Report on Business Pfizer Inc.Executive Summa.docx

Report on Business: Pfizer Inc.
Executive Summary
Pfizer has a long history in the biopharmaceutical industry,
and a lengthy list of mergers and acquisitions. It has vast
experience in creating lasting partnerships in the research and
development, manufacturing, distributing, and marketing of its
products. Pfizer seeks to improve the health of people
everywhere through education and by making medications more
accessible, which translates into better health beyond just the
people it would employ here. Although there are risks such as
potential job loss and environmental factors, the benefits
outweigh these risks, and therefore it is recommended to allow
Pfizer to set up operations in this country.
Company Description
Pfizer Inc. began operations in 1849 and has become the
largest company specializing in biopharmaceuticals.It has
operations in over 150 countries, with its headquarters located
in New York, New York, USA. Pfizer employs more than
91,500 people and earned nearly $59 billion in 2012 revenues
(Mergent, 2013). Operating in the pharmaceutical industry, it
carries out the research, development,production,and marketing
of goodssuch as over-the-counter and prescription medicines,
vaccines, and consumer healthcare products. Advil, Lyrica,
Lipitor, Celebrex, Viagra, and Prevnar are just a few of the
blockbuster name brands made at Pfizer (Pfizer Inc., 2013).It

recently divided its operations into three units, Primary Care,
Specialty Care & Oncology, and Emerging Markets &
Established Products, dropping the Animal Health and the
Nutrition units through sales to Zoetis and Nestlé respectively
(Staton, 2013). The Emerging Markets unitenables Pfizer’s
vaccines and other medicines to reach developing countries,
while Established Products handle the drugsthat have or will
soon lose patent protection, as well as medicines acquired
through licensing(Pfizer, 2013). Although revenues have been
decreasing asa direct result of patents expiring, net profit is
again increasing(Mergent, 2013) and appears to be stable in
2013 (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2013). Recent
Income Statements and Revenues for the top-ten
biopharmaceutical products can be viewed in Appendix A.
Pfizer recently merged with the only remaining division of
Wyeth, in India (Reuters, 2013); the original merger occurred in
2009 and led to the 2010 announcement that eight plants would
be shut down in an effort to remain competitive and to prevent
price increases (TopNews, 2010).
Company’s International Strategy
Pfizer grew the business internationally through mergers,
acquisitions, and partnerships, which led to it being the world’s
leading biopharmaceutical company. It has 100% ownership of
all its numerous subsidiaries andmaintains operations in
countries where it has acquired established companies that can
continue to contribute to the growth of the business(Mergent,
2013). Its international strategy is closest to a transnational
strategy due to the high costs of research, development, and
patent protection, and the pressure of competition once products
are off patent. Local responsiveness is high due to countries
having different medical needs and regulations, and the price
has to be responsive to the wallets of each population. In fact, it
has tailored pricing in at least 56 emerging markets in an effort
to make its products more accessible to patients (Pfizer Inc.,
2013).Pfizer’s recent steps have been to cut back operations,
which are deemed redundant and invest in profitable businesses,

as demonstrated by the actions taken after merging with their
competitor, Wyeth (TopNews, 2010). Other competitors include
GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck &
Co., Inc. (Mergent, 2013); however, Pfizer and Merck & Co.
recently joined forces to develop a new type-two diabetes drug
(Nordqvist, 2013), confirming that Pfizer’s primary growth
strategy is to develop new drugs through partnerships.Pfizer
operates in both developing and developed countries with an
aim to promote health through preventative medicine,
treatments, and remedies to the illnesses and diseases existing
today.Pfizer Investments in Health, an outreach partnership
program which aims to, according to its website,‘treat, teach,
build, and serve’ in communities where preventable health
issues are a major concern (Pfizer Inc., 2013), is an example of
what is believed to be its global philanthropic strategy,and
shows that it is willing to go anywhere in the world. Pfizer’s
main research and development is done in USA, Canada,
France, Australia, Japan, China and UK, where it wants to
develop new drugs. Clinical trials happen the world over, as
seen in Appendix B, and it expects to spend $6.5 billion
globally on research and development in 2013 (Pfizer Inc.,
2013).It has 80+ production plants, the largest located in
Belgium, Singapore, Ireland, Japan, Germany, Puerto Rico,
Italy, China, and the U.S (Mergent, 2013). Because Established
Products are threatened by generic competition, Pfizer taps into
underserved markets to sell these branded products at a
reasonable price and by manufacturing generics through its
subsidiaries (Pfizer Inc., 2013). Pfizer’s greatest challenge is
the ongoing loss of patent protection for its blockbuster drugs,
for example Lipitor, which lost patent exclusivity in November
2011 in the USA, and has subsequently lost this right in other
major markets(SWOT Analysis, 2013). The effects of Lipitor’s
patent loss can be seen via shrinking revenues, from 9.5 billion
in 2011 to 3.9 billion in 2012 (see Appendix A; Pfizer Inc.,
2013).Generic productions of Lipitor, and other big name
brands upon loss of patent protection, pose the biggest threat to

revenue growth.Fortunately, Pfizer does have strength in its
marketing abilities, which helps with sales of new products and
popular brands. It also has good partnerships with smaller
companies from emerging markets, which bolster its growth
(SWOT Analysis, 2013). It is believed that Pfizer is being
fiscally responsible, cutting back redundant operations tomake
up for revenue losses, and establishing new operations that can
fulfill its goals. The bottom line is still strong; however, it
needs to offset revenues lost due to patents ending because it
cannot keep cutting expenses and selling off units indefinitely.
A long-term strategy needs to find new revenue sources, which
emerging markets may provide.
Company’s Marketing Approach
Pfizer’s major focus,for patent protected and over-the-
counter products, are markets in developed countries, mainly
USA and Europe; however, it sells products worldwide, as seen
on the map in Appendix C. Furthermore, emerging markets
revenues are growing while developed markets revenues are
shrinking; for example, revenue growth in the US have been
flat, whereas revenue share for emerging markets went from
17.2% to 20.3% from 2011 to 2012 (Pfizer Inc., 2013). So while
the majority of sales still occur in the United States, likely
because its main operations are there and the brand names are
well advertised and recognized, it is thought the greatest
potential for growth stems from developing countries.
Marketing is one of its major strengths, which makes it the go-
to company for small and medium sized companies for
marketing partnerships. This is evidenced in thehigh revenues
of the Established Products & Emerging Markets unit, achieved
through licensing agreements and joint marketing
ventures.Brand name products facing competition from generics
can be marketed in developing countries, and new products can
be launched worldwide where there is need (SWOT Analysis,
2013). Pfizer has a long history of being sued for its marketing
practices, most recently being found guilty in 2010 for
racketeering fraud, in 2011 for illegally marketing, in 2012 for

