What are Thaldorf’s major strengths and weaknesses as a representative of Mediquip? Ans: Weaknesses:- 1) Lack of ability to find (or to appreciate importance of it) the needs and motivations of customer. 2) Lack of preparedness/knowledge about the product:- price estimate, list of hospitals, collecting testimonials from existing clients proactively 3) Lack of building relationship ability. Mediquip already admitted that their competitors know the decision makers at client side better than them and Mediquip is learning faster.
He was not able to identify the key players early on and their role(or level of influence) in the decision making process and as a result he was unable to come up with a coherent sales pitch to impress the decision makers.
Thaldorf did not make any attempt to find out/confirm the 3rd decision maker. He also didn’t do any background work to know the personalities of decision makers. 4) Lack of convincing ability. He could not demonstrate to Hartman, the key decision maker, the technological superiority of the product.
Hartman was clearly onfused when he quoted that every competitor is telling that their product is a hi-tech one 5) Thaldorf did not make any effort to connect further with Dr. Rufer who might have had a significant influence in the decision making. Dr. Rufer was clearly unimpressed with Thaldorfs offering. 6) Lack of ability to set proper price strategy. Pitching initially as high tech product for high price, he reduced the price drastically leading to contradicting his initial sales pitch. Strengths: 1) Thaldorf was very sincere in following up, connecting with customers for nformation. ) Good at interacting with people who are friendly. He was able to impress Professor Steinborn by addressing all his concerns regarding the product features when asked. He also connected well with him at a personal level as well. (asked about vacation, sailing experience). 3) He is good at leveraging the expertise of coworkers. He got the specification verified with product specialist. Worked with the boss for price setting. Took regional manager to the meeting with Hartmann 2. Identify each member of Lohmann hospital’s decision making unit(DMU)? Ans:
As any other DMIJ, Lohmann hospital had 3 groups directly involved which are Radiologist, Physicist and administrator. First, hospital’s general director in the interim, Carl Hartmann. He seems to play the role of approver and buyer. Second, Head Of radiology professor Steinborn. He was initiator and user. Third, the physicist Dr. Rufer. Though it is not stated clearly that Dr. Rufer was decision maker, from the context it comes out that he may have been part of DMIJ. He probably was influencer. 3. What were the needs, concern and motivations of each DMU member?
Ans: The administrator group or the general director Carl Hartmann was concerned with the price factor provided that the CT scanner meets all the functional needs as required by the hospital. He was also clearly confused to make clear decision as each competing product claimed technical superiority but were having wide price differences. Thaldorf did not do much to address his concern. The Radiologist Professor Stein born was concerned about the reliability, features offered, product support, delivery time.
He was interested in nowing whether the features could be upgraded or not and whether there was any risk of obsolescence. The physicist Dr. Rufer had to deal with the spec preparation Of the requirement. Dr. Rufer seemed less impressed with the product 4. What was the relative power position of each DMU member? The administrator, Carl Hartmann, would be ranked highest in terms of influencing the purchase decision as he handled the budget allocation. He seems to be the key decision maker.
Prof Steinborn being the end user of the product also had an influence in the decision making but he seemed to have ittle say in making the final call as was evident later on when although he seemed impressed by the product offered by Mediquip, the final decision went in favor of Sigma. Dr. Rufer may also have influenced the decision making. He was responsible for setting up the specifications for the scanner and may have given Hartmann his views about the technical superiority of the product by Mediquip compared to other competitors when Hartman was confused about the high tech product claim made by all vendors. . How well did Thaldorf interact with each member of the DMIJ? Ans: Thaldorf did not put much effort to identify key players in the DMIJ. He tried merely to convey the members of the DMU regarding the product, its benefits, and loaded them with documental information needed to know the product. But he did not do enough to convince all the key players. He connected personally with Steinborn and was able to impress him by addressing his queries related to the product. He did not make any further efforts to connect with Rufer which may have proved costly.
He could not clear Hartman’s confusion about technical superiority and high price. When Hartman instructed Thaldorf not mention price to others, Thaldorf did not try to understand the motive behind it by directly asking him or finding it out indirectly through different channels. 6. On what date Thaldorf effectively lost the deal to Lohmann University? Ans: Thaldorf kept changing the price which undermined Mediquip’s claim that their product was superior to the competition. Even Prof Steinborn quipped about this when Thaldorf reduced the price the first time.
Sept 25 was when they effectively lost the deal because on this day the Mediquip team decided o reduce the price further to 1. 3MiIlion (an unhealthy move in their own terms). This move went against their own claim of charging high price for technical superiority. If he had done proper search on the needs Of Lehmann and understood that the customer is price sensitive, he could have pitched the strategy of ‘discount for first time buyer’ by clearing mentioning that the product is high priced because of its superiority over competitors and Lohmann is getting discount only because it is first time buyer of Mediquip.
Cite this Case Mediquip
Case Mediquip. (2017, Jul 19). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/case-mediquip-43226/