MIS352 Business Process Management Assignment Help

MIS352 Business Process Management Assignment Help

MIS352 Business Process Management Assignment Help

Introduction:

This business report holds a detailed statistical analysis regarding the price charged per unit of the products by the leading fashion brands of Australia. For the purpose of analysis, data has been collected with respect to 120 products that are sold by four leading fashion brands of Australia, namelyCalvin Klein, Zara, Tommy Hilfiger and Ralph Lauren. The collection of data has also been done with respect to brand, clothing style, and gender. This report will help a new entrant of the Australian fashion market to decide upon the most appropriate product price per unit and to grab a substantial market share.

MIS352 Business Process Management Assignment Help

1. Visual representation of data for the unit price of the product from different brands

1.	Visual representation of data for the unit price of the product from different brands

Interpretation of descriptive statistics results for the prices of different brands

The average product price per unit for brands Calvin Klein, Zara, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren are 69.57, 51.11, 73.87, 71.50 respectively (Gardetti & Torres, 2013). This indicates that Tommy Hilfiger charges highest average product price per unit and Zara charges lowest average product price per unit (Gardetti & Torres, 2013). Again Tommy Hilfiger charges highest median product price per unit(76.16) and Zara charges lowest median product price per unit (51.81) (Bruzzi & Gibson,2013). Thus both the mean & median supports the fact that product price per unit is highest for Tommy Hilfiger and lowest for Zara. In case of mean,Ralph Lauren(71.50) and Calvin Klein(69.57) charges the second and third highest product prices per unit respectively whereas in case of median Calvin Klein(65.06) and , Ralph Lauren(64.12) charges the second and third highest product prices per unit respectively (Joy et al. 2012).

A focus on standard deviation reveals that the variation in product price per unit around the mean price is maximum in case of Tommy Hilfiger (32.290) followed by Ralph Lauren(31.263) (Miller & Mills,2012).However, variation in product price per unit around the mean price is minimum in case of Zara (13.87) (Gwilt  & Rissanen, 2011).Thus it can be said that Tommy Hilfiger not only charges a high price per unit of the product but their product pricing also covers a wide range.On the other hand, the pricing pattern of Zara is quite stable and economic (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010).

2. Visual representation of data for the unit price of the product for different Styles

Product price per unit

STYLE-Business

Product price per unit

STYLE-Sport

Product price per unit

STYLE-Casual

 

94.27

1

70.71

2

60.48

3

 

82.79

1

73.78

2

61.83

3

 

128.17

1

78.00

2

65.26

3

 

84.65

1

81.44

2

48.48

3

 

84.74

1

64.86

2

31.00

3

 

86.82

1

63.02

2

37.42

3

 

63.03

1

57.74

2

50.59

3

 

109.63

1

60.27

2

41.17

3

 

101.15

1

56.75

2

29.09

3

 

100.12

1

75.55

2

44.24

3

 

58.19

1

54.35

2

47.53

3

 

75.09

1

51.75

2

48.87

3

 

72.02

1

61.67

2

32.64

3

 

60.34

1

42.92

2

31.28

3

 

59.32

1

36.22

2

28.04

3

 

56.49

1

48.50

2

34.98

3

 

70.48

1

52.36

2

25.07

3

 

66.86

1

51.88

2

39.91

3

 

66.34

1

47.16

2

46.55

3

 

73.45

1

54.65

2

38.36

3

 

87.92

1

60.73

2

35.89

3

 

96.78

1

47.07

2

14.38

3

 

92.30

1

83.47

2

41.18

3

 

118.92

1

72.89

2

47.57

3

 

98.56

1

49.06

2

29.02

3

 

130.20

1

79.39

2

44.24

3

 

123.02

1

87.10

2

60.49

3

 

103.36

1

72.93

2

52.82

3

 

105.25

1

98.93

2

15.42

3

 

124.03

1

86.78

2

56.38

3

 

97.55

1

63.77

2

29.53

3

 

149.02

1

64.47

2

32.78

3

 

95.28

1

54.59

2

22.08

3

 

131.19

1

80.25

2

38.35

3

 

100.66

1

62.18

2

41.41

3

 