unsubstantiated claims, and improper marketing (Mattera,
2013). It is believed that with its diverse portfolio of vaccines
and medications, Pfizer can tap into any market for either the
purpose of profit or philanthropy. As mentioned above, Pfizer
has the opportunity to customize its productsbased on the
medical and pricing needs of each country. Advertising in
developed countries is primarily done through television, but
print and online ads, as well as targeting doctors who prescribe
its drugs and the retailers who shelve its products, are revenue
drivers as well. To prevent counterfeit drugs from reaching
consumers, Pfizer strictly enforces distribution of its products
through its authorized distributors. Consumers purchase these
products mainly in pharmacies and grocery stores(Pfizer Inc.,
2013). Pfizer’s mode of communication is through its websites
and through social media.
Company’s Supply Chain Approach
Pfizer operates 80+ manufacturing sites, with 175
distribution centres in its major markets, using about 200
transportation suppliers to distributeits products from
manufacturing to resale locations (Pfizer Inc., 2013). It has a
huge network of internal and external partners aiding in the
production of medicines, all under the Pfizer Global Supply
umbrella and all linked via the cloud (Bowman, 2012). Because
every country has different regulations for drugs, Pfizer uses
market segmentation supply chain management, keeping
production in the markets where it sells, and sometimes by
outsourcing. It has high standards and thus performs audits of
both its own facilities and partner sites, to ensure quality is
consistent with the expectations of consumers. Although price is
a contributing factor in the selection of a supplier, the main
concern is adherence to the Pfizer standards of quality, and
Pfizer will work with its suppliers to help achieve this goal.
Because of the risky nature of theindustry for counterfeit drugs,
it expects suppliers to manage the chain of custody of its
products. To this end, it has quality assurance units in each
market, staffed with people whoknow the local environment and

languages, allowing them to monitor the operating procedures
of its suppliers (Pfizer Inc., 2013). Pfizer’s recent foreign direct
investment comes in the form of partnerships and mergers,
where new drugs and vaccines can be developed, and existing
drugs can be tailored to meet local standards. Reducing
transportation costs by operating in the markets it serves makes
sense since it ships high valued goods, not high weight. Further,
Pfizer shares its expertise in training and product development
with its partners, allowing it to set up production operations
anywhere it can bring its technology, using unskilled to semi-
skilled labour for low end positions, with the main challenge in
emerging markets being a lack of sufficient systems available
for processing products, which are temperature-sensitive
(Bowman, 2012).
Company’s Human Resource Management Approach
Pfizer prides itself on being a highly regarded employer
which values workplace diversity, and has won Top Employer
awards several years in many countries. It offers
benefitscustomizable to fit employee needs as well as extensive
training and growth opportunities including a Career
Development Resource Centre as well as a mentorship program,
both available online to its employees.Through its Global
Health Fellows program, employees can volunteer to travel for
three to six months to help train healthcare providers in
developing countries in an effort to improve health and
available care (Pfizer Inc., 2013).It is believed that these values
are also applied to operations in developing countries, tailored
to the needs of each country, taking into considerationits levels
of education, culture, history, and employment expectations,
when developing its HR policies. By adapting to needs and
hiring locally, companies with a good HRM system will
havehappier employees and should prove to be more successful
than companies’ trying a one size fits all approach to HRM.
Analysis
Benefits: Pfizer has a strong benevolent side with programs
such as Pfizer Investments in Health, and Global Health

Fellows, showing that it does work towards its vision, as stated
on Pfizer’s website, to “be recognized for meeting the diverse
medical needs of patients in Emerging Markets around the
world in an innovative, socially responsible and commercially
viable manner” (2013). It has a global policy to comply with the
local laws, and has strong health, safety and environmental
policies, which are enforced through regular audits. It is
believed that Pfizer would provide health benefits to its
employees, as well as training and education as needed, and that
jobs would be created with its policy to hire locally.
Risks: Pfizer has recently been closing plants and selling off
units in an effort to offset shrinking revenues by reducing
expenses. Pfizer tends to expand operations through mergers
and acquisitions, which means there is the risk of it closing
redundant operations, causing the loss of jobs already here, or
the exploitation of employees for their lower wages, in order to
cut back its expenses and push profitability. Lastly, prior to
2005, Pfizer had several environmental charges and settlements
so there remains a risk that it may exploit potential loopholes in
local policies.
Recommendation and Conclusion
Although the risks of allowing Pfizer to operate in this
country are valid, it can be concluded that these risks are
outweighed by the potential benefits. The risks are less likely to
be realized as Pfizer is only partnering and merging with, or
acquiring businesses with which it can increase its profitability,
so it is not looking to purchase redundant operations just to lay
employees off. Pfizer has improved its environmental policies,
with no issues arising since 2005, showingit has become more
environmentally responsible, and therefore this is unlikely to be
an issue. The benefits of entry are more likely to be realized;
added jobs, better health, improved education, and increased
revenues. Pfizer is a well-established, reputable company with
excellent employment practices, and it is recommended that it
be permitted to set up operations in this country.

Appendix A
Part 1 – Partial Consolidated Income Statement
USD $ in millions
Dec 31, 2012
Dec 31, 2011
Dec 31, 2010
Dec 31, 2009
Revenues
58,986
67,425
67,809
50,009
Cost of sales
-11,334
-15,085
-16,279
-8,888
Gross profit
47,652
52,340
51,530
41,121
Operating income
16,111
15,241
13,760
11,119

Net income attributable to Pfizer Inc.
14,570
10,009
8,257
8,635
Source: Pfizer Inc., Annual Reports
Part 2: Revenues - Major Biopharmaceutical Products (Top 10)
-in millions
Product
2012
2011
2010
Product
2012
2011
2010
Lyrica
4,158
3,693
3,063

Viagra
2,051
1,981
1,928
Lipitor
3,948
9,577
10,733
Norvasc
1,349
1,445
1,506
Enbrel (Outside US and Canada)
3,737
3,666
3,274
Zyvox
1,345
1,283
1,176
Prevnar
3,718
3,657
2,416
Sutent
1,236
1,187
1,066
Celebrex
2,719
2,523
2,374
Premarin Family
1,073
1,013
1,040

Source: Pfizer.com, Annual Reports
Appendix B
Clinical Trials
copied from
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/map?term=pfizer
Region Name
Number of Studies
World
3883
Africa [map]
172
Central America [map]
119
East Asia [map]
542
Japan
219
[studies]
Europe [map]
1180
Middle East [map]
151

North America
2143
Canada [map]
502
[studies]
Mexico
189
[studies]
United States [map]
1937
[studies]
North Asia [map]
193
Pacifica [map]
245
South America [map]
278
South Asia [map]
167
Southeast Asia [map]
226
Appendix C
Map of Worldwide Locations where products are sold
copied from http://www.pfizer.com/products/medical-
information/medical-information

