Five group：趙希婷、吳宜庭、謝馨輝
1
Internal Factor Evaluation
Sprint
Strength
Key Internal Factor
Weight
Rating
High market share in long
distance
15%
4
Active pioneer
11%
4
Wide portfolio expansion(service)
10%
4
Strength
Key Internal
Weight Rating
Factor
Strong brand
7%
4
Great niche
marketing
9%
3
Weakness
Key Internal
Weight Rating
Factor
Late
deployment
(4G LTE)
14%
1
High churn
rate
10%
1
Low ARPU
10%
1
Weakness
Key Internal Factor
Weight
Rating
Poor network coverage
7%
2
Large amount of debt
7%
2
Conclusion
 Total weighted score significantly lower than the 2.5
of enterprise's signals that the internal situation is
weak, while the score much higher than 2.5 of the
enterprise's internal situation is strong.
 As we calculate, the total weighted score value is 2.61.
It means the Sprint’s internal position is better.
 According to the IFE matrix, the greatest internal
weaknesses Sprint must resolve are late deployment,
poor network coverage, and large amount of debt.
External Factor Evaluation
Sprint
Opportunity
No
Key External
Weight Ratin Weighte
Factors(Opportunities)
g
d score
1
15%
3
0.45
2
Increasing demand on
mobile data
Develop in ITS
10%
2
0.20
3
Global market
15%
1
0.15
4
Wireless technology
10%
2
0.20
 Increasing demand on mobile data
3D detection technique（Project Tango）
 Global market
exploit new market (Africa-78% growth rate/yr.)
 Develop in ITS
ex: WAVE/DSRC
 Wireless technology in hospital
manage staff workflow
track medical equipment
automate environment monitoring
increasing security
monitor hand hygiene compliance
Threats
No
Key External
Factors(Threats)
Weight Ratin Weighte
g
d score
1
US economy is impacted
by their debt
Regulation of the
government
Saturation in the
wireless market
Stressed by other
competitors
2%
2
0.04
16%
3
0.48
16%
2
0.32
16%
1
0.16
2
3
4
 US economy is impacted by their debt
 Regulation of the government
antitrust legislation
 Saturation in the wireless market
 Stressed by other competitors
Competitive Profile Matrix
Sprint
ARPU(weight0.2)
rating
score
Sprint
3
0.6
AT&T
4
0.8
Verizon 2
0.4
Churn rate(weight 0.2)
rating
Score
Sprint
1
0.2
AT&T
4
0.8
Verizon 4
0.8
Market share(weight 0.16)
rating
score
Sprint
1
0.16
AT&T
3
0.48
Verizon 4
0.64
Coverage(weight0.15)
rating
score
Sprint
2
0.30
AT&T
3
0.45
Verizon 4
0.60
Financial position(weight0.15)
2013
Net income
EPS
Sales
Sprint
-3018M($USD)
-77.38$USD
3570M($USD)
AT&T
18533
3.39
128752
Verizon
11497
38.71
120550
rating
score
Sprint
1
0.15
AT&T
4
0.60
Verizon 3
0.45
Brand name(weight0.14)
rating
score
Sprint
4
0.56
AT&T
4
0.42
Verizon 4
0.42
Total score
Sprint
AT&T
Verizon
Weight rating
score
rating
score
rating
score
0.2
1
0.2
4
0.8
3
0.6
Churn rate 0.2
1
0.2
4
0.8
4
0.8
Market
share
0.16
2
0.32
3
0.48
4
0.64
Coverage
0.15
2
0.3
3
0.45
4
0.6
Financial
position
0.15
1
0.15
4
0.60
3
0.45
Brand
name
0.14
4
0.56
4
0.56
4
0.56
Total
score
1.00
ARPU
1.73
3.54
3.80
Conclusion
 Sprint’s performance is bad in many area.
Now they need to overcome two problem.
 1.Low churn rate : Promote their service
to meet the customers’ standard.
 2.High debt : Improve their net income
by increase their sales.
Reference
News
 http://www.ithome.com.tw/news/85465
 http://www.ttia-tw.org/knowledge.php?id=36
 http://www.itbusinessedge.com/slideshows/six-wayswireless-technology-is-transforming-health-care07.html
 http://www.104.com.tw/jb/area/media/article/detail/id
/167121573302916456/cat/2
Reference
 ARPU
http://www.fiercewireless.com/....../how-verizon-att......
Churn rate
http://marketrealist.com/....../prepaid-mobile....../
market share
http://news.investors.com/....../101514-721877-vz-tmus......
coverage
http://www.imore.com/att-vs-verizon-vs-t-mobile-vs......
The end