111.94

1

77.11

2

45.88

3

 

89.56

1

60.77

2

41.05

3

 

115.84

1

74.94

2

44.30

3

 

94.84

1

73.80

2

42.48

3

 

89.81

1

60.55

2

59.07

3

 

93.75

 

64.86

 

40.93

 

mean

94.55

 

62.60

 

41.17

 

median

95

 

61

 

42

 

mode

22.87895

 

13.90931

 

12.24867

 

stdv

Visual representation of data for the unit price of the product for different Styles

Interpretation of descriptive statistics results for the prices of the three styles:

The average product price per unit for “Business-style” clothing for all brands is highest (93.75) followed by the “sports style” clothing (64.86) (Gardetti  & Torres, 2013). However, the average product price per unit is the minimum for “casual -style” clothing (40.93) for all brands (Thomassey, 2010). The median product price per unit is also highest for “Business-style” clothing (94.55) followed by the “sports style” clothing whose median value for product price per unit is 62.60.However, the median product price per unit is lowest for “casual -style” clothing (42). Thus both the measures of central tendency (mean & median) supports the fact that product price per unit is highest for Business-style” clothing followed by “sports style” clothing and is minimum for “casual -style” clothing (Cervellon, Carey & Harms, 2012).

A focus on standard deviation reveals that the variation in product price per unit around the mean price is the highest case of “Business-style “clothing (22.89) followed by “sports style” clothing (13.91) for all the brands.).However, it can be seen that variation in product price per unit around the mean price is minimum in case of “casual -style” clothing (12.24) for all the fashion brands. Thus it can be said that under “Business-style” maximum number of product variation is available and that is why maximum variation in per unit price of the product is available in this style for all the fashion brands (Radaelli et al.2014).

3. Visual representation of data for the unit prices of Zara’s products for the three different styles

style analysis-ZARA

 
       

Product price per unit

STYLE-Business

Product price per unit

STYLE-Sport

Product price per unit

STYLE-Casual

 

58.19

1

54.35

2

47.53

3

 

75.09

1

51.75

2

48.87

3

 

72.02

1

61.67

2

32.64

3

 

60.34

1

42.92

2

31.28

3

 

59.32

1

36.22

2

28.04

3

 

56.49

1

48.50

2

34.98

3

 

70.48

1

52.36

2

25.07

3

 

66.86

1

51.88

2

39.91

3

 

66.34

1

47.16

2

46.55

3

 

73.45

1

54.65

2

38.36

3

 

65.86

 

50.14

 

37.32

 

mean

66.60

 

51.81

 

36.67

 

median

67

 

55

 

 

 

mode

6.860

 

6.985

 

8.370

 

stdv

Interpretation of descriptive statistics results for the unit prices of Zara’s products for the three different styles

The statistical analysis reveals that in the case of fashion brand “Zara” also the average product price per unit is highest for “style-business”(65.86) followed by “style-sports”(50.14) and is minimum for “style-casual”(37.32).Again if we consider the median, then it can be seen that the median product price per unit is highest for “style-business”(66.60) followed by “style-sports”(51.81) and is minimum for “style-casual”(36.67).Thus product price per unit that is charged by  Zara for different styles reflects the general pricing pattern of all other fashion brands for the clothing of different styles (Diedrichs & Lee,2010).

4. Statistical analysis to examine presence of significant difference in average prices across male female

Product price per unit

GENDER-Woman

Product price per unit

GENDER-man

 

94.27

1

84.65

2

 

70.71

1

84.74

2

 

60.48

1

86.82

2

 

61.83

1

50.59

2

 

73.78

1

41.17

2

 

82.79

1

57.74

2

 

65.26

1

29.09

2

 

48.48

1

63.03

2

 

78.00

1

60.27

2

 

81.44

1

56.75

2

 

128.17

1

44.24

2

 

31.00

1

109.63

2

 

37.42

1

101.15

2

 

64.86

1

100.12

2

 

63.02

1

75.55

2

 

47.53

1

56.49

2

 

48.87

1

25.07

2

 

58.19

1

36.22

2

 

32.64

1

70.48

2

 

54.35

1

39.91

2

 

51.75

1

46.55

2

 

