Search results

After a successful transition from a projects-based IT business services company to a platform-driven analytics company, Saama's core leadership team gathered in 2017 to brainstorm the next phase of its growth. The year before, the team had decided to narrow its target market to the life sciences vertical. Saama now had to decide how to execute on this focused strategy by choosing a growth pathway within the life sciences vertical. Saama's leadership team was considering three alternatives: acquiring new customer accounts, developing existing customer accounts, or developing new products by harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain technologies. The team had to evaluate these growth pathways in terms of both short- and long-term revenue potential, as well as their potential for sustaining Saama's competitive advantage.

This case study was prepared through secondary research. The secondary data was collected in electronic format from the internet. Archived data from the company sources as well as other resources available online was used. Financial reporting about Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) was done using data from the company’s annual reports.

This case discusses US-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s successful rollout of the Covid-19 vaccine under the leadership of its Chief Executive Officer Albert Bourla (Bourla). In March 2020, when the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a pandemic, leaders of pharmaceutical giants worldwide were in no way prepared to find a cure for the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. On the other hand, Bourla stood up like a true leader and sought to do something to address the problem. Bourla’s huge gamble paid off. In December 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer. Pfizer was ready with 50 million vaccine doses for global distribution.

This case is intended for use in MBA/MS level programs as part of the curriculum on Effective Leadership and Decision-making, and Crisis Management.

AstraZeneca is preparing for the launch of Crestor, the company's first entrant in the enormous and fast-growing statin category. The team responsible for the product launch is considering how best to bring Crestor to market. Should AstraZeneca simply follow the example set by Pfizer with the exceptionally successful launch of Lipitor? Or should the company instead launch Crestor as a niche product?

To teach new product strategy for both emerging and established categories, and competitive strategy.

Allison Watkins, senior director of Merck's Vaccines Division, needed to decide on the pricing of Gardasil, Merck's newest vaccine and one of the company's most important product launches of the year. The outside consulting firm she had hired to recommend a price for Gardasil had suggested a price of $120 per dose (or $360 per person, as each person required three doses over six months to achieve adequate immunity). The Gardasil marketing team disagreed about this recommended price; some thought it was clearly too high, whereas others said it was too low. The latter group argued that Merck would be missing a major opportunity by setting the price at such a low level. Watkins now needed to decide whether to follow the consulting firm's recommendation or to set a different price.

The case highlights the complexity and issues around pricing in the pharmaceutical industry. To decide on the price of Merck's new vaccine, students will work through product economics and be introduced to the role of economic modeling in determining appropriate prices in the biomedical industry. The case is unique because it gives students an opportunity to calculate a cost per quality adjusted life year (cost per QALY), and in the process discover the power and limitations of such an analysis.

This exercise describes the competitive dynamics situation faced by two large companies, Colgate – Palmolive and Proctor and Gamble in oral care business. Both of them introduced a tooth whitening solutions and anticipated to sustain their competitive lead. P&G introduced its solution in August 2000 and Colgate followed it in September 2002. This was followed by another introduction by Colgate April 2003. The intensified the competitive battle between the two companies. The participants are required to get into the shoes of either Colgate or P&G to think through a competitive strategy. The case provides information on the estimated demand for tooth whitening solutions, gains and losses of the two companies, R&D expenditure, players in the oral hygiene market and legal framework for complaining to facilitate the analysis of the situation and decision making by the participants. The case can be used in modules on competitive strategy, innovation, and economics of strategy.

In January 2013, small biotechnology firm Orexigen was in the final stages of testing Contrave, a promising new pharmaceutical product for the treatment of obesity. At the time, Orexigen had no products in the market, so all its hopes of financial success rested on this new treatment. Contrave had proven to be highly effective in clinical trials, and Orexigen executives were confident it would receive FDA approval.

At the same time, a much larger pharmaceutical company was considering acquiring Orexigen. Because the decision to acquire would ultimately be a financial one, the project team from the large company had to complete a valuation for Orexigen's only significant product in its pipeline, Contrave. What was the new product actually worth?

In March 2015, Amgen is preparing for the launch of Repatha, a new molecule that has demonstrated a remarkable ability to treat high cholesterol. Through a series of clinical trials, Amgen has proven that the molecule is both safe and effective for patients with high cholesterol. It also is effective for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, a difficult-to-treat population that has exceptionally high levels of cholesterol. Amgen expects the FDA to approve the molecule before the end of the year. Now, the Repatha team has to develop a revenue forecast.

Executives at biotechnology firm Genzyme are debating funding a clinical trial for a new version of a medical device called Synvisc. The trial is expensive and the odds of success are not high, but the upside is substantial. The case presents a common business question: invest or not? The case forces students to think about customer insights, wrestle with a number of complex issues, and evaluate the financials of the decision.

The case is ideal for teaching financial analysis and decision making. It can also be used to teach marketing, new product strategy, and healthcare industry management.

The pandemic induced lockdown lead to supply and manufacturing disruptions that were swiftly dealt with by the Indian Pharma Industry through successful industry-government collaboration. By May 2020 production was back to normal and exports were higher than the same period in May 2019. The case deals with the processes that enabled this to happen, the policy responses and the changes that happened in the period from March 2020 to August 2020.

Once a decision has turned out poorly—such as Merck's decision to launch and support the painkiller Vioxx—it is easy to criticize. However, are these bad outcomes the result of a good decision which turned out unlucky, or are they decisions where the bad outcome could have been predicted? This case follows Merck's pharmaceutical product Vioxx from initial development to launch and subsequent withdrawal, and considers the decisions made at each stage by the Merck executives involved. The case concludes by examining the financial impact of the Vioxx withdrawal on the company and on the Merck stock value.

This case allows the students to examine the various steps of Vioxx's development and launch. By doing so, they can consider whether the decision-making process broke down and why. By connecting the Vioxx launch and withdrawal to changes in Merck's cash flow and stock market value, the students can document the impact of such decisions on the value of the firm.