Contoh Tugasan

Contoh-contoh tugasan pelanggan yang menggunakan perkhidmatan kami.
- Thursday, March 30, 2017

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT BBPS4103

            Flat UI Design Resources








KRAFT FOOD INC. – 2009
Case Analysis Prepared by: Viviana


1.0              CASE ABSTRACT

Kraft Foods Incorporated is the largest food company and brand beverages in North America and the second largest in the world to operate in over 150 countries, from Mexico to Singapore. Kraft operates two main sectors; Kraft Foods North America (KFNA) and Kraft Foods International (KFI).

Kraft, the support of certain brands of food and favorite beverages in the world, markets in five sectors mentioned products are drinks, snacks, cheese, grocery and convenient meals. It was launched by James L. Kraft in 1903, with a horse drawn carriage to deliver the cheese made it wholesale Chicago, Illinois. Through the years the company has been built on a strong sense of innovation and quality. You can find the Kraft brands in a Parisian market in France, a vending machine in Japan and a grocery store in America. Kraft Foods is the number one distributor of food products in the US and second only to Nestlé worldwide.

Kraft Foods Inc. (www.Kraftfoodscompany.com) is an event of global strategic management that includes the company's calendar on December 31, 2008 financial statements, information on competitors and more. Setting the event time is 2009. Sufficient internal and external data are provided to allow students to evaluate current strategies. Based in Northfield, IL, Kraft Foods Inc. is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol KFT.






2.0       VISION STATEMENT (Actual)
One company growing by nourishing lives and finding better way today one bite at a time.


3.0  MISSION STATEMENT (Actual)
Make Today Delicious.


4.0       MISSION STATEMENT (Proposed)
As a global company (c), we pride ourselves in producing superior products and services (b) to our customer. With superior technology (d) and dedicated employees (i), we are constantly working on introducing new and innovative products, meeting our customer’s expectation (f) and ensuring to achieve higher than expected return to our shareholders (e). Our desire is to be the number one choice for our loyal customers (g, h).

a)      Customer
b)      Products or services
c)      Markets
d)      Technology
e)      Concern for survival, profitability, growth
f)       Philosophy
g)      Self-concept
h)      Concern for public image
i)       Concern for employees





5.0       COMPETITIVE PROFILE MATRIX (CPM)

Critical Success Factor
Weight
Description: http://www.nutrsci.illinois.edu/images/Kraft%20logo_blueR.jpg

Description: http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/image/ConAgra%20Logo.jpg
Rating
Score


Rating
Score
1. Advertising
0.12
3
0.36


2
0.24
2. Financial Position
0.10
3
0.30


2
0.20
3. Global Expansion
0.09
3
0.27


2
0.18
4. Market Share
0.10
3
0.30


2
0.20
5. Product Diversity
0.16
4
0.64


3
0.48
6. Consumer Demands
0.14
4
0.56


3
0.42
7. Customer Loyalty
0.13
3
0.39


2
0.26
8. Product Safety
0.16
2
0.32


3
0.48
Total 
1
3.14


2.46

The Competitive Profile Matrix is a vital strategic management tool to compare the firm
with the major competitors of the industry. The competitive profile matrix displays a well-defined
picture to the firm about their strengths and weaknesses relative to their competitors. The
primary competitors to Kraft are Nestlé and ConAgra, so we used those two companies in this
matrix. After an in depth analysis of the external and internal environment we came up with
these critical success factors: Advertising, Financial Position, Global Expansion, Market Share,
Product Diversity, Consumer Demands, Customer Loyalty, and Product Safety. After we came
up with each factor, we must weight and rate each factor for each company.  The rating in the
CPM represents the response that the firm has towards the critical success factors. The
response scale is from 1 to 4. A poor response is represented by 1, the response is average if
it's represented by 2, the response is above average if it's represented by 3, and the response is
superior if it's represented by 4.
Competitive Profile Matrix is ​​a vital strategic management tool for comparing the firm with the major competitors in the industry. The competitive profile matrix displays a clear image to the company about their strengths and weaknesses compared to competitors. The main competitors of Kraft is ConAgra, so we used these two companies in this matrix. After a thorough analysis of the external and internal environment we came up with these critical success factors: advertising, financial situation, global expansion, market share, product diversity, consumer demand, loyalty Customer and product safety. After we arrived with each factor, we have to weigh and evaluate each item for each company. The note in the CPM represents the response that the company has towards the critical success factors. The response scale is 1 to 4. A poor response is represented by 1, the answer is average if represented by two, the answer is above average if it is represented by three, and the answer is greater if it is represented by four.
In this industry we felt that Kraft has an above average effort in their advertising field, but
felt that Nestlé does a little more in their efforts.  We see more diverse advertising by Nestlé,
whether its newspaper ads or commercials. Also their advertising is more eye catching and
appealing to the public. ConAgra received a 2 because they aren’t really on the same page