2
References
Bowman, R. (2012, July 2). For pharma, one supply chain
doesn’t fit all. Supply Chain Brain. Retrieved from
http://www.supplychainbrain.com/content/blogs/think-
tank/blog/article/font-size2for-pharma-one-supply-chain-
doesnt-fit-allfont/
Clinical trials. (n.d.) US National Institutes of Health. Retrieved
November 30, 2013, from
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/map?term=pfizer
Indian units of Pfizer and Wyeth to merge. (2013, November
23). Reuters. Retrieved from
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/23/us-pfizer-wyeth-
india- idUSBRE9AM06Q20131123
Johnson, A. (2009, July 7). Drug firms see poorer nations as
sales cure. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/ SB124691259063602065
Mattera, P. (2013, August 25). Pfizer: corporate rap sheet.
Corporate Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.corp-
research.org/pfizer
Noor, W. (2013, May 1). The 2013 pharm exec top 50.
Pharmexec. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from
http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?
id= 815158
Nordqvist, J.(April 30, 2013). Merck and Pfizer collaborate to

develop new diabetes drug. Medical News Today. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/ 259792.php
Palmer, E. (2013, June 28). Pfizer returns to buyback strategy to
appease shareholders. Fierce Pharma. Retrieved from
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/pfizer-returns- buyback-
strategy-appease-shareholders/2013-06-28
Pfizer invests in Chinas pharmaceutical sector.(2011, October
6). CBI. Retrieved from
http://cbi.typepad.com/china_direct/2011/10/pfizer-
invests-in-chinas-pharmaceutical- sector.html
Pfizer Inc. SWOT Analysis. (2013). Pfizer, Inc. - SWOT
Analysis, 1-9. Retrieved from Business Source Complete.
Pfizer Inc. (n.d.) MergentOnline. Retrieved November 25, 2013,
from
http://www.mergentonline.com.proxy.library.carleton.ca/co
mpanydetail.php?compnu mber=6610&pagetype=synopsis
Pfizer Inc. (Filer) cik: 0000078003. (n.d.)U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.Retrieved November 28, 2013, from
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-
bin/viewer?action=view&cik=78003&accession_number=0
000078003-13- 000029&xbrl_type=v#
Pfizer Inc. (2013). Global Opportunities. Retrieved November
29, 2013, from
http://www.pfizer.com/files/investors/financial_reports/an
nual_reports/2012/downloa
ds/pfizer_12ar_global_opportunities.pdf
Pfizer Inc. (2013).Financial2012. Retrieved November 29, 2013,

from
http://www.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2012/financial/financi
al2012.pdf
Pfizer Inc. (2013). Ethical Marketing & Sales. Retrieved
November 30, 2013, from http:
//www.pfizer.com/about/corporate_compliance/ethical_sale
s_and_marketing
Pfizer Inc. (2013). Medical Information. Retrieved November
29, 2013, from http://www.pfizer.com/products/medical-
information/medical-information
Pfizer Inc. (2013). Performance. Retrieved November 29, 2013,
from
nual_reports/2012 /downloads/pfizer_12ar_performance.pdf
Prizer Inc. (2013). Research and Development. Retrieved
http://www.pfizer.com.au/research-and-development
Pfizer Inc. (2013). Supply Chain Management. Retrieved
nual_reports/2010/manufac turing-and-supply-chain.html
Pfizer provides historical consolidated statements of income
with the animal health business (Zoetis) reported as a
discontinued operation. (2013, July 23). Business Wire.
Retrieved from
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130723006623/en/
Pfizer-Historical-Consolidated-Statements-Income-
Animal-Health
Pfizer to close eight plants worldwide over five years. (n.d.)

TopNews. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from
http://www.topnews.in/pfizer-close-eight-plants-worldwide -
over-five-years-2262149
Science impacts economy and society. (2013, May 31). Business
and Finance. Retrieved from
http://businessandfinance.com/science-impacts-economy-and-
society/
Staton, T. (2013, July 29). Update: Pfizer to split operations
three ways. FiercePharma. Retrieved from
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/breaking-pfizer-split-
operations- three-ways/2013-07-29
Omni Automated Systems
Case Study
Bob Waters, a field sales engineer for the Custom Systems
Division of Omni Automated
Systems, had just learned from his friend Steven Anderson, the
purchasing agent for
Gentech Office Equipment Company, that Gentech had decided
to purchase a robotic test
cell from one of Omni’s competitors. The test cell was for
Gentech’s new printed circuit
board (PCB) soldering line. The Gentech account was the third
robotic work cell sale
that Waters had lost over the past two months and the eighth

overall. Waters had felt
confident that Omni had the inside track on this bid due to
Omni’s past business relations
with Gentech, Waters good personal relations with Gentech’s
personnel, and Omni’s
superior product offering. He had been working on this sale for
over a year and knew
that the loss of this sale would severely impact his chances of
future robotic work cell
sales to Gentech, as that firm continued to automate its PCB
manufacturing operations.
Water’s boss, Doug Barnum (Omni regional sales manager), was
concerned about
Water’s lack of success at selling this new product line. Since
its introduction, accounts
that Waters worked on have yielded only two sales, a 20 percent
success ratio. Other
Omni salespeople, however were experiencing at least 50
percent success ratio on their
major accounts. During this period, Waters continued to have
good success at selling
Omni’s other product lines. Because both Waters and his boss
were certain that Gentech

personnel were fair in their decision, they decided to conduct a
review of his call reports
to see if a flaw in his sales strategy and approach may have led
to the loss of the Gentech
sale.
Background Information
Omni has provided state of the art electronic assembly
equipment to electronics
manufacturers for more than 40 years. It maintained a
competitive advantage over its
competitors by continually bringing innovative products and
technologies to the
marketplace. It was one of the first firms to apply robotics to
electronics assembly and
was also one of the first firms to offer assembly machines for
surface-mount device
application. In addition to its acknowledged technological
strengths, the firm was also
well known for its product quality and reliability. It
manufactured a broad line of
assembly equipment, from simple component insertion machines
to complex robotic

work cells. Omni captured a 30 percent market share in 2005
on more than $1.5 billion
in sales. Its corporate headquarters were located in San Jose,
California, and it had
regional sales offices throughout the United States, Europe, and
Japan.
The application of robotics to electronics assembly was first
introduced in the mid 1990s.
Prior to this time, robotics was primarily applied to heavy
industrial and automobile
assembly applications. Omni built upon the research and
development of robotics like
Adept and Unimation and system houses such as Chad
Industries and Robotic
Automation to introduce its first robotic work cells. Although
Omni did not conduct
Written by: Wesley J. Johnston Reprinted with permission
from: Cases in Marketing Management
by Hinkel, Johnston, and Lanigan—2
nd
Edition, Prentice Hall, Pages 239-252 ISBN 0-13-116-531-5
Omni Automated Systems Case Study

2
research in the development of robots, it did devote
considerable resources toward
finding new applications for this emerging technology.
Bob Waters joined Omni in 2000, after an eight-year career at
one of Omni’s primary
competitors, Universal Assembly (UA) Corporation. Waters
normally achieved sales in
the top 10 percent of Omni’s sales force. He was personable,
energetic and well liked
and respected by his colleagues and management. Upon
arriving at Omni, he was
assigned the highly competitive but very lucrative Silicon
Valley sales territory and was
quickly successful in landing several major contracts.
Gentech Office Equipment Company manufactured a variety of
office equipment, from
copier/duplicators and facsimile machines, to personal
computers and word processors.
Gentech was a recognized world leader in the office equipment
industry, with sales in

