Dr. Narendran’s dilemma.

docx

1. 1. Dt. 27.06.2017 DR. NARENDRAN’S DILEMMA MANAGERIAL ANALYSIS

AND COMMUNICATION (MAC) PRESENTED TO PROF. GIRISH K AGRAWAL
PRESENTED BY ANASMITA GHOSH (P38066) HANIL ACHARYA (P38075)
JIMMY MALHOTRA (P38078) KARAN GARG (P38080) SHIVANGI
MAJREKAR (P38103)
2. 2. CASE REPORT FOR DR. NARENDRAN’S DILEMMA Executive Summary
This case presents the conundrum faced by Dr. Narendran, Director of
the Indian Medical College, in that he has been requested by Dr.
Ramkumar to get protection for the intellectual property of the non-
invasive product developed by the latter, which will mitigate the
symptoms of stenosis and atherosclerosis in affected patients. Dr.
Narendran is facing such a problem for the first time in his career at
IMC because he has never encountered the patenting process either for
his own work or for anybody else’s in the institution. Therefore, Dr.
Narendran isolated essential decision criteria which will be used to
cater to IMC’s mandate of promoting and increasing the outreach of
Siddha medicine. The criteria on the basis of which Dr. Narendran
should take his decision also include financial gains, academic
benefits, and available facilities of IMC in necessary areas of expertise.
Dr. Narendran after the careful consideration of all the criteria decided
to sell the license to a third party buyer, after receiving the patent, for a
one-time fee. The one potential hindrance in this scenario is that IMC
lacked the necessary resources, human or otherwise, to market or have
clear legalities of the royalty contract. The third-party bidder should
have a vision and a mission, which aligns with that of IMC’s. Also, Dr.
Narendran should consider the fact that by taking this approach, IMC
will get the highest value for the license by selling it in one go on the
basis of the considered parameters. Main report 1. Situation analysis A)
Introduction Dr. Narendran, the director of Indian Medical College in
Chennai, seeks to resolve a request presented by Dr. Ramkumar, who
wishes to patent and subsequently commercialize a new formulation
that he has created through his research on cardio- vascular symptoms.
This is a herbo-mineral product which could be used to treat coronary
atherosclerosis thereby reducing the need and use of anginal stents. It
can be used to treat both the problems and from the initial testing
conducted by Dr. Ramkumar, it can be seen that there have been no side
effects. The formula has been tried on 45 patients with encouraging
results. Other advantages of this formula include the facts that it acts
quickly and is a much more economical solution as compared to other
treatments.
3. 3. The crux of this problem is that Dr. Narendran has never dealt with
the process of protecting any kind of intellectual property before and he
is also handicapped by the fact that IMC lacked the necessary
infrastructure to handle such kinds of requests. Furthermore the
invention was made in the field of Siddha medicine, a field which is not
as well established in the medical science field as compared to other
 branches, in which patents and Intellectual protection agreements are
much more regular occurrences. Therefore, Dr. Narendran must
investigate the options available to him according to the criteria that
matter the most and it is only after careful consideration that he must
make a decision that will help him achieve the desired results and
protect the interests of the parties that he is representing. B)
Statement of objective Key stakeholders: ● Dr. Narendran representing
the Indian Medical College, Chennai ● Dr. Ramkumar ●
Doctors/Patients/Other buyers ● Any potential pharmaceutical
manufacturing company or other organization that invests in the
formula prepared by Dr. Ramkumar 1. Dr. Narendran is working to seek
the Intellectual Protection for the formulation created by Dr. Ramkumar,
on behalf of Indian Medical College, who has developed the formulation.
2. Dr. Narendran is perplexed by this situation as he has no prior
experience in the area of Intellectual Property Protection and had never
given much thought to communicating or protecting his own or the
institute’s research. 3. Furthermore no Siddha college had ever obtained
a patent before. So if the patent is obtained ultimately, it will be a
source of prestige and some additional income for IMC. 4. Dr. Narendran
is facing dilemma of which recourse to choose out of the three options
presented to him in the report prepared by the students of the
