Apply strategic frameworks to diagnose problems and develop recommendations
Review all materials before beginning your analysis
You are a Consultant on the GreenLeaf Grocery engagement team. The Partner has asked you to lead the diagnostic phase, applying structured problem-solving frameworks to identify the root causes of revenue decline and develop 2-3 strategic options with financial impact analysis.
Your Mission: Decompose the revenue problem using MECE principles, apply Porter's Five Forces to assess competitive dynamics, complete a rigorous SWOT analysis, evaluate strategic alternatives, and build an 18-month implementation roadmap with KPIs.
GreenLeaf Grocery is a regional grocery chain operating 42 stores across the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington). Founded in 1987 by the Morrison family, GreenLeaf built its reputation on fresh produce, quality meats, and personalized customer service. The chain grew steadily through the 2000s, reaching $680M in annual revenue by 2022.
Store Footprint:
Historical Performance:
| Metric | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 (LTM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $612M | $695M | $680M | $623M |
| Same-Store Sales Growth | +2.1% | +13.6% | -2.2% | -8.3% |
| Gross Margin | 23.5% | 24.8% | 24.0% | 19.1% |
| EBITDA Margin | 5.2% | 6.8% | 5.9% | 2.3% |
| Avg Transaction Value | $42 | $48 | $47 | $45 |
GreenLeaf's revenue decline from $680M (2022) to $623M (2023 LTM) represents a -8.3% decrease. Using MECE decomposition, the revenue decline breaks down as follows:
Key Insight: The primary driver of revenue decline is traffic (-12.0%), partially offset by improved conversion. Traffic decline indicates customers are shopping elsewhere or reducing shopping frequency, not that GreenLeaf is failing to convert visitors into buyers.
Customer Survey Results (n=1,200 former/current GreenLeaf customers):
| Why Reduced Shopping Frequency? | % Respondents |
|---|---|
| Switched to online grocery delivery | 45% |
| Shopping at lower-price competitors | 32% |
| Prefer specialty stores (Whole Foods, Trader Joe's) | 18% |
| Other (moved, dietary changes, etc.) | 5% |
Online Grocery Adoption:
Price Sensitivity Data:
| Retailer | Basket Price Index (GreenLeaf = 100) |
|---|---|
| GreenLeaf Grocery | 100 |
| Walmart Supercenter | 82 (18% cheaper) |
| Amazon Fresh | 88 (12% cheaper) |
| Costco | 76 (24% cheaper, bulk) |
| Whole Foods | 118 (18% more expensive) |
| Trader Joe's | 92 (8% cheaper) |
1. Threat of New Entrants: MEDIUM
2. Bargaining Power of Suppliers: LOW-MEDIUM
3. Bargaining Power of Buyers: MEDIUM-HIGH
4. Threat of Substitutes: HIGH
5. Competitive Rivalry: VERY HIGH
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
OPPORTUNITIES:
THREATS:
OPTION 1: Omnichannel Integration (Delivery + Pickup)
Build e-commerce platform with same-day delivery and curbside pickup. Partner with Instacart for logistics infrastructure, develop proprietary mobile app, and upgrade store infrastructure for efficient order fulfillment.
| Investment/Cost | Year 1 | Years 2-3 (Annual) |
|---|---|---|
| E-commerce platform development | $4.2M | $800K (maintenance) |
| Mobile app development | $1.8M | $400K (updates) |
| Store pickup infrastructure (all 42 stores) | $3.6M | $200K |
| Instacart partnership fees | $500K | 3.5% of online GMV |
| Marketing & customer acquisition | $2.5M | $1.8M |
| Incremental labor (order fulfillment) | $1.2M | $2.8M |
| Total 3-Year Investment | $24.1M | |
| Expected Benefits | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Online revenue (% of total) | 8% | 18% | 25% |
| Total revenue | $673M | $736M | $779M |
| Incremental gross profit | $10.5M | $23.8M | $32.9M |
| Customer retention improvement | +3% | +7% | +10% |
3-Year NPV (12% discount): $38.2M | IRR: 42%
OPTION 2: Premium Local/Organic Repositioning
Double down on GreenLeaf's fresh produce strength by repositioning as the Pacific Northwest's premier local/organic grocer. Expand partnerships with local farms, increase organic SKU count from 1,200 to 3,500, renovate stores with farmer's market aesthetic, and accept 15% higher cost structure offset by premium pricing.