2005 in excess of $4.2 billion. Gentech had manufacturing
operations in several
locations around the world, but its San Jose plant was its
primary PCB assembly facility.
In recent years, Gentech had experienced significant market
share and profit margin
erosion due to intense foreign competition. Benchmarks
revealed that Gentech had fallen
behind the industry in utilizing advanced electronics design and
manufacturing
techniques. As a result, Gentech initiated a major program to
modernize and automate its
manufacturing facilities. This program would cost between $45
and $60 million and
would be conducted over a five-year period.
The new soldering line recently ordered by Gentech from Ace
Electronics would
automate one of its soldering process lines and would cost
approximately $3 million.
Gentech’s current soldering line requires the boards to go
through four separate stages
before the soldering is complete. At each of these stages the
boards must be manually

loaded and unloaded. This resulted in a high number of
damaged boards due to improper
handling and inconsistent solder joint quality due to variation in
the solution temperature
and chemical balances. The new soldering line would virtually
eliminate material
handling and would add a computerized process control system
which would monitor
each stage of the process. The robotic test cell would be placed
at the end of the
soldering line to move boards from the soldering line to the
Bitmico PCB testers and to
drive the test machines. This would be Gentech’s first attempt
at robot automation.
Gentech had contracted with Moore & Associates, a consulting
firm to help draw up
plans on how the new soldering line and robotic test cell would
be integrated into its
existing assembly line. The robotic test cell would cost
approximately $750,000.
Bob Waters and Steve Anderson had become fairly close friends
over the past several
years. Their children went to the same school, and they lived

only a few blocks apart.
Their families occasionally got together for social outings, and
once or twice a month
they would play a round of golf together. Although they were
personal friends, Anderson
made it a rule to keep business and pleasure strictly separate.
Rarely did they talk about
business except when Waters made calls on Gentech.
3
Waters considered Gentech to be an extremely important
account and attempted to
contact the firm at least once a month. Gentech was one of
Waters’ first major sales
when he joined Omni. Its annual purchases occasionally totaled
as much as $800,000.
Furthermore, due to the size of its manufacturing operations, it
was a prime candidate for
future major purchases from Omni.

Water’s Call Reports
Waters reconstructed his activities for the period he had been
working on the Gentech
sale by reviewing his call reports.
February 4, 2006
Received a call from Anderson. He said that Gentech was about
to initiate a bidding
process to procure a robot system that was to be a part of
Gentech’s new soldering line.
Anderson asked if Omni had a product that would satisfy
Gentech’s needs. Told
Anderson that Omni could custom build any robotic work cell
that he might need.
Arranged to visit him the following day.
February 5, 2006
Called on Anderson. Discussed with him the overall
requirements of the work cell and
the bidding process to be used. The robotic test cell was to be
part of Gentech’s new
soldering line that was purchased from Ace Electronics. The
line was to be installed in

February of 2007. The test cell had to be delivered and
operational within one week of
the installation of the soldering line. An operational mockup of
the test cell had to be
demonstrable at the vendor site 30 days before delivery for
initial acceptance testing.
Anderson said that a new bidding process was being instituted
this year. Unlike previous
capital acquisitions, where vendors were heavily involved in
negotiating equipment
specifications and cost, product requirements would be drawn
up by Gentech personnel,
and the supplier would provide a sealed bid at a final
presentation. Preliminary bids and
product proposals would be used to narrow the number of
vendors submitting final bids
down to four or five. The final selection would be made jointly
by the Purchasing,
Manufacturing, and Test Engineering organizations. Anderson
would represent
Purchasing; Jim Thompson, manager of manufacturing
operations would represent
Manufacturing; and Carl Jefferson, a senior engineer, would

represent Test Engineering.
Kevin Reilly; vice president of northern California operations,
would also participate in
the decision.
Anderson furthermore said that detailed specification for the
test cell would not be made
available for the preliminary bid phase; these specs would be
given only to those vendors
selected to submit final bids. Proposals and preliminary bids
were to be generated based
on preliminary specs available through the Moore consultant.
Anderson gave me the
name of the Moore consultant and also gave me the name of an
Ace engineer for the
details on the soldering line and a Bitmico engineer for details
on the testers.
4
Returned to the office and reviewed the situation with the boss
(Doug Barnum).

Discussed the importance of getting this initial sale in order to
have the best shot at
Gentech’s future robotic automation needs. Surmised that
Gentech had instituted this
new bidding process in an attempt to get more aggressive
pricing from the vendors.
Concluded that pricing would therefore be the primary factor in
selecting a vendor.
Discussed the pricing strategies that we might use and those
that might be used by our
competition. The boss told me to keep him apprised of the
situation and let him know if
there was any way he could help. Took home a competitive
analysis of the robot industry
that was prepared by our marketing group.
February 6, 2006
Called Kevin Reilly at Gentech to try to set up an appointment
to meet him. Was told by
his secretary that “Mr. Reilly does not interact directly with
sales people” and that
Anderson should be contacted for all sales-related issues. Tried
to explain to her that I

needed only a few minutes of his time, but she said that there
were no exceptions to the
rule.
Wrote the Moore consultant in Los Angeles for the test cell
spec. Reviewed specification
on the robots that we use in our work cells and specifications on
work cells that we had
done in the past. Forwarded a recommendation letter from
Albany Computers for the
robotic insertion cell I sold the company last year for its
assembly line.
March 4, 2006
Received specs from Moore. Looked them over with Paul
Johnson (Omni’s systems
design engineer) and discussed possible hardware
configurations that could be used in the
test cell. Asked him to put together a tentative system for
Gentech. Gave him the names
of the Ace and Bitmico contacts in case he needed additional
information on the
soldering line of the testers. Called Thompson at Gentech and
made an appointment to

meet him for lunch next week.
March 8, 2006
Visited Anderson before meeting with Thompson. Found out
that eight other firms
would be making proposals along with Omni. Asked him how
Omni’s chances looked
for getting invited for the final bidding stage. He said that as
long as our bid wasn’t way
out of line we should have no problem getting past the
preliminary bid stage. Showed
him Johnson’s preliminary proposal for the test cell. He was
impressed by the
technology and sophistication of the system. Went over the
features of the robots that we
use in our work cells, stressing the accuracy and speed of the
robot and the direct-drive
technology used which allows high torque to be generated at
relatively low motor speeds.
Left him a stack of literature, a copy of Johnson’s proposal, and
the Albany Computer’s
testimonial letter.
Met with Thompson and his assistant, Roberts, for lunch.