6.0      EFE Matrix of Kraft Foods


Opportunities
Weight
Rating
Weighted Score
Operates in fast growing industry
0.08 (8%)
4
0.32
Increase in demand of healthy products
0.05 (5%)
3
0.15
Cost competition
0.10 (10%)
3
0.30
Merger and acquisition
0.08(10%)
3
0.24
Online existence on Internet for shopping
0.07 (7%)
3
0.21
Change in people lifestyle
0.07 (7%)
2
0.14
New product development
0.08 (8%)
3
0.24




Threats



Strong competition
0.10 (10%)
3
0.30
New entrants in retail industry
0.05 (5%)
3
0.15
Online sales increasing which will results in increasing competition
0.10 (10%)
3
0.30
Economics recession
0.05 (5%)
1
0.05
Political issues
0.05 (5%)
1
0.05
Increase in obesity rate
0.10 (10%)
2
0.20




Total Weighted Score
1.0(100%)
2.65

The score of 2.65 is above average which means that the company is performing well but there is still enough of improvement.

External Evaluation Matrix to assess the food processing industry opportunities and threats affecting Kraft. We met economic, social, cultural, demographic, environmental, political, governmental, legal, technological, competitive and information to develop our key external factors. These factors include 7 key external opportunities and external threats 8 keys, all of which were assigned a weight and stars, to develop a weighted score that are accumulated to determine the external position of Kraft in the industry. A weight is given to indicate the relative importance of each factor for success in the food processing industry. A rate is assigned to each factor to indicate the effectiveness of current strategies Kraft react to the factor. Rates are assessed on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 indicates response is greater, Figure 3 shows the response is greater than the average, their response means 2 is average, 1 indicates their response is poor. The rates are calculated by the company while the weights are based on the sector.


7.0       INTERNAL FACTOR EVALUATION (IFE) MATRIX

                                                                                                                        Weighted
Key internal factors                                                  Weight       Rating          Score

Strengths
1.       Positive sales in all 5 operating segments; Snacks,
Beverages, Cheese, Grocery, Convenient Meals.               0.06                4                      0.24
2.       High priority and standards on food safety.                       0.06              3                      0.18
3.       Diverse range of brands and products.                               0.08              4                      0.32
4.       Strong focus on R&D.                                                     0.08              4                      0.32
5.       Sales increased by 2.9% in North American markets.         0.04              3                      0.12
6.       Strong reputation and perceived value among customers.   0.12               4                      0.48    
7.       Organic food revenue increased by 2.3% in first quarter
2009                                                                               0.07              4                      0.28

Weakness       
1.       Possibility of perceived weakness from female CEO in certain
foreign markets.                                                               0.02              2                      0.04
2.       Risk of contamination in agricultural products                   0.12              1                      0.12
3.       Sales drop 5.9% in second quarter 2009.                           0.08              2                      0.16
4.       High amount of goodwill - over $27.5 billion.                   0.07              1                      0.07
5.       $18.5 billion in long-term debt - increased 50% in 2008 from
2007.                                                                              0.07              1                      0.07
6.   Difficulty launching new brands.                                      0.09              1                      0.09
7.   Margins depend on commodity prices.                              0.04              2                      0.08


TOTAL                                                                                1.00                                      2.57

Major Weakness (rating =1)
Minor Weakness (rating =2)
Minor Strength (rating =3)
Major Strength (rating =4)


Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix to evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses in functional areas of the company Kraft. We used our intuitive judgments to determine factors and assign each with a weight and a rating. A weight is given to each factor to indicate the relative importance of the latter being successful in the industry Kraft, then a reminder is provided to indicate whether the factor is a major asset, minor strength, weakness, or minor weakness. Then we calculated a weighted score for each factor and summed to determine the internal position of Kraft.