75.09

1

48.50

2

 

61.67

1

52.36

2

 

31.28

1

66.86

2

 

42.92

1

38.36

2

 

72.02

1

51.88

2

 

28.04

1

47.16

2

 

60.34

1

54.65

2

 

59.32

1

66.34

2

 

34.98

1

73.45

2

 

60.73

1

47.57

2

 

87.92

1

29.02

2

 

47.07

1

44.24

2

 

96.78

1

87.10

2

 

83.47

1

60.49

2

 

92.30

1

72.93

2

 

35.89

1

98.93

2

 

118.92

1

52.82

2

 

98.56

1

123.02

2

 

72.89

1

15.42

2

 

49.06

1

56.38

2

 

14.38

1

103.36

2

 

79.39

1

105.25

2

 

130.20

1

86.78

2

 

41.18

1

124.03

2

 

63.77

1

38.35

2

 

97.55

1

41.41

2

 

64.47

1

62.18

2

 

149.02

1

77.11

2

 

29.53

1

45.88

2

 

95.28

1

60.77

2

 

131.19

1

41.05

2

 

54.59

1

94.84

2

 

100.66

1

89.81

2

 

111.94

1

74.94

2

 

32.78

1

73.80

2

 

80.25

1

60.55

2

 

89.56

1

44.30

2

 

115.84

1

42.48

2

 

22.08

1

59.07

2

 

69.13

 

63.89

 

mean

64.12

 

59.67

 

median

73

 

61

 

mode

30.05069716

 

24.59121616

 

study

The above table demonstrates that the average per unit product price for women clothing line (69.13) is higher than that of men (63.89).The median price per unit of the product for women clothing line is 64.12, whereas for men it is 59.67.Thus the average product price per unit for women clothing line is 8% higher than that of men (Chong,2014). A focus on standard deviation reveals that variation in product price per unit is more for the women clothing line and the standard deviation for women clothing line is 30.05 and men clothing line is 24.59.The larger variation in product price per unit around the average price for women clothing line can be attributed to the availability of a large number of products (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2012).

5. Examination of the claim that there is no significant difference in average product prices of the different brands

Fashion Brands

Calvin Klein

Zara

Tommy Hilfiger

Ralph Lauren

Average product price per unit

69.5688862

51.108469

73.86924203

71.501684

Percentage difference on the basis of average product price per unit of "Zara"(Assuming as base mean price)

36%

 

45%

40%

The above table demonstrates theaverage product price per unit that is charged by the four different rival fashion brands of the Australian market (Diedrichs & Lee, 2011). The table describes that fashion brand “Zara” charges the lowest average product price per unit (51.11).Taking this price as a base the percentage difference in the average price charged per unit of the product by other fashion brands has been calculated. The calculation reveals that the average price per unit of the product that is charged by fashion brand “Tommy Hilfiger”is 45% higher than that of “Zara”. The average price per unit of the product that is charged by fashion brand “Ralph Lauren”is 40% higher than that of “Zara” and again the average price per unit of the product that is charged by fashion brand “Calvin Klein”is 36% higher than that of “Zara”. Thus it can be said that there exists asignificant difference in average product prices of the different brands(Joy et al.2012).

6. Testing of the fact whether there exists any significant difference in average prices of the three different styles

Clothing-style

STYLE-Business

STYLE-Sport

STYLE-Casual

Average product price per unit

93.75

64.86

40.93

Percentage difference on the basis of average product price per unit of "STYLE-Casual"(Assuming as base mean price)

129%

58%

 

The above table demonstrates theaverage product price per unit for the three different clothing styles that are sold by the four leading fashion brands (Calvin Klein, Zara, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren) in the Australian market analysis. The table demonstrates that the average product price per unit for “STYLE-Casual” is minimum and is 40.93.Taking this price as a base the percentage difference in the average price per unit with respect to other clothing styles has been calculated. The calculation reveals that the average price per unit of the product for “STYLE-Business” is 129% higher than that of “Style-Casual” and the average price per unit of the product for “Style-Sport” is 58% higher than that of “Style-Casual”. Thus it can be said that there exists asignificantdifference in average product prices among the different clothing styles(Scott, 2012).