Discussed their situation in the
factory and the acquisition of the soldering line and test cell.
Thompson and Roberts
seemed to be somewhat skeptical about the robotic test cell and
the technology upon
5
which it was based. They said that they had read about robots
in various trade journals
and seen some of them on television, but had never had a
chance to see one in person.
Told them about all the robotic work cells that Omni had built
and offered to show them
one of the robots at our facility. Tentatively scheduled their
visit for next week.
After lunch I reviewed Johnson’s proposal with Thompson and
Roberts. They both
seemed concerned about reliability and system downtime. I
pointed out some of the
backups and redundancies built into the system which increase
system reliability, and our
past track record for high reliability. I also pointed out that due

to the proximity of Omni
relative to our competitors, Omni was clearly in the best
position to provide prompt
emergency service in the unlikely event that they had a system
failure. They agreed.
Left them with copies of the same literature I had left with
Anderson.
March 19, 2006
Picked up Thompson and Roberts for our plant visit. Dropped
by Anderson’s office to
see if he wanted to come along. He said he had a meeting later
on that day and couldn’t.
On the way over to the plant we talked about a variety of things,
including how well the
Warriors basketball team was doing this year. Thompson
seemed to have a real interest
in basketball so I invited him out to tomorrow night’s game.
Asked Roberts if he wanted
to come along but he said he had plans for tomorrow night.
Made arrangements to pick
up Thompson at his house.
Once we got to the plant, I showed Thompson and Roberts a

robot that was similar to the
one that Johnson had proposed for their test call. Ran a
demonstration program which
made the robot insert various sized components into a PCB and
transfer it to different
workstations. Thompson and Roberts were very impressed.
Showed them how to use the
teach pendant and how easy it was to program the robot. Ended
our visit by showing
them around the facility.
March 20, 2006
Picked up Thompson at his place. Took him out to a nice
restaurant on the wharf before
the game. During dinner, I reemphasized the servicing
advantages of going with Omni.
Asked him what he thought Omni’s chances were in landing the
deal. He said that he
really didn’t know yet and that choosing a vendor was the least
of his worries. He was
taking a lot of heat from the union because the new soldering
line and the robotic test cell
was going to displace 12 employees. I told him how other
companies were dealing with

the problem and assured him that things would work out. The
Warriors won the game
110 to 109.
March 27, 2006
Visited Anderson. Found out that there were problems with the
specs. He wasn’t sure
what the nature of the problem was but he knew that completion
of the spec was behind
schedule. Arranged a meeting with him, Thompson, Jefferson,
and my boss, Doug
Barnum, for early next month. Suggested that Reilly be invited
also, but Anderson
thought he wouldn’t attend.
6
Went to see Thompson. Asked him about the problem with the
specs. He said that there
was some controversy over who should be responsible for
generating the specs,

Manufacturing or Test Engineering. He said that no matter
which way it went,
“Manufacturing would get its needs addressed.” Suggested to
him that clearly
Manufacturing should control the specs since it will be
responsible for operating the
equipment. He smiled and left to attend to other business.
Ran into the foreman on the assembly floor. He seemed to be
pretty unhappy about all
the changes that were being made to the assembly line. He
complained about the fact
that he “had just spent six months getting things running
smoothly and now they were
going to change things all over again.” I sympathized with his
position but reminded him
how much more efficiently his operations were going to run
after the new soldering line
and test cell were installed. He agreed that in the long run his
operations would probably
be better off.
Asked him how the Omni component insertion machines were
performing. He told me

that one of the machines was down and had been waiting for
parts for two days now.
Called the people at the service center to find out what was
taking so long to service his
machine. Was told that the parts were on back order and that
they wouldn’t be available
for at least another day. Apprised them of the situation and
suggested that they borrow
the parts from another machine that was down in the field. Was
assured by them that his
machine would be repaired before the end of the day. Relayed
the information to the
foreman who was grateful for the favor.
April 3, 2006
Barnum made an excellent presentation to Jefferson, Thompson,
Roberts, and Anderson
on the company and the product line. He reviewed the
company’s financial status, its
position in the market place, our major account customers, and
our reputation for quality
and service. He also went into quite a bit of detail on the
product line, and in particular

the robotic work cells. Few questions were asked during the
presentation, although
Roberts did raise a concern about spares availability for the
robot system. Assured him
that Gentech’s problem with the insertion machine was an
isolated case and that spares
were always readily available for the robot systems.
Distributed to everyone a leather
folder with the Omni logo on it and an Omni pen and pencil set.
Introduced myself to
Jefferson, who, according to Anderson, was probably still upset
about having to share
responsibility for generating the specs with Thompson.
Thompson was supposed to
develop Manufacturing’s requirements while Jefferson was
supposed to define the
detailed technical requirements for the system.
April 22, 2006
Checked in with Anderson to see how things were going. He
said that both Engineering
and Manufacturing had stopped working on the specs until after
the preliminary bids
were in. This would give them time to understand what their

real requirements were and
give them an opportunity to look over the preliminary bids.
7
Spent the afternoon with Thompson discussing the tradeoffs
between payload
requirements and the impact that it has on cycle time and the
maximum velocity that can
be achieved by the robot arm. Carefully reviewed with him the
impact this decision
could have on the throughput of the assembly line and the types
of boards that the line
could handle. Left him with some additional literature
describing the latest developments
in robot controllers.
Visited the foreman on the assembly floor. Found him watching
an operator load
components in the insertion machine for another assembly pass
on the boards. He

complained that the machines should be more flexible and
support any size component in
each of the feeds instead of restricting each one to only certain
sizes of components. I
told him that upgrades to provide that capability were available
for the newer machines
but weren’t available for that particular machine. Explained to
him that upgrade kits
were usually developed only for the more recent model year
machines.
May 28, 2006
Worked with Johnson in developing our tentative bid.
Suggested to him that price,
reliability, and throughput, in that order, should be the key
factors in developing this
proposal. After several hours of discussions, we finally agreed
on a system. I included
variable-speed conveyors, 20-board capacity buffer/loader, 6-
axis direct-drive Adept
robot, and a 68020-based robot controller with teach pendant.
The controller would
include 20 GB of hard disk, 128 MB of memory, five external
ports, and the standard

software development environment. It would also include a
one-year warranty and an
optional service contract which would entitle Gentech to
hardware maintenance and all
software upgrades. I felt that based on the preliminary specs
from Moore, the robot we
selected gave Gentech a perfect compromise between payload
capacity and minimum
cycle time. Discussed pricing of the system with Barnum and
decided to offer only a
moderate discount for the preliminary bid state and then a much
more aggressive
discount for the final bid. The bid would go in at $718,500.
The service contract would
be offered at 10 percent of list price, or $75,000 per year.
June 25, 2006
Checked with Anderson to see how our bid looked. He smiled
and told me that all the
bids weren’t in yet and that a decision would be made sometime
in early August.
Arranged to play a round of golf with him next weekend.
August 5, 2006

Received a letter from Gentech inviting Omni to bid on the final
specifications. Visited
Anderson later that day to see if I could gather more
information on the bid. Found out
that the other firms invited to bid were IAS, Robotic
Automation, and UA Corporation.
When questioned about our preliminary bid, Anderson
suggested that our bid appeared
high. Assured him that once we had the final specs we would
give them the best price-
performance combination available. Asked about the other
aspects of our bid, and he told
me that the best person to talk to would be Jefferson. Went to
look for Jefferson, but he
had already left for the day.
8
That evening I reviewed the specs and the price lists of our
competitors. IAS is a small
entrepreneurial company with approximately 15 installations
nationwide. Felt that IAS

probably could offer Gentech a better price but lacked the
experience and stability that
Gentech would want from a vendor. Robotic Automation has
more experience in robotic
applications but it has no other products in the electronic
assembly market and its
experience in these applications is limited.
Although UA offers the same types of robots in its work cells, it
doesn’t manufacture its
own conveyors and board loaders. It could therefore not offer
the same level of
customization in its work cells nor be as price competitive as
Omni could. UA could
offer more capabilities in its robot controller than any of the
other companies, but these
additional capabilities would come at a considerable additional
cost to Gentech. Gentech
would need these additional capabilities only if it found itself in
the unlikely situation of
needing to reprogram the robot to perform significantly more
complex functions than are
currently planned for the test cell.

