different perspectives
Strategic management presentation
Q3. Analyze Merck’s innovation strategy. Does Merck’s innovation engine need fixing? Why or why not?
They were a closed innovation company but now to innovate and still be on the top of the best companies they have to move to open innovation.
They changed Merv Turner who was the chief strategy officer with Mr. Cuong Viet Do from TE Connectivityin 2011. (That is good, new perspective from outside)
Make a little comparison between open and closed innovation
Merck merged strategically with SP precisely because both firms enhanced each other's portfolio weaknesses
To streamline operations, reduce cost structure, and increase efficiencies, Merck implemented the BRGOS reorganization in 2008 that reduced workforce by 25% (40% of whichwere based in the US); SP had a similar Productivity Transformation Program. Another Merger Restructuring Program is currently in effect and will eliminate an additional 15% of R&D personnel and vacancies. Some employees will be relocated to other sites worldwide.
Furthermore, Merck has damaged its reputation with future workers as well. Fifty yearsago, Merck scientists were given their own laboratories until retirement with carte blanche to pursue their individual research. As of mid-2009, entry-level PhD scientists lost their managerial privileges and must abandon novel projects deemed to have a low "possibility of success." The continual lack of transparency between employees and executives is increasing, and staff may not retain job loyalty for Merck when economic conditions improve;
Q4.) Can open innovation help Merck meet the needs of its customers in creative and cost-effective ways that also bring value to its shareholders? Why or why not?
Merck suffered from ‘not invented here’ syndrome (close innovation) meaning that if a product was not created and developed at Merck, it could not be good enough.
However, to survive on the market and still be in top they had to compromise and move
Q3. Analyze Merck’s innovation strategy. Does Merck’s innovation engine need fixing? Why or why not?
They were a closed innovation company but now to innovate and still be on the top of the best companies they have to move to open innovation.
They changed Merv Turner who was the chief strategy officer with Mr. Cuong Viet Do from TE Connectivityin 2011. (That is good, new perspective from outside)
Make a little comparison between open and closed innovation
Merck merged strategically with SP precisely because both firms enhanced each other's portfolio weaknesses
To streamline operations, reduce cost structure, and increase efficiencies, Merck implemented the BRGOS reorganization in 2008 that reduced workforce by 25% (40% of whichwere based in the US); SP had a similar Productivity Transformation Program. Another Merger Restructuring Program is currently in effect and will eliminate an additional 15% of R&D personnel and vacancies. Some employees will be relocated to other sites worldwide.
Furthermore, Merck has damaged its reputation with future workers as well. Fifty yearsago, Merck scientists were given their own laboratories until retirement with carte blanche to pursue their individual research. As of mid-2009, entry-level PhD scientists lost their managerial privileges and must abandon novel projects deemed to have a low "possibility of success." The continual lack of transparency between employees and executives is increasing, and staff may not retain job loyalty for Merck when economic conditions improve;
Q4.) Can open innovation help Merck meet the needs of its customers in creative and cost-effective ways that also bring value to its shareholders? Why or why not?
Merck suffered from ‘not invented here’ syndrome (close innovation) meaning that if a product was not created and developed at Merck, it could not be good enough.
However, to survive on the market and still be in top they had to compromise and move