Each factor under force received a rating of 3 or 4; 3 being a minor force and 4 being a major asset. Kraft posted a positive sales growth and was operating effectively in all five of its operating segments, which we considered to be a major asset of the company, received a score of 4. We weighted the force as a 0, 06; we felt that it was of average importance to the success of Kraft. The same weight was given to the next factor under strength; High priority and standards on food safety Kraft. It would be expected of a large company in the food industry to have a high priority and standards on food safety, so we determined this factor to be minor force that is of moderate importance to the success the company in this industry.











8.0       FINANCIAL RATIO ANALYSIS FOR 2008


No.

Title

Calculation for Sept 2008 (million)


Description

1.

Debt Ratio

              Total liabilities     x  100
               Total Assets

USD 40,878  x 100
USD 63,078

= 64.80% 




The debt ratio for two years shows that financial analysis Kraft Food Inc. is the industry average. However Kraft Food Inc. must review and settle all their short- and long-term debt and other liabilities also to represent a promising opportunity for potential creditors for loan purposes.

2.

Current Ratio





Current Assets
Current Liabilities

11,366
    11,044

=   1.02


Current ratios for 2008 show that every dollar of current liability, Kraft Food Inc. has 1.02 current assets for its payment.




No.

Title

Calculation for Sept 2008 (million)


Description

3

Quick Ratio

Current Assets – (Inventory + Prepayments)
Current Liabilities

11,366 – (3,729 + 56)
                                   11,044

=  0.68

Note: No Prepayments


The quick ratio for both years shows 0.68. This shows that Kraft Food Inc. liquidity position is good. For each current liabilities dollar, Kraft Food Inc. USD 2.70 and 1.25 in cash and assets that can be converted into cash to pay short-term debts immediately.

4.

Debt Equity Ratio



              Long-Term Liabilities     x  100
               Shareholders’ Equity 

18,589 x 100
                                    22,200

= 83.73%



Debt ratio for 2008 are high at 83.73%. Kraft Food Inc. should maintain their Debt Equity Ratio to attract potential creditors.






No.

Title

Calculation for Sept 2008 (million)


Description

5

Return on Assets


     Profit After Tax  x   100
Total Asset

      =  2901 x 100
           63,078

=  4.59%





Return on assets for both years are high and show that Kraft Food Inc. has managed its assets to generate profits.

6.

Return on Equity






Profit After Tax   x   100
Shareholders’ Equity

       =  2901 x 100
 22,200

=   13.06%



Kraft Foods Inc. has a higher ratio for their return on equity for the two years. This shows that Apple is able to generate high profits for their owners.



No.

Title

Calculation for Sept 2008 (million)


Description

7

Return on Capital Only




            Net Income - Dividend   x 100
Equity + Long Term Debt

2901 – 1.12 x 100
22,200 + 18,589

= 71.09%



Kraft Foods Inc. has a high return on capital for the two years. He received more than 50%, which shows that Kraft Foods Inc. has an effective system to transform the capital of their investor profit.


8
Net Profit Margin



            Profit After Tax   x   100
   Sales

=   2901 x 100
                        42,201

=  6.87%



The net profit margin for 2008 show an improvement in yields. In 2008, Kraft Foods Inc. has succeeded in generating 21.48 percent of every $ 1 USD compared to 19.19% percent of every $ 1 USD in 2009. This reflects that the bid team managed their purchase effectively.






9.0       SWOT STRATEGIES (Strenght, weaknesses, oppurtunities and threats)

The SWOT analysis of Kraft Foods Inc. is as follows:

Strengths
·         World’s second largest food company
·         Strong brand equity
·         Innovation
·         Distribution network
·         Ad Hoc R&D
Weaknesses
·         Market share
·         Competition
·         Debt requirements
·         Geographic concentration
Opportunities
·         Expansion in developing markets
·         Explore Cadbury markets
·         Repositioning
·         Offer Organic Products
Threats
·         Cadbury purchase issues
·         Fierce competition
·         Poor implementations on Cadbury division
·         Unhappy customers

STRENGHTS
Kraft Foods Inc. has the second largest food company's position in the world after Nestlé (Trevis, 2011). The company controls the manufacturing and marketing of confectionery, food and drinks. He has more than 11 brands in the markets of America, Europe and Asia. The company has a strong brand and offers innovative products to its customer base. More than 40 of its brands has 100 years heritage (Kraft, 2011). Kraft Foods provides an interesting portrait of a society that uses the traditional distribution network and 2 levels direct store distribution network for the delivery (MWPL, 2011). With its research units and continuous development of the company is constantly in a process of providing safe, healthy and innovative customers. R & D effectively is a key to maintain its market position and competition in the industry.

