marketing planning for caliper technologies’ labchips
Post on 19-Feb-2016
32 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Marketing Planning for Caliper Technologies’ Labchips
Mgmt. 266A: Product Management (Cooper)
William Fang, Greg Kim, Bryant Kong,Simon Male, Rohit Talwani
March 13, 2002
2
Planning Objective
To determine the likelihood of various levels of revenue growth for Caliper Technologies’ labchip
product line over the coming year.
3
Agenda
• What Are Labchips?• Caliper Technologies• Market Overview• Critical Issues• Hugin Network• Probabilities• Results and Decision Nodes• Sensitivity Analysis• Recommendations• Questions?
4
What Are Labchips?
• Labchips are miniature silicon devices used for biomedicalapplications on a micro-dimensional scale
– Use MicroElectroMechanical systems (MEMS) technology
• Can reduce duration of experiments by orders ofmagnitude
– Automate previously manual laboratory processes– Require much smaller amounts of sample and reagents
• Offer mission-critical benefits to researchers– Faster throughput– Cost savings– Reduced human error
5
Caliper Technologies
• Public biotechnology company with $32 M in revenuesfrom two main sources:
– Labchips and Agilent analyzer system (est. $19.2 M)– High-throughput screening systems
• Labchip systems are used in chemistry, biomedicalresearch, and drug discovery and development
– DNA, RNA, protein, and cell analysis– Market leader in labchips– Principal strategic partner is Agilent Technologies– Uses lead customer programs to identify new product applications– Recently settled patent litigation with competitor ACLARA
6
Market Overview
• Labchip market estimated at $300 M in 2000– Projected annual growth rates of 30-40%
• Early stages of development– Fragmented competition
• Public labchip companies: ACLARA, Cepheid, Nanogen, Orchid• Large bioscience players: Applied Biosystems, IBM, Motorola• Private companies: Many players• Acadamic and government instiutitions: MIT, Dept. of Defense
• Significant market trends– Escalating R&D costs, expiring patents drive customer need– Intellectual property battles —» patent litigation or cross-licensing– Lack of technology standards
7
Critical Issues
• Derived from preceding market analysis– Also regulatory, manufacturing, social and behavioral issues– Affect research applications or future uses of labchips
Caliper Technologies Business Ecosystem InfrastructurePolitical FDA regulations for device and
assay approval Foreign regulations Patent litigation FDA regulations for clinical use
Government funding ofhealthcare R&D
HMO reimbursement ofmedical uses
Uses for protection againstbioterrorism
Behavioral Customer process changes(R&D processes, techniciantraining)
Cross-licensing Altered delivery of medication Desire for non-invasive medical
diagnostic proceduresEconomic Access to capital
Price Manufacturing capacity and cost Complementary products
Escalating R&D costs Expiring patents Partnerships with established
companies (Agilent)
Valuation of public labchipcompanies
Social (See Infrastructure) (See Infrastructure) Aging population in industrialnations
Protests against genetic engineeringTechnological Product customization
Micro-scale constraints Lack of standards Interoperability with other
laboratory devices
8
Hugin Network
Product
Design
Internal Economics
Customer Need
Demand
Competition
Competition
Product Success
Major Forces Regulation
Regulation
9
Internal Economics
• Technical factors dictate product complexity and manufacturing cost
• Combined with pricing decision, this determines Caliper’s margins
Micro-dimensional Constraints
Product Design
Inter-operability
Standards
Manufacturing Cost
Margins
Customization
Price
LeaderFollower
Yes No
HighMediumLow
ProblematicNot a Problem
ComplexModerateSimple
Not CostlyCostly
Very CostlyLow Medium High
Good Acceptable Poor
Low MediumHigh
Demand
Product Success
10
High ImpactLow Impact
Demand
• Primary driver of demand is labchips’ ability to meet customer needs
• Secondary driver of demand is value-based price of product
Inter-operability
Customer Need R&D Cost
Process Change
Demand
Product Success
Price
SignificantMediumInsignificant
YesNo
LowMediumHigh High
MediumLow
HighMediumLow
Government Funding
HighMediumLow
Aging Population
GrowingPlateauing
Patent Expiration
RisingPlateauing
11
Competition
• Strategic partnerships and cross-licensing determine degree of competition
• Intensity of competition directly impacts Caliper’s margins
Strategic Partnership
s
Margin
Competition
Cross-Licensing
Patent Litigation
IntenseFew
HighMediumLowMany
ModerateFew
IntenseModerate
Little
12
Regulation Can Hinder Growth
• Regulation and low access to capital can slow Caliper’s growth
Product Success Regulation
FDA
International
Access to Capital
Appro
val
Rejecti
on
Bull Marke
t
Bear Marke
t
FavorableUnfavorable
ApprovalUnfavorable
13
Four Major Forces Impact Product Success
Demand
Product Success
Price
HighMediumLow
Utility(Revenues)
HighMediumLow
Access to Capital
Bull Market Bear Market
RegulationFavorableUnfavorableMargin
Competition
GoodAcceptablePoor
High $ 30.7 M(60% growth)
Medium $ 25.0 M(30% growth)
Low $ 21.1 M(10% growth)
HighMediumLow
14
Estimating Probabilities
• Probabilities for starting nodes were straightforward– No other nodes influencing them
• Probabilities for nodes with inputs were more difficult. We
– Decided the order of strength in which input nodes influence thenode
– Arranged in ordinal orders each probability set– Determined the graphical behavior of the probability– Assigned probabilities
15
Customer Need has a larger influence on Demand. So we ordered each permutation and set the two extreme values.