August 6, 2006
Spent the afternoon with Jefferson. Noticed that copies of the
literature that I had left
with Anderson and Thompson were sitting on Jefferson’s desk.
Asked him how our
proposal looked. He said the proposal looked fine at this point
but reminded me that the
final specs were still under development. Reviewed with him
various features of the
robot and robot controller that were proposed for the test cell.
He didn’t seem as
concerned about the controller’s capabilities as much as Omni’s
commitment toward
continuing to upgrade and improve the product once it was
purchased. He said that the
Manufacturing people were concerned about the product
becoming obsolete once new
technologies were introduced. I assured him that Omni was
committed toward
continuing to improve and enhance its products and cited
numerous examples of how the
products in the field were continuing to be improved. Also
reminded that software

upgrades and enhancements for the controller would be “free”
under the maintenance
contract. Took note of some technical documentation that he
wanted and told him I’d
drop it off later that evening.
September 2, 2006
Met with Anderson. Found out that responsibility for
developing the specifications had
been given to Jefferson. Jefferson would now be responsible
for incorporating both
Manufacturing’s requirements and Engineering’s requirements
into the final specs. He
said the change was made in the hopes that giving responsibility
for the specs to one
organization would help resolve some of the problems they had
in coordinating the task.
Anderson also confessed that neither group had been able to
make much progress on the
specs due to a lack of criteria upon which the specs could be
developed. This problem
became apparent when they tried to merge Manufacturing’s and
Engineering’s
requirements and found that many of the requirements

conflicted. Upon further
investigation, it was discovered that the two organizations had
developed their
requirements based upon different criteria. Furthermore, after
reviewing the preliminary
bids, it became obvious that each vendor had also made
different assumptions about the
9
criteria in developing their specifications. Jefferson therefore
had contacted the Moore
consultant and requested assistance in developing appropriate
criteria. Jefferson was due
back at the end of the week.
I knew that this would give me an opportunity to influence the
specs and ensure that they
contained certain features standard in our robots and conveyors.
Having these features in
the specs would give Omni a clear advantage in the bidding.
Made a note to see
Jefferson early next week.

September 16, 2006
Spent the morning with Jefferson discussing the benefits of the
Omni system. Made sure
to place special emphasis on features standard in our robots and
conveyors that increase
the mean time between failure and reduce the likelihood of
component failure. Felt
confident that he recognized the Omni advantages. Left him
with some highly technical
literature which described these features.
Went to visit the foreman on the assembly floor and found him
talking to one of the
software engineers that Gentech had recently hired to work on
its process control system.
Asked him if he thought he might also be doing some work on
robotic test cell and he
said that it was a possibility. Told him about the extensive
programming environment
that came with our controllers and the fact that the system could
be programmed off-line
without disrupting production. He mentioned that he had heard
from a friend last year

about all of the bugs in the Omni programming environment and
wondered if they had
been fixed yet. I smiled and assured him that those problems
were long since past and
that we now had an extensive quality assurance program in
place. Also told him about
the many horror stories I had heard about the programming
environments in the UA and
IAS systems and that my understanding was that some of those
problems were still not
fixed.
September 30, 2006
Met with Jefferson at his request. He had been reading a trade
journal about the state of
the art in robot systems and had noticed that Omni was rarely
mentioned in the article as
a leader in the field. He said that he was concerned about
selecting a vendor that would
maintain a state-of-the-art product since future robotic
installations would most likely
involve the same vendor. I told him about some of our pending
product announcements
and the types of advanced research that we were involved in. I

also reminded him that
although we might not lead the robotics industry as a whole, we
did lead the industry in
the field of robotics applied to electronics assembly, the field
that Gentech should be
most concerned about. He agreed and seemed satisfied that
Omni could meet all of its
future requirements.
October 15, 2006
Had lunch with Anderson. Found out that Thompson had been
transferred to another
organization within Gentech and that Roberts had been
promoted to plant superintendent.
Anderson wouldn’t discuss the circumstances surrounding
Thompson’s transfer and
encouraged me not to bring it up with Jefferson or Roberts.
Also discovered that Reilly
10
had formed a new group called Computer Integrated
Manufacturing to be responsible for

the various computer systems that manufacturing had acquired.
Asked Anderson if he
thought this new group would have any say in the selection of
the test cell. He said that
Jefferson would be representing their interests and that no
changes to the selection
committee were anticipated. Invited Anderson, Roberts, and
Jefferson to the Robots 8
conference that was to be held in Santa Clara at the end of the
month. Left exhibit passes
at the location of Omni’s hospitality suite with Anderson.
October 29, 2006
Met Anderson, Roberts, and Jefferson at our hospitality suite.
Introduced them to our
vice president of marketing, Dan White, and several other Omni
executives. Took them
on a tour of our exhibit booth and showed them our work cell
demonstrations. Gave
them each a ticket to tonight’s conference gala dinner and
encouraged them to stay for
the festivities. Learned from Anderson that the specs would be
ready by November 15.

Told him that I would come by to pick them up and then
excused myself to meet another
client.
November 15, 2006
Picked up the final specs from Anderson. He said that the bid
presentation for all four
suppliers would be held on January 20. We would be given two
hours to make our
presentation, at the end of which we were to hand in our final
bid. Our assigned time slot
was from 1 to 3 p.m.
Went back to the office to review the specs. The specs
contained some unexpected
requirements. Gentech had gone along with our robot and
conveyor specifications, but
had specified additional board loading capacity and a
significant number of additional
capabilities in the robot controller. The board loader would be
no problem, since we
custom build our own; the robot controller however, could be a
problem. Asked Johnson
to start putting together our final proposal and arranged for him

and Barnum to
participate in the formal presentation. Called Jefferson and
arranged to meet with him
after the holidays.
November 29, 2006
Spent the afternoon going over the final specs with Jefferson.
Found out that the
additional capability in the robot controller was required for a
bar coding system that
Gentech planned on installing in the future. Discussed various
alternatives for providing
that capability and sold him on one that could be satisfied by
our current controller.
Reviewed all other aspects of the specs with him, pointing out
Omni benefits and features
along the way. He seemed satisfied that Omni could deliver as
promised. Stopped by to
see Roberts and Anderson, but both were tied up in a meeting
for the rest of the day.
December 18, 2006
Sent Anderson, Roberts, and Jefferson each a large holiday box
of gourmet foods for the