WEAKNESSES
The company is weak on its market performance. Kraft Foods acquired Cadbury which undoubtedly increased its profit ratio for many folds, but also added a lot of debt pressure on the company. With the requirements of the debt of the company to compete throat cut with Nestlé and Harshey in the markets. In spite of its operations in various markets and the presence in the US and other markets, the company is low on geographical concentration. Kraft Foods has a small market share, but it has strong margins in the grocery business. Kraft has about 9% of market share in the overall grocery market 40 billion. Although the contribution of the Grocery Division of income from Kraft is lower compared to other divisions, it has EBITDA margins of 33% which are higher than the 14-15% margin in d Other Kraft companies. High profit margins are grocery store, a lucrative industry for Kraft (Trevis, 2011).

OPPORTUNITIES
Kraft Foods has long way to go. It can use number of options available for the moment to get rid of debt requirements and other frills that are causing small share of corporate market. First, Kraft Foods itself may engage in market expansion process. This can be achieved in the developing markets of Asia like India, China and Japan, etc. these markets show great potential for the company. Although Kraft Foods acquired Cadbury, but much of its revenue from untapped resources for society. Cadbury is a major player in developing countries and makes billions in sales to its customers in India, China and other Asian countries. Kraft foods can use the capital Cadbury brands to deliver new products in these markets to explore these markets and the current opportunities it further. Second, Kraft Foods can reposition existing markets with more unique products and focused health. There is a growing trend among customers that they love to buy fresh, original and organic. The company may reposition itself in the market as a supplier of fresh produce to attract customer's attention.

THREATS
The main problem currently faced by Kraft Foods Inc. is the purchase of Cadbury issues. After buying Cadbury, there was a lot of protest from British nationals against the acquisition. The margins of the non-profit company fell later in this. Customers have stopped buying the products offered by Kraft Foods, thus harming the market position of the company badly (You Gove SixthsSense, 2011). The acquisition has made no changes to the company as they failed to properly use the Cadbury resources and failed to implement proper positioning structure on the markets. Chances are that this acquisition can lead to walking out of the Kraft product customer as a reaction to the purchase of Cadbury. It does not end here, the company faces fierce competition with Nestlé and Harshey, the two giants as Kraft competes with.















10.0     STRATEGIC POSITION AND ACTION EVALUATION SPACE MATRIX
FINANCIAL POSITION  (FP)
Factors
Rating
Revenues increased 16.8% to $42.2 billion
4
Earnings increased 12% to 2.9 billion
3
Total L+SE+ Assets decreased 7.5% to $6.3 billion
3
Gross profit margin of 34.1 compared to the industry average of 31.1
4
Current ratio of 1.1
2
    TOTALS
16
INDUSTRY POSITION (IP)
Factors
Rating
Growth potential
5
Ease of market entry
4
Profit potential
4
Financial stability
3
Resource utilization
3
            TOTALS
19
 STABILITY POSITION (SP)
Factors
Rating
Competitive pressure
-4
Barriers to entry
-4
Unemployment
-5
Technology changes
-2
Price range of competitors products
-4
     TOTALS
-19
COMPETETIVE POSITION (CP)
Factors
Rating
Customer loyalty
-3
Product quality
-3
Market share
-2
Technological knowledge
-4
Competition
-5
            TOTALS
-17

Conclusions
SP Average: -19/5= -3.8                              IP Average: 19/5= 3.8
CP Average: -17/5= -3.4                              FP Average: 16/5= 3.2

Directional Vector Coordinates:                                                                                                                                  X-axis: -3.4 + (3.8) = .4          Y-axis: -3.8 + (3.2) = -.6
FP
 
AGGRESSIVE
 
CONSERVATIVE
 
CP
 
IP
 
 
DEFENSIVE
 
SP
 
 




The strategic position and Action Evaluation Matrix, also known as the space matrix is an important matching stage tool used to match different variables along two axes. With the two intersecting axes in the middle and then creating a matrix with four quadrants that are labeled will top right bottom right is aggressive, conservative, defensive and competitive. The Y axis comprises two dimensions; one which is internal financial position (FP) and is external, which is the position stability (SP). The X axis includes the other two dimensions of the competitive position (CP) which is internal and the position of the industry (IP) that is external. These factors are perhaps the most important determinants of the strategic position of the organization.


















