S2): Aggressive promotion of products in markets

MS3: Transition from sellers market to buyers market 2 50 3 75

MS6: Focus on promotional activities 2 50 3 75

Factor-3 (S3): Cost management strategies

FS6: Reduction in cost of funds 3 75 3 75

FS5: Cost cutting 2 50 3 75

POS3: Reduction in raw material cost 3 75 3 75

Factor-4 (S4): Investments in new markets and R&D

MS8: Entering new markets 3 75 3 75

POS2: Investment in R&D 3 75 3 75

POS1: Efficiency measures for operations 4 100 3 75

Factor-5 (S5): Focus on core business

FS4: Infusion of funds 3 75 3 75

HRS1: Huge retrenchment 3 75 3 75

MS4: Focus on core business 3 75 3 75

Factor-6 (S6): Changes in product mix and pricing

MS7: Aggressive pricing 2 50 4 100

MS2: Reassessment of product mix 2 50 4 100

Factor-7 (S7): Lean management

FS2: Reduction in assets 3 75 3 75

FS9: Enhance shareholders value 3 75 3 75

FS1: Debt restructuring 3 75 3 75

CPS2: Restructure the organisation 4 100 3 75

FS3: Efficiency in short term financing 3 75 3 75

Factor-8 (S8): Image building

HRS8: Information Dissemination 4 100 4 100

It is evident from Table 9.6 that Factor-1 (S1): Employee engagement which involves the

variables HRS4: Incentives to employees, HRS7: Employee involvement HRS5: Motivating

employees and HRS6: Culture building is used by almost same number of illustrative public and

private cases. That is, almost 3 out of 4 (75%) private and public sector illustrative cases use

these strategies for turnarounds. This does not supports the hypothesis that public sector would

be using employee engagement more frequently than the private sector in the illustrative cases.

It is also evident from Table 9.6 that Factor-6 (S6): Changes in product mix and pricing which

consists of variables MS7: Aggressive pricing and MS2: Reassessment of product mix is used by

all 4 (100%) of public sector illustrative cases and 2 out of 4 (50%) private sector illustrative

cases. Similarly, Factor-2 (S2): Aggressive promotion of products in markets which consists of

variables MS3: Transition from sellers market to buyers market and MS6: Focus on promotional

activities is used by almost 3 out of 4 (75%) public sector illustrative cases and 2 out of 4 (50%)

private sector illustrative cases. This supports the hypothesis-10 that public sectors are coming

out of their lethargic position in product quality, and promotion and that there was significant

differences in favour of the public sector with reference to the two relevant strategies changes in

product mix and pricing, and aggressive promotion of products in markets.

It is also evident from Table 9.6 that Factor-3 (S3): Cost management strategies which consists

of variables - FS6: Reduction in cost of funds, FS5: Cost cutting POS3: Reduction in raw

material cost is present in almost 3 out of 4 (75%) private and public illustrative cases.

Factor-4 (S4): Investments in new markets and R&D which consists of variables- MS8: Entering

new markets, POS2: Investment in R&D and POS1: Efficiency measure for operations is present

almost in 3 out of 4 (75%) private and public illustrative cases.

Factor-5 (S5): Focus on core business which consists of variables - FS4: Infusion of funds,

HRS1: Huge retrenchment and MS4: Focus on core business is present in 3 out of 4(75%)

private and public illustrative cases.

Factor-7 (S7): Lean management which consists of variables - FS2: Reduction in assets, FS9:

Enhance shareholders value, FS1: Debt restructuring, CPS2: Restructure the organization and

FS3: Efficiency in short term financing is present in 3 out of 4 (75%) private and public

illustrative cases.

Factor-8 (S8): Image building which consist of a variable -HRS8: Information Dissemination is

present in all 4 (100%) private and public illustrative cases. This supports the hypothesis that

there is no difference in a few substantive turnaround strategies namely cost and lean

management strategies, focus on core business, investment in markets and R&D, and image

building in the illustrative cases.

Graph 9.6.a: Graph showing the Principal factor-1 of strategy variables in private and


Graph 9.6.b: Graph showing the Principal factor-2 of strategy variables in private and


Graph 9.6.c.: Graph showing the Principal factor-3 of strategy variables in private and


Graph 9.6.d.: Graph showing the Principal factor-4 of strategy variables in private and


Graph 9.6.e.: Graph showing the Principal factor-5 of strategy variables in private and


Graph 9.6.f.: Graph showing the Principal factor-6 of strategy variables in private and


Graph 9.6.g.: Graph showing the Principal factor-7 of strategy variables in private and


Graph 9.6.h.: Graph showing the Principal factor-8 of strategy variables in private and


Based on the information mentioned under different tables and Graphs it is evident that the illustrative

cases developed in public and private, successful and unsuccessful turnarounds, analyzed matches with

the hypothesis developed and proved under chapter 4.

chapter 9 analysis of the case studies:...

Documents