coming New Year. It contained fine cheeses, meats and
chocolates.
11
January 10, 2007
Reviewed our final proposal with Johnson and Barnum. The
proposed system contained
only minor modifications from the one submitted for the
preliminary bid. Decided to
include more memory and a larger disk in the controller and
modify the board loader
specs to conform to those called for in the final specifications.
After several hours of
discussion, we decided to go in with a bid of $687,000.
January 21, 2007
The presentation went extremely well. Barnum started with a
brief corporate overview,

stressing Omni’s reputation for innovation, reliability, and
service. Johnson followed
with a discussion of the technical aspects of our proposed test
cell, making sure to point
out how each of the requirements in the Gentech specs was
satisfied. I summed up the
presentation and handed the bid to Reilly. Anderson thanked us
for a “superb”
presentation and said that we would hear from them by late
February.
February 26, 2007
Received a call from Anderson notifying me that Omni had lost
the bid. He said that the
committee had narrowed the field down to Omni and UA and
that UA had just edged us
out. He couldn’t pinpoint one particular reason for the
selection, but did say that cost did
not play a large factor in the decision since both companies
came in at about the same
price. He added that each member of the committee had a
different reason for preferring
UA, but that all were unanimous in the feeling that UA would
better satisfy the

company’s needs. When asked about the possibility of having a
meeting to discuss the
issue, he replied that his orders were to tell all vendors that the
committee’s decision was
final and that the matter wasn’t open for discussion. He
congratulated me on the job I
had done representing Omni and said that he hoped this decision
wouldn’t affect our
friendship.
12
Appendix 1
Note: This document provides a preliminary description of the
robotic test cell for Gentech
Office Equipment Company. These specifications are based
upon information provided by
Gentech, Ace Electronics and Bitmico Tester Corporation. All
specifications are subject to
change.

General Description
Figure 1 shows the general layout of the robotic test cell. The
test cell consists of one
incoming conveyor and two outgoing conveyors, a robot and
three Bitmico 8000 testers.
The input conveyor receives the board from the solder wash
station of the solder line and
regulates the throughput to the robot cell. The robot should be
outfitted with a double
sided end effector so that board loading and unloading can be
accomplished within a
minimum cycle time. The robot moves the board from the board
loading station to one of
the available testers. The robot removes the tested board from
the tester with the side of
the end effector not holding the board to be tested. After
placing the untested board onto
the tester, testing of that board is initiated. The tested board is
moved to a bidirectional
belt for feeding onto one of the two outgoing conveyors. Based
on the results of the

board test, the board is placed on either the “passed” or “failed”
conveyor.
Board Specifications
Boards will range in height from a minimum of 5 inches to a
maximum of 24 inches and
will range in width from a minimum of 7 inches to a maximum
of 30 inches. Maximum
warp and twist of the board will be .01 inches per inch of board.
A fully assembled board
will range between .5 and 5 pounds in weight. The maximum
height of any component
on the board will be .75 inches. Component bodies will not
extend into an area .2 inches
wide along each edge of the board. A tooling hole is located in
the upper left, lower left
and lower right corners of the board. These holes will be .15
inches in from each of these
corners and will be .09 inches in diameter. These holes are
used to mount the board into
the test fixture.
Tester Specifications

The testers are Bitmico 8000 in-circuit testers. They are
equipped with an RS-232C port
which allows communication with the tester. Testing can be
initiated and test status (e.g.,
test in progress, board failed, board passed, tester idle, test
fault) can be polled through
this interface. An interrupt signal is generated by the tester
when testing is complete.
The period of time required to test a board varies depending on
board complexity, but
typically takes 15-20 seconds. There is a 10 foot vertical
clearance envelope around the
test bed. Pins for the test fixture are .085 inches in diameter
and 1 inch in height. For
more details on the tester contact Bitmico customer support.
13
Appendix 1

Figure 1
Conveyor Requirements
The output conveyor from the solder wash station is 4 feet in
height 2 feet in width and
moves at the rate of 15 feet per minute. Boards will be spaced a
minimum of 5 feet apart
on the conveyor and will be oriented such that the tooling holes
are located in the upper
left, lower left, and lower right corners of the board. The input
conveyor for the test cell
should be 30 feet in length and be capable of buffering a
minimum of 15 boards.
The output conveyor for the failed boards should be 4 feet in
height, 2 feet in width and
50 feet in length. The conveyor should be capable of speeds
ranging form 10 to 30 feet
per minute. The conveyor will feed a rework area where failed
board will be processed.
Input from solder

wash station
Input Conveyor Board
Loader
Robot
Tester
#3
Tester
#2 Tester
#1
“Failed”
boards
Conveyor
“Passed”
boards
Conveyor
14
The output conveyor for the passed boards should be 4 feet in
height, 2 feet in width and
55 feet in length. The conveyor should be capable of speeds
ranging from 10 to 35 feet

per minute. The conveyor will feed a packaging area where
boards will be packaged for
shipment.
Robot Controller Requirements
The controller is required to coordinate the actions of the robot,
the three testers, the input
conveyor, the bidirectional belt, and the two output conveyors.
In addition to the normal
operation of the test cell, the conditions shown in Table 1
should be handled with the
specified remedial actions.
Condition Action
One or more of the testers is
inoperative.
Continue testing with the
operating testers.
Input buffer is almost full. Continue testing and issue a

warning to the operator.
Input buffer is full. Stop the robot and signal for the
operator.
A tester is not responding. Continue testing with the other
testers and issue a warning to the
operator
N consecutive failed boards have
been encountered.
Stop the robot and signal for the
operator.
Either of the output conveyors has
been shut down.
Stop the robot and wait for
conveyor(s) to be restarted.
Table 1
The robot should be programmable either through a teach
pendant of off-line through the

controller’s software environment. Adequate flexibility and
functionality should be
provided in the system to allow modification or customization
of the system in the future.
System Requirements
The overall test cell must have a minimum 2000 hour mean-
time-between-failure and a
96% uptime. The work cell noise level should not exceed
continuous 80 db.
A safety shield should be included in the design of the test cell.
The robot work envelope
must not be accessible by the operator without emergency
stopping the robot.
Case Report Guidelines
Business-to-business Marketing online
From the Syllabus..Case Assignments..
• Case reports (2, individual or in the groups of two)

– A case report is 3-5 pages
– Let me know, if you want to work with someone by Jan
31st
– A case help chat a week before the case is due
– Office hours are online (phone, email, chat)
– 40 % of your grade
Steps to a Successful Case Report
1. Read the case.
2. Determine, what is the problem in the case
(questions). Write it down.
3. Do some research on the topic and the company.
(Mandatory: at least 2 outside references)
4. Write the introduction and draft recommendations
for the problems/questions, and the cover letter.
5. Let your report sit for a day. (Ask your friend to read
it and give feedback.)
6. Polish you report. Check citations and references.
7. Submit your report via Dropbox. (see next slide)
Formatting of your report
• A letter size paper, 1 inch margins, double spaced,

font Times New Roman, Arial or similar, font size 12
• Add a cover letter (your name, course, the name of
the case)
• Covert your word.doc to PDF file (save as -> PDF)
• Submit via Dropbox in courseden.
Case Report GuidelinesFrom the Syllabus..Case
Assignments..Steps to a Successful Case ReportFormatting of
your report
BUSI2701D Fundamentals of International Business
Assignment # 2 – Business Report: Company Analysis
You are an analyst in the Industry Department of the
government of a DEVELOPING nation (for this assignment, the
particular country is not important). Like many developing
nations, the majority of your workforce is unskilled to semi-
skilled, and your country is trying to develop an industrial base
which will provide jobs and help raise the standard of living of
the population. However, your government is wary of letting
foreign companies set up operations in your country that might
harm, or treat unfairly, the country, its people or its resources.A
number of companies have recently petitioned your government
for permission to set up operations in your country. You have
been asked by the Minister of Industry to analyse your choice of
any one of the companies on the list provided below.As this is
an individual assignment, do not collaborate with others in
completing the assignment.