Price Low Medium High Low Medium High Medium High LowCN High High High Medium Medium Medium Low Low LowHigh 0.700 0.000Medium 0.200 0.100Low 0.100 0.900
We then determined the graph of the probability appears as follows:
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
High Medium Low
Demand Example
16
Price Low Medium High Low Medium High Medium High LowCN High High High Medium Medium Medium Low Low LowHigh 0.700 0.420 0.189 0.095 0.047 0.043 0.038 0.034 0.000Medium 0.200 0.374 0.554 0.584 0.551 0.456 0.334 0.201 0.100Low 0.100 0.206 0.257 0.321 0.401 0.502 0.627 0.765 0.900
Then we interpolate the in-between values to complete the table:
Demand Example continued
17
Default Best Case Worst CaseHigh Price Medium PriceHigh Customization Low Customization
High 0.291 30.7 0.331 30.7 0.265 30.7Medium 0.252 25.0 0.261 25.0 0.246 25.0Low 0.457 21.1 0.408 21.1 0.49 21.1Expected 24.9 25.3 24.6% of default 100.0% 101.7% 99.0%
Price High Medium LowHigh 0.324 30.7 0.268 30.7 0.281 30.7Medium 0.26 25.0 0.247 25.0 0.149 25.0Low 0.416 21.1 0.486 21.1 0.471 21.1Expected 25.2 24.7 22.3% of default 101.4% 99.1% 89.6%
Customization High Medium LowHigh 0.298 30.7 0.289 30.7 0.286 30.7Medium 0.253 25.0 0.251 25.0 0.251 25.0Low 0.448 21.1 0.460 21.1 0.464 21.1Expected 24.9 24.9 24.8% of default 100.2% 99.9% 99.9%
Results and Decision Nodes
• Caliper’s expected labchip revenues are $24.9 M
18
Default Product Design Customer Need Competition Access to Capital RegulationDecrease favorable Increase favorable Decrease favorable Increase favorable Increase favorable
UndecidedHigh 0.291 30.7 0.290 30.7 0.293 30.7 0.291 30.7 0.291 30.7 0.2930 30.7Medium 0.252 25.0 0.252 25.0 0.252 25.0 0.252 25.0 0.252 25.0 0.2524 25.0Low 0.457 21.1 0.458 21.1 0.455 21.1 0.457 21.1 0.457 21.1 0.4546 21.1Expected 24.8764 24.8668 24.8956 24.8764 24.8764 24.8970Best CaseHigh CustomizationHigh PriceHigh 0.331 30.7 0.331 30.7 0.333 30.7 0.331 30.7 0.331 30.7 0.334 30.7Medium 0.261 25.0 0.261 25.0 0.261 25.0 0.261 25.0 0.261 25.0 0.261 25.0Low 0.408 21.1 0.408 21.1 0.406 21.1 0.408 21.1 0.408 21.1 0.405 21.1Expected 25.2955 25.2955 25.3147 25.2955 25.2955 25.3243Worst CaseMedium PriceLow CustomizationHigh 0.265 30.7 0.264 30.7 0.281 30.7 0.264 30.7 0.265 30.7 0.266 30.7Medium 0.246 25.0 0.245 25.0 0.249 25.0 0.245 25.0 0.246 25.0 0.246 25.0Low 0.490 21.1 0.491 21.1 0.470 21.1 0.491 21.1 0.490 21.1 0.488 21.1Expected 24.6245 24.5899 24.7687 24.5899 24.6245 24.6026
Average favorable probability 0.334 0.310 0.403 0.400 0.475 Change (0.010) 0.010 (0.010) 0.010 0.010 % change in favorable probability -2.99% 3.23% -2.48% 2.50% 2.11%% change in expected outcome -0.04% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08%% change in best outcome 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11%% change in worst outcome -0.14% 0.59% -0.14% 0.00% -0.09%Undecided 0.0129 0.0239 0.0000 0.0000 0.0393Best 0.0000 0.0235 0.0000 0.0000 0.0541Worst 0.0469 0.1815 0.0566 0.0000 -0.0423
Sensitivity Analysis
19
Recommendations
• Caliper should focus on the factors that most stronglyinfluence product success
– Build customer demand– Lobby for favorable regulations
• Caliper should use its lead customer programs to identifyand develop labchip applications that are widelyvalued in its beachhead market
– Risk of building too many customized applications• Could get stuck in early market forever
– Need to cross chasm with application that will enable company todominate pharmaceutical market
20
Questions?
top related