| Investment/Cost | Year 1 | Years 2-3 (Annual) |
|---|---|---|
| Store renovations (15 stores/year) | $18M | $18M |
| Expanded organic/local SKUs (supplier setup) | $2.8M | $600K |
| Staff training & certification | $1.2M | $400K |
| Rebranding & marketing campaign | $5.5M | $3.2M |
| Premium product COGS increase | $8.5M | $11.2M |
| Total 3-Year Investment | $87.6M | |
| Expected Benefits | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avg basket size increase | +4% | +9% | +12% |
| Traffic change (win back premium segment) | -2% | +3% | +6% |
| Total revenue | $637M | $701M | $739M |
| Gross margin | 20.8% | 23.5% | 25.1% |
3-Year NPV (12% discount): $21.5M | IRR: 18%
OPTION 3: Discount Fighter Brand
Launch "ValueMart by GreenLeaf" discount format in 8 locations, targeting price-sensitive customers lost to Walmart/Amazon. Limited SKU count (3,000 vs. 18,000 in traditional stores), no-frills store design, focus on private label and high-velocity items. Separate brand to protect premium GreenLeaf positioning.
| Investment/Cost | Year 1 | Years 2-3 (Annual) |
|---|---|---|
| Convert 8 underperforming stores | $12.5M | $0 |
| Private label development | $3.2M | $800K |
| Separate brand identity & marketing | $4.8M | $2.5M |
| Supplier renegotiation (volume discounts) | $600K | $200K |
| Total 3-Year Investment | $25.1M | |
| Expected Benefits | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ValueMart revenue contribution | $48M | $82M | $95M |
| Cannibalization of GreenLeaf stores | -$12M | -$18M | -$20M |
| Net total revenue | $659M | $687M | $698M |
| Blended gross margin | 18.2% | 18.9% | 19.3% |
3-Year NPV (12% discount): $8.7M | IRR: 9%
Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-4)
Phase 2: Market Launch (Months 5-9)
Phase 3: Scale & Optimize (Months 10-18)
Leading Indicators (Track Weekly/Monthly):
| KPI | Month 4 Target | Month 9 Target | Month 18 Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| App Downloads | 15,000 | 85,000 | 180,000 |
| Weekly Active Users | 4,200 | 28,000 | 62,000 |
| Orders per Week | 750 | 9,500 | 24,000 |
| Customer Acquisition Cost | $42 | $28 | $18 |
| Repeat Order Rate (30 days) | 35% | 52% | 68% |
Lagging Indicators (Track Monthly/Quarterly):
| KPI | Baseline (Current) | Month 9 Target | Month 18 Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue | $623M | $658M | $736M |
| Same-Store Sales Growth | -8.3% | +2.1% | +8.5% |
| Digital % of Sales | 0% | 8% | 18% |
| Customer Retention Rate | 68% | 73% | 78% |
| Gross Margin | 19.1% | 20.8% | 22.3% |
Risk Flags (Monitor Closely):
Structure the revenue decline problem using MECE framework
MECE is the foundation of structured problem-solving in consulting. It requires breaking down problems into components that are:
For revenue problems, the classic MECE decomposition is: Revenue = Traffic × Conversion × Basket Size
Traffic decline of -12% (14.2M → 12.5M visitors) is the primary driver because it represents customers choosing NOT to shop at GreenLeaf at all, rather than a failure to convert visitors into buyers. The MECE decomposition shows that while conversion rate actually improved from 68% to 73% (+7.4%), this couldn't offset the massive traffic loss. The improved conversion indicates GreenLeaf is effectively serving the customers who do visit—the problem is that far fewer customers are walking through the door. This is confirmed by survey data showing 45% of former customers switched to online delivery and 32% moved to lower-price competitors. GreenLeaf doesn't have an in-store execution problem; it has a value proposition problem. Customers are making a deliberate choice to shop elsewhere because GreenLeaf lacks online ordering (addressing the 45% who went digital) and carries an 18% price premium vs. Walmart (addressing the 32% seeking lower prices). The -4.3% basket size decline is secondary—it's an effect of the same competitive pressure, not an independent driver. The business is fundamentally losing customers to competitors offering better convenience (online) or value (discount), not losing sales from existing traffic.
