Hold on - Case Analysis

553 Words3 Pages
Hold On Crescordia, a company that develops, manufactures, and sells fixation devices that surgeons use in repairing broken bones, has a reputation of producing quality tools in the medical industry. Crescordia’s competitors launched these new, innovative devices, but the quality does not measure up to Crescordia’s standards. Peter Walsh, the company’s CEO, must make an important decision regarding the resorbable devices. This case presents three options for Crescordia: launch a resorbable line of products to compete with rivals, enter the market targeting a specific group to conduct field tests, or forgo producing any resorbable devices until the quality matches Crescordia’s standards. Crescordia should choose to sit out on the alleged revolution because it maintains their reputation as a quality manufacturer and improvements on resorbable products cannot be made until surgeons test these tools on actual patients. Crescordia would have to invest large amounts of capital in order to develop and produce resorbable devices on a large scale. Releasing a faulty product could bring about lawsuits against the company, which would only add to the costs of launching this new line of products. Crescordia’s CFO, Calvin Westbrook, pointed out that margins will not be significant because retooling resorbables will be a huge capital expense. The legal implications of targeting specific groups are evident, especially with kids and elders as legal counsel, Sam Maddox stated. Nevertheless, Crescordia faces a few risks by not entering the resorbable devices market. This choice completely eliminates them from becoming the first company to successfully develop a reliable resorbable device. Scientists have been promising results in reliable products for 20 years but to no avail. This shows the unreliability of these products, despite the extensive research. Jane LaMott, the vice

More about Hold on - Case Analysis

Open Document