11.0     GRAND STRATEGY MATRIX
Rapid Market Growth
 
Strong Competitive Position
 
 

















The Grand Strategy Matrix is ​​based on two measures of evaluation, the competitive position and market growth. Kraft Foods is the leader in North America when it comes to the food industry and the food processing industry is growing both nationally and internationally. There are new technologies coming around what the industry needs to address so that they can continue to grow and keep their products on top of their potential. When we did the Grand Strategy Matrix, we found that due to market growth and a solid competitive position Kraft belong in a quadrant. The strategies that suggest they use to be in this quadrant are market development, market penetration, product development, integration forward, backward integration, horizontal integration, and related diversification. Following this matrix, we can conclude that the company is in an excellent strategic position and can even take some aggressive risks if necessary. Kraft may continue to focus their efforts within the industry of food processing working on their market or their products. They are in an excellent strategic position and because of that they have a great chance to continue to be successful in the future.


















12.0     QUALITATIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING (QSPM MATRIX)
STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES

1
2
Market Penetration
Product Development
Use customer loyalty and diverse range of products to increase sales to restaurants.
Create new organic products to add to existing product lines.
Key Factors
Weight
AS
TAS
AS
TAS
Opportunities

1. U.S. sales of organic food and beverage have increased from $1 billion
    (1990) to $26.7 billion (2009).
0.08
1
0.08
4
0.32
2. Food manufactures have experienced an increase in sales due to a
    higher number of people dining out.
0.10
4
0.4
2
0.2
3. Women are becoming more common in upper management (11.2% in
    1995 to 16.4% in 2005).
0.06

4.  Baked goods prices increased 10.7% compared to 2008.
0.03

5.  Increased trends of  flavor enhancer for bottled water .
0.13

6.  Growing environmental consensus.
0.06
1
0.06
4
0.24
7. Increased demand for packaged and processed foods around the world
     due to change in lifestyles .
0.07
1
0.07
4
0.28
Threats

1. Increasing obesity rates in North America.
0.03
1
0.03
4
0.12
2. Due to a weak economy and increased competition, the food  
    processing industry saw a work force reduction on average of 7.5% in
    2009.
0.04

3. Rising costs of petroleum cause an increase in cost for food companies.
0.05
2
0.1
1
0.05
4. Difficult to differentiate product pricing between competitors in the
     food processing industry.
0.04

5. Customers switching to generic brands.
0.09
2
0.18
1
0.09
6. Increased intensity between competitors in European as well as other
     Markets.
0.07

7. North American competition is now primarily focused on the food
     Industry.
0.13
3
0.39
4
0.52
8. Declining value of the dollar with an  increasing value of the Euro.
0.02

Strengths

1. Positive sales growth and operating effectively in all 5 operating segments; Snacks, Beverages, Cheese, Grocery, Convenient Meals.
0.06
2
0.12
3
0.18
2. High priority and standards on food safety.
0.06

3. Diverse range of brands and products.
0.08
2
0.16
4
0.32
4. Strong focus on R&D.
0.08

5. Sales increased by 2.9% in North American markets.
0.04
2
0.08
4
0.16
6. Strong reputation and perceived value among customers.
0.12
2
0.24
3
0.36
7. Organic revenue increased by 2.3% in first quarter 2009.
0.07
1
0.07
4
0.28
Weaknesses

1. Possibility of perceived weakness from female CEO in certain foreign markets.
0.02

2. Risk of contamination in source products.
0.12

3. Sales drop 5.9% in second quarter 2009.
0.08
2
0.16
3
0.24
4. High amount of goodwill - over $27.5 billion.
0.07

5. $18.5 billion in long-term debt - increased about 50% in 2008 from
     2007.
0.07