Apply Porter's framework to assess industry structure and competitive intensity
Developed by Michael Porter, this framework analyzes industry attractiveness through five competitive forces:
Grocery retail presents a structurally challenging environment for GreenLeaf due to the interaction of multiple unfavorable forces. First, competitive rivalry is VERY HIGH—the industry is fragmented with multiple formats competing (traditional chains, discount, online, specialty), and low industry growth (2-3% annually) means every player is fighting for share in a zero-sum game. GreenLeaf's $623M revenue pales against Walmart's $150B+, creating a massive scale disadvantage in supplier negotiations and technology investment. Second, the threat of substitutes is HIGH and accelerating—online grocery delivery is growing at 28% CAGR, and GreenLeaf has zero digital presence while 38% of its target customers now shop online monthly. This isn't just cannibalization within grocery; it's fundamental channel disruption that GreenLeaf is unprepared for. Third, buyer power is MEDIUM-HIGH because customers are highly price-sensitive (32% switched for lower prices), switching costs are zero, and price transparency via apps enables instant comparison. GreenLeaf's 18% price premium vs. Walmart is untenable when customers can easily defect. Finally, as a regional player, GreenLeaf faces supplier power disadvantages—major CPG brands negotiate harder terms with smaller chains, limiting GreenLeaf's ability to compete on price even if it wanted to. The combination creates a vise: intense competition from better-resourced national players, customers with high power and low loyalty, and structural cost disadvantages that prevent competitive pricing. Regional scale is a liability, not an asset.
Map internal capabilities against external environment and evaluate strategic alternatives
SWOT identifies internal Strengths and Weaknesses, and external Opportunities and Threats. The key is finding the intersection:
The Omnichannel strategy is superior on both financial and strategic grounds. Financially, Omnichannel delivers $38.2M NPV vs. $21.5M for Premium—a 78% higher return—while requiring only $24.1M investment vs. $87.6M (73% less capital). The 42% IRR vs. 18% IRR means payback is faster and capital efficiency is dramatically better. But the strategic logic is even more compelling. The root cause analysis showed that 45% of lost customers switched to online grocery delivery, while only 18% preferred specialty stores like Whole Foods. Omnichannel directly addresses the largest defection driver, targeting a 45% addressable market vs. Premium's 18% niche. Moreover, 62% of surveyed customers stated they would use GreenLeaf delivery if available—this is validated demand for the Omnichannel solution. The Premium strategy, while culturally aligned with GreenLeaf's fresh produce heritage, requires massive store renovations ($54M alone) to chase a smaller, wealthier customer segment that's already well-served by Whole Foods and New Seasons. Premium also assumes GreenLeaf can command higher prices when the data shows customers are price-sensitive (32% defected to cheaper alternatives). Omnichannel leverages GreenLeaf's existing strengths—fresh produce quality, brand recognition, real estate footprint—while closing the critical capability gap (no digital channel). It's both higher-return and lower-risk because it solves the problem customers have explicitly identified rather than repositioning for a niche that may not want what GreenLeaf offers.
Build actionable roadmap with measurable success metrics
Strong implementation plans include:
GreenLeaf's omnichannel implementation follows a carefully sequenced 12-month rollout. Phase 1 (Months 1-4) establishes the foundation: select an e-commerce platform vendor (evaluate Shopify vs. custom build based on scalability and time-to-market), sign the Instacart partnership for delivery logistics infrastructure, and launch a curbside pickup pilot in 5 highest-traffic stores to validate operational model before full rollout. This phase also builds the internal team—hire a VP of Digital and 3 product managers to own the roadmap. The expected outcome is 150 orders per week per pilot store, demonstrating customer demand and proving the in-store fulfillment process works without disrupting traditional operations. This pilot de-risks technology and operations before major capital deployment. Phase 2 (Months 5-9) scales to market launch: roll out curbside pickup to all 42 stores, launch the mobile app (iOS and Android) with full online ordering capability, and begin Instacart-powered delivery in the Portland metro area (18 stores). This phase requires training 120 store associates on order fulfillment SOPs and executing a $2.5M marketing campaign targeting the 45% of lapsed customers who switched to online delivery. The expected outcome is achieving 8% of total sales through digital channels in Portland and a customer satisfaction score of 7.8/10 for pickup/delivery, validating that the customer experience meets expectations. Key metrics to track: app downloads (target 85,000 by Month 9), weekly active users (28,000), orders per week (9,500), and customer acquisition cost declining from $42 to $28 as marketing efficiency improves. Primary risks include technology execution (platform delays or poor UX), unit economics (online orders unprofitable), and operational complexity (associates struggling with dual fulfillment). Mitigations: select a proven platform vendor, target $12 contribution margin per order with minimum order values, and deploy dedicated fulfillment teams in high-volume stores rather than asking all associates to toggle between roles.
Review your consulting case performance
Calculating...