Company List:
• Fiat S.p.A.
• General Dynamics
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Kroger
• Nokia
• Yum! Brands
The Minister is a very busy person so it is important that the
report be written in a clear and concise manner. It will be
judged on the factual information it contains, the clarity of your
argument and the depth of your analysis. Please note that you
should not try to gather data which supports only one side or the
other of whether or not to give the company permission to
proceed. Rather, you should gather all the pertinent data and let
your analysis guide you to the best recommendation.
The report is to be sevenpages maximum (double spaced, Times
New Roman, 12 pt. font, 2.54 cm margins) plustitle page,
references and appendices.The title page must contain your
name, student number, name of course and professor, date, and
the company you have chosen from the list provided.The first
half page (maximum) of the report will be an executive
summary of the report’s highlights, including your
recommendation. The remainder of the pages will cover the
material noted in the rubric below with marks allocated as
shown. Please number the pages and use the items listed in the
rubric as headings in your report. Submit your report on CU

Learn. A paper copy is not required.
The report must cite at least six different sources. Information
sources could include the globalEDGE Website referred to in
the Hill textbook (http://globaledge.msu.edu), Forbes Global
2000 (http://www.forbes.com/global2000/), the company’s own
website and annual reports, the list of company databases
provided on CU Learn,from business journals, business
newspapers, business websites, etc. Be wary of relying too
heavily on any one source, especially a company’s own website
as they will most certainly put a positive spin on all of the
company’s activities. Do not use Wikipedia as a source.
Ensure that all data is cited in APA Style. Guidelines for APA
Style can be found at:http://www1.carleton.ca/sasc/ccms/wp-
content/ccms-files/apa_style2.pdf. In this report, there should
be few, if any, quotes. If you do use a quote, ensure that it is in
quotation marks and properly cited. Keep in mind that if a
quote is not in quotation marks and properly cited, it is
consideredplagiarism.
Please note that Carleton University offers a Writing Tutorial
Service through the Student Academic Success Centre which
provides free face-to-face sessions to help you with your
writing. This may be especially helpful for those for whom
English is a second language. Information can be attained on
their website (http://www1.carleton.ca/sasc/writing-tutorial-
service/).
Assignment #2 Rubric
Items / Headings
Item % of Grade
Description
Executive Summary

10
Provide a concise and very well written summation of the whole
report including recommendation and conclusion. Maximum
length one-half page.
Company Description
10
The industry or industries the company operates in, the size of
the company in annual revenue and workforce size, where the
company is headquartered, the types of goods and services the
company provides, how stable and successful the company
seems to be, and any major news stories about the company over
the last few years. Include any other information that you feel
will be relevant to your analysis and
recommendation/conclusion.
Company’s International Strategy
15
Describe the company’s strategy (in your own words), and why
you think it follows such a strategy as opposed to other

strategies, especially in the context of the balance between cost
competitiveness and local responsiveness. Identify who the
company’s competitors are, whether or not they follow similar
or different strategies.
Company’s Marketing Approach
15
Identify where the company sells its major product lines and
why you think it a) chooses these regions/countries andb) how
these choices have affectedproduct/ service marketing
strategies.Particular emphasis should be placed on the
components of the marketing mix: product (level of
standardization or customization) placement (distribution
channels), promotion (communications methodologies) and
pricing, that the company may use in its major target markets.
Company’s Supply Chain Approach
10
Identify if it does produce its major line(s) of goods and
services (i.e. make), and if so why; and then provide a rationale
for why you think it chose certain regions/countries to produce
is goods and services based on country factors, technological
factors and product factors. If it does not produce its major
line(s) of goods and services (i.e. buy), then identify why it
chose this path, and then provide a rationale for the
regions/countries (e.g. location economies, competencies)
where its supply chain partners (from whom they buy) are
located.
Company’s Human Resource Management (HRM) Approach

5
Identify any information relative to the company’s approach to
HRM in international settings. This could include such things as
the demographic nature of the executive leadership,
staffing/selection policies, training, benefits, or expatriate
policies that may affect the performance of that firm in your
country.
Analysis
20
Provide an analysis of the risks and benefits inherent in
allowing the company to do business in your country. This
section must be a logical distillation ofthemost important facets
of the previous sections, with an emphasis on whether the
company in question brings any value to your developing
country.
Recommendation and Conclusion
5
Your recommendation regarding allowing the company to set up
operations in your country. This section must be a logical
follow-on from the summary of risks and benefits.
Presentation and appendices
5
Presentation: Spelling, grammar and clarity of writing.
Relevance of appendices.
References
5
Use of at least six different sources.Accurate use of the APA
citation system.
100
Databases with Company Specific Information
Provided by: Trish O’Flaherty, Reference Services, Carleton
Library

Please don’t hesitate to book an appointment with me for help
on these databases or other library business resources. You can
email me at [email protected] or ask for me at the Research
Help Desk, Level 2 Library.
Canadian
· FP Advisor
· First stop for Canadian companies.
· Select Company Snapshots from left hand side
· Key in company name and click on your company name
· Look for Historical Report (if your company is a large
company FP will provide aHistorical Report.) Contains history
and data on company from date of incorporation
· Look for Corporate Analyzer – here you will find financial
data for 7 years
· Explore remaining table of contents for full picture of
company
· SEDAR - from the Ontario Securities Commission – find
official documents such as 10k report (A form 10-K is an annual
report required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission).
· TSX-E Review – from the Toronto Stock Exchange
Global (includes Canadian data)
· Mergent Online
Includes Mergent Industry Reports. Excellent source for
comparing companies within an industry
· EDGAR Security Exchange Commission – find 10k etc.
Factiva
· Best source for non-North American companies and news for
all companies.
· For company data select Companies/Markets from top tool bar
· Click on Company
· Scroll down initial page and explore table of contents on left
side.

· GMID
· Provides company profiles plus data on size of industry by
country, industry profiles, forecasting by country, etc.
2

Report on Business Pfizer Inc.Executive Summa.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Report on Business Pfizer Inc.Executive Summa.docx

Similar to Report on Business Pfizer Inc.Executive Summa.docx (20)

More from debishakespeare

More from debishakespeare (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Report on Business Pfizer Inc.Executive Summa.docx