6. Difficulty launching new brands.
0.09
1
0.09
4
0.36
7. Margins depend on commodity prices.
0.04

Total


2.23

3.72

Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) to determine the most effective alternative strategy for Kraft Foods. To develop this matrix, we chose two strategies taken directly from the SWOT matrix that we felt Kraft should consider implementing and listed the key internal and external factors taken directly from EFE and IFE which relate to these two strategies. The strategies that we were chosen to create new organic products to add to the product line, and use customer loyalty to increase their market share in the catering sector. After considering each factor, we were able to determine those that would influence the choice of strategies being made, and from there, we determined the attractiveness score to indicate the relative attractiveness of each strategy in all alternatives. Scores ranged from 1 to 4; 1 is not attractive, 2 showing that there was little attractive, 3 means reasonably attractive, and 4 indicating that there was very attractive. The weight of each factor has increased the attractiveness score coming with totals of attractiveness scores. By adding up the totals of attractiveness scores in each column of the strategy QSPM we were able to determine what alternative strategy would be best for Kraft to implement.


13.0     RECOMMENDATIONS
Kraft announced strong second quarter 2009 is much revenues declined 5.9 percent year-over-year to $ 10.2 billion, mainly due to the negative impact of 8.1 percent unfavorable currencies and a negative impact of 0.7 percent from disposals. Sales of Kraft rose 2.9 percent. For this quarter, the North American segment Kraft (KNAC) sales were flat year-over-year as gains in US food practices (7.1 percent), US Grocery (6.7 percent) , US beverages (6.0 percent) and US Snacks (1.3 percent) was offset by declines in US Cheese (8.7 percent) and Canada and North American Foodservice ( 10.0 percent). In the International segment, net revenues in the European Union fell by 17.4 percent. Based on the strong performance for the year to date, CEO Rosenfeld has raised guidance for 2009. It now expects earnings of $ 1.93 per share at least compared to $ 1.88 guided earlier.

As indicated earlier in the evaluation matrix of external factors, a possibility was US sales of organic food and beverages rose by 1 billion (1990) to 26.7 billion euros (2009). We believe that Kraft should focus on this part of the industry and develop products that meet the organic market. Taking all conservative, take down the high levels of salt and saturated fat would be ideal for the sale of their business and their hearts consumers. Another recommendation that we felt treated the same, but felt the way the organic line is introduced is key. Kraft has a lot of brands that stand alone. Before this case, we are not as well informed of how the marks were actually owned by Kraft, then a recommendation would be to introduce organic food line actually under the name Kraft. Another recommendation would be to reduce salt levels in food. "Salt and sodium are not the same. We often use the terms interchangeably, but only 40% salt is composed of sodium. The other 60% is chloride. Salt (sodium chloride) is the main contributor of sodium in our diet "(Kraft. com). Sodium is essential for good health and life itself. We need to eat a small amount of sodium because the body cannot create this mineral.













ATTACHMENT

REFERENCES
Food Business Review (FBR), 2008. Kraft foods deploys SAP Netweaver technology,     Retrieved on June 21, 2011 from http://www.food-business-            review.com/news/kraft_foods_deploys_sap_netweaver_technology_platfor            m

Kraft Foods, 2011. Financial News Release, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from        http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129070&p=irol-         newsArticle&ID=1374445

Kraft Foods, 2011. Political Involvement, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from             http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/investor/corporate-      governance/politicalcontributions.aspx

Kraft Foods Brands, 2011. Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from             http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/Brands/largest-brands/index.aspx

Kraft Foods Company, 2011. Trevis Website. Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from             https://www.trefis.com/company?hm=KFT.trefis#

Kraft replaces AIG in Dow Jones Industrial Average. USA TODAY, Associated Press,     Retrieved on June 21,       2011 from http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2008- 09-18-dow-     adds-kraft_N.htm

MWPL, 2011. DSD vs Centralized Distribution Network, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from             http://www.mwpvl.com/html/dsd__vs_central_distribution.html

Steven Goers, 2008. Fostering Innovation at Kraft Foods, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from             http://www.ideaconnection.com/interviews/00058-Fostering-Innovation-at-Kraft-  Foods.html

YouGov SixthSense, 2011. Kraft Foods Inc. Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from             http://sixthsense.yougov.com/food--drink-reports/snacking-.aspx





Biar kami bantu anda!

Alamat:

Internet, Kuala Lumpur.

Telefon:

Sila Emel

Waktu:

Isnin - Khamis: 10am - 6pm
Jumaat: Selepas Solat Jumaat
Sabtu - Ahad: Sila Emel.