7. Testing of the fact regarding whether there exists any significant difference between average prices of ZARA’s clothes for different styles

Average product price per unit for different clothing styles-Zara

Clothing-style

STYLE-Business

STYLE-Sport

STYLE-Casual

Average product price per unit

65.86

50.14

37.32

Percentage difference on the basis of average product price per unit of "STYLE-Casual"(Assuming as base mean price)

76%

34%

 

The above table demonstrates theaverage product price per unit for the three different clothing styles that are sold by the r leading fashion brand Zara. The table demonstrates that the average product price per unit for “STYLE-Casual” is minimum and is 37.32.Taking this price as a base the percentage difference in the average price per unit with respect to other clothing styles has been calculated (Beckert & Aspers,2011). The calculation reveals that the average price per unit of the product that is charged by brand-Zara for “STYLE-Business” is 76% higher than that of “Style-Casual” and the average price per unit of the product that is charged by brand-Zara for “Style-Sport” is 34% higher than that of “Style-Casual”. Thus it can be said that there exists asignificant difference in average product prices that are charged by fashion brand Zara for clothing of different styles(Matthiesen & Phau, 2010).

Conclusion:

This report identifies several important patterns regarding the per unit product price of the Australian fashion market. The fashion brandTommy Hilfiger charges the highestaverage product price per unit and Zaracharges the lowest averageproduct price per unit. The average product price per unit is highest for Business-style clothing lines and lowest for a Casual-style clothing line. The average product price per unit is generally higher for women clothing line compared to men clothing line. Asignificant difference exists in average product prices of the different brands. A significant difference exists in average product prices among the different clothing styles(Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010)

Reference:

Books:

Gardetti, M. A., & Torres, A. L. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainability in fashion and textiles: values, design, production and consumption. Greenleaf Publishing.
Bruzzi, S., & Gibson, P. C. (2013). Fashion Cultures Revisited: Theories, Explorations and Analysis. Routledge.
Gwilt, A., & Rissanen, T. (2011). Shaping sustainable fashion: changing the way we make and use clothes. Routledge.
Beckert, J., & Aspers, P. (2011). The worth of goods: Valuation and pricing in the economy. Oxford University Press.

Journals:
Bianchi, C., & Birtwistle, G. (2010). Sell, give away, or donate: an exploratory study of fashion clothing disposal behaviour in two countries. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(3), 353-368.
Bianchi, C., & Birtwistle, G. (2012). Consumer clothing disposal behaviour: a comparative study. International journal of consumer studies, 36(3), 335-341.
Cervellon, M. C., Carey, L., & Harms, T. (2012). Something old, something used: Determinants of women's purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12), 956-974.
Chong, S. (2014). Business process management for SMEs: an exploratory study of implementation factors for the Australian wine industry. Journal of Information Systems and Small Business, 1(1-2), 41-58.
Diedrichs, P. C., & Lee, C. (2010). GI Joe or Average Joe? The impact of average-size and muscular male fashion models on men's and women's body image and advertisement effectiveness. Body Image, 7(3), 218-226.
Diedrichs, P. C., & Lee, C. (2011). Waif goodbye! Average-size female models promote positive body image and appeal to consumers. Psychology & health, 26(10), 1273-1291.
Joy, A., Sherry Jr, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273-295.
Matthiesen, I. M., & Phau, I. (2010). Brand image inconsistencies of luxury fashion brands: A buyer-seller exchange situation model of Hugo Boss Australia. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 202-218.
Radaelli, G., Guerci, M., Cirella, S., & Shani, A. B. R. (2014). Intervention research as management research in practice: learning from a case in the fashion design industry. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 335-351.
Scott, M. (2012). Cultural entrepreneurs, cultural entrepreneurship: Music producers mobilising and converting Bourdieu's alternative capitals. Poetics, 40(3), 237-255.
Thomassey, S. (2010). Sales forecasts in clothing industry: The key success factor of the supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(2), 470-483.
Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(1), 165-173.
Miller, K. W., & Mills, M. K. (2012). Contributing clarity by examining brand luxury in the fashion market. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1471-1479.
Joy, A., Sherry Jr, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273-295.