Problem formulation, problem indentification of Kitchenette case study. www.unitedworld.edu.in

1. KITCHENETTE
CASELET PRESENTED
BY :
ALOK KUMAR
CHANDRAKANT EZONG
JINIA BISWAS
NAYAN SAHA
PANKAJ AGARWAL
POUSALI MUKHERJEE
PRETAM LAHA
RAJESWARI SAHU
SRIPARNA CHAKROBORTY

4.  MBIL did not carry out a thorough research in the Indian market.
 A hypothesis testing should have been carried out to check
whether the Kitchenette product would work or not across India.
 Competition from makers of aluminium and steel containers
should have been assessed.
 Who were the major decision makers in a typical Indian family in
general?
 “Potential” of the tin containers to do well vis-à-vis competion ,
not measured.

5.  Beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of Indian, urban ladies were not
researched on.
 Parameters like income, spending habits, buying pattern and
lifestyle were different in Western and Northern India compared
to Eastern and Southern India.
 Unequal distribution of income in India, making the Kitchenette
products a failure in Eastern and Southern parts of India
 Analysis of all the parameters of PESTLE concept not done,
technological or environmental issue(hygiene) involved.
 An initial focus group interview across the targeted cities could
have reflected ,- product quality acceptability, price acceptability
and place availability.
 No customer-level interaction was done to assess customer
reactions.

7.  Conceptualisation followed by hypothesis testing and proper
research methodologies were necessary to launch expensive tin
containers in India.
 No research instruments used
 Launching efforts were clearly based on assumptions that
Kitchenette has to do well in India too.
 The Indian market was thought to be homogeneous throughout.
 Citywise, percentage and number of ladies going out to work was
much lesser in Eastern, Central and Southern parts of India
compared to Northern and Western parts of India.
 Indian consumers not very happy with the texture of the
containers(Feel sensory organ) and preferred aluminium, steel or
containers that came free with packaged food in containers.

8.  City-wise data collection, recording, analysis, interpretation and
report preparing were not done
 Short, pilot studies not done
 Degree of satisfaction vs expectation not measured
 Who are the consumers(educated ladies) who took pride in
keeping their kitchens clean
 Purchasing power and purchasing attitude, city-wise not
assessed.

9.  Responses on product quality, price acceptability, easy
availability, level of awareness(interest), quality of backup
servicing(process) and most importantly, retailer-level customer
interaction measured through Customer Satisfaction Index(PKG
Parameter) not measured through market survey(Descriptive
survey).

10. http://www.unitedworld.edu.in/
Campus
Ahmedabad Campus: Karnavati Knowledge Village, A/907,Uvarsad, S.G.Highway,
Gandhinagar
Kolkata Campus: Infinity Benchmark Tower 10th Floor, Plot - G1, Block - EP& GP, Sec - V,
Salt Lake, Kolkata.
Reg. Office: 407, Zodiac Square, 4th Floor Opp. Gurudwara, S.G. Road, Bodakdev,
Ahmedabad.