Kirkham Instruments Case Analysis
You will undoubtedly wish to add/subtract to this paper. I received a high grade on this but it was early in the course and so less analyses were expected. Meaning, you will want to apply those course concepts that suggest alternatives that actors in this case could choose, as relevant to where you are in the course.
Kirkham had a 'strategy' on paper, but it was too vague to help select which New Product Development to fund/cancel. The Harvard professors presented tools to help structure these decisions, but division leaders did not want to see their projects cut, so they criticized the list and delayed action, resulting in no development or implementation of a strategy.
Kirkham Instruments was a manufacturer of laboratory analytical equipment with turnover of £450M in 1995. The company was organized into four divisions: the Mass Spectrometer Division; the Chromatography Division, a manufacturer of gas and liquid chromatographs; the Optical Equipment Division which manufactured optical comparators, microscopes and related equipment; and Waterloo Instruments Ltd., which was acquired in 1992 and was a Belgian manufacturer of electron microscopes and x-ray diffraction equipment. The turnover of Kirkham from 1989 – 1996, with 1996 being estimated, shows that approximately 41% of its turnover was attributed to the Mass Spectrometer and Chromatography divisions. Additionally, approximately 40% of the total turnover was attributed to customers in the United Kingdom, where it was the dominant manufacturer of laboratory instruments. Another 25% of turnover was attributed to countries in continental Europe and 30% from the Middle East and Asia, mainly India, Saudi Arabia, and China; the majority of that coming from rapidly growing chemical companies.
Prior to the early 1990’s Kirkham had left decisions on new product development and funding to the sole discretion of the product divisions themselves. However, in growing response to customers’ desires to link the
Kirkham had a 'strategy' on paper, but it was too vague to help select which New Product Development to fund/cancel. The Harvard professors presented tools to help structure these decisions, but division leaders did not want to see their projects cut, so they criticized the list and delayed action, resulting in no development or implementation of a strategy.
Kirkham Instruments was a manufacturer of laboratory analytical equipment with turnover of £450M in 1995. The company was organized into four divisions: the Mass Spectrometer Division; the Chromatography Division, a manufacturer of gas and liquid chromatographs; the Optical Equipment Division which manufactured optical comparators, microscopes and related equipment; and Waterloo Instruments Ltd., which was acquired in 1992 and was a Belgian manufacturer of electron microscopes and x-ray diffraction equipment. The turnover of Kirkham from 1989 – 1996, with 1996 being estimated, shows that approximately 41% of its turnover was attributed to the Mass Spectrometer and Chromatography divisions. Additionally, approximately 40% of the total turnover was attributed to customers in the United Kingdom, where it was the dominant manufacturer of laboratory instruments. Another 25% of turnover was attributed to countries in continental Europe and 30% from the Middle East and Asia, mainly India, Saudi Arabia, and China; the majority of that coming from rapidly growing chemical companies.
Prior to the early 1990’s Kirkham had left decisions on new product development and funding to the sole discretion of the product divisions themselves. However, in growing response to customers’ desires to link the