E-grocery retailing has not gained much success due to high delivery and logistical costs and other important factors (De Kervenoael et al. 186). Webvan had an ambitious project that had a great potential for developing a huge network delivering online grocery shopping services. Unfortunately, certain mistakes resulted in the company’s fail. Studying the problems the company faced can help to suggest the possible courses of actions and see the potential changes that can benefit the e-grocery market. Primary problems Several problems led to the bankruptcy of Webvan in 2001. The first problem was the company’s inability to provide enough sales to cover the expenses for the technology providing functioning of complex infrastructure model. The company focused on investing in technology while paying too little attention to methods for increasing demand. Promoting the demand for shopping online is not an easy task, as most people are used to go to a grocery store on a weekly basis and do not want to pay for delivery charges. Sandoval mentioned the analyst’s notion that only 25 percent of online grocery customers make orders more than once per month (par. 12). Such situation causes a low potential for developing high demand for online grocery sales services. Instead of investing in effective solutions to this problem, the company spent huge sums of money on creating highly automated algorithms of providing the services. Another problem was the company’s quick expansion without maximizing operating efficiency. The fast growth of the network did not rely on successful well-grounded strategy for providing the appropriate delivery aspect of operations. The company’s ambitious plan to expand to 24 markets appeared to be a rash step, which did not bring the expected results. Insights from The Case and Potential Decisions The potential decision that could have saved the company from bankruptcy is gradual cutting down of the investments providing the growth of the network and redirecting this money in providing the sustainability of the existing distribution centers. Finding the methods for reducing the costs of delivery services is the central point of providing economization and the company services’ payback. Webvan’s business model relied on “economies of scale”, which focused on reducing the costs of preparing orders and paying rent on the warehouses (Mcafee and Ashiya 14). Such economies of scale could not have a positive impact on optimization of the delivery process. The delivery of perishable goods at competitive prices was one of the biggest challenges the company faced. The company offered delivery of groceries “within a 30-minute window” at prices competitive to conventional shopping (Mcafee and Ashiya 4). The company was unable to meet this challenge (Delaney-Klinger, Boyer, and Frohlich 188). The potential decision should have been focused on the understanding that low prices and personal delivery are incompatible (Delaney-Klinger, Boyer, and Frohlich 189). Potential courses of actions Potential actions that could have saved the company from failure are related to effective logistics. An efficacious logistic system is of great importance for e-grocery business, where margins are thin (Lunce et al. 1347). Webvan used a mega-warehouse model, which appeared to be ineffective. The hybrid store-warehouse model could have been a good option. Another aspect of logistics is relat