management institute, from whom he seek help. This is the main crux
of the dilemma faced by Dr. Narendran.
4. 4. C) Decision problem statement The dilemma of Dr. Narendran lies in
the fact that there are multiple options that he can take regarding the
patenting and subsequent commercialization of the product and
process developed by Dr. Ramkumar. The decision must be such that it
fulfills the maximum of the possible criteria for all key stakeholders. D)
Criteria for decision making: The decision that needs to be taken by Dr.
Narendran should be based on the criterion listed below, in order of
their priority: 1. Mandate of IMC: Any decision taken by Dr. Narendran
must be in line with the objectives and mandate of IMC. The primary
focus of IMC is to promote research, medical treatment and the overall
science of Siddha medicine and its various other aspects. Therefore
whatever decision Dr. Narendran takes must primarily comply and
protect these interests. 2. Financial Gain: The decision to patent Dr.
Ramkumar’s formula and its subsequent implementation, if done
correctly can be a great source of additional revenue for the Institute.
Therefore Dr. Narendran should go with the option that will bring the
greatest financial returns. 3. Facilities available at IMC: Dr. Narendran
was handicapped by the fact that IMC did not have the necessary
infrastructure to handle the market and legal aspects of production of
Dr. Ramkumar’s formula. Thereby he had to keep this limitations in mind
while making a final decisions. Hence IMC would have to direct
additional resources and time for marketing and promotions. 4.
Academic benefits: Dr. Narendran’s decision to apply for patent can
help put IMC and the field of Siddha medicine on the academic map. It
can help in promoting research in Siddha medicine as well as
motivating other researchers at IMC to conduct better research and
seek protection for their intellectual property thereby bringing more
 prestige to IMC. E) Decision Rule: 1. Mandate of IMC is a mandatory
criteria and it must be checked that the final decision must be such
that the IMC mandate is fulfilled thoroughly. 2. The decision must look
into the matter that which alternative gives highest financial gain 3.
IMC will see to it that minimum of the new areas and aspects must be
explored so as to focus more on research of more such products.
5. 5. 4. IMC will see to it that whatever decision is taken, other
researchers must feel that if they develop such product, their
recognition will increase and not just limited to any journal or research
paper. Decision process A) Generating alternatives As Dr. Ramakumar
had proposed to Dr. Narendran, he had went through the three possible
steps that IMC can take in order to get going with the IMC mandate. He
had the following alternatives to choose from: 1. Not going for the
licensing of the product and publishing the findings of Dr. Ramakumar in
a journal. 2. Letting out the product to a private firm on one time
licence fee of 50000 with probability of 70% or 75000 with probability of
30%. 3. IMC could use a registered pharmaceutical unit to manufacture
the formulation, but do the marketing itself. 4. IMC has to enter into an
agreement with an entrepreneur under which the later would pay
annual royalties at 6% on sales of formulation B) Evaluation of
alternatives 1. Not going for the licensing of the product and publishing
the findings of Dr. Ramakumar in a journal. a. It differs with the mandate
of IMC as this will not let the product get into the market and hence do
not promote the Siddha medicine. As mandatory criteria is not fulfilled,
we cannot go with this decision. 2. Selling the license of the product to
a pharmaceutical firm for one time license fee of 50000 with probability
of 70% or 75000 with probability of 30%. a. IMC will choose the license
buyer who is in line with the vision and mission of IMC. Hence, we see
that first criterion is fulfilled here. b. Whatever fees that IMC will charge
from the buyer will be between 50000 and 75000. At the same time this
is the money that IMC get in present date, by letting out the license to
some buyer. This gives highest monetary benefit to IMC in the sense
that this is not a projected fund, but something like ‘cash in hand’.
6. 6. c. Here, IMC will not have to get into any legalities of taking a contact
or seeing to the marketing of the product. Hence, IMC will not have to
get into new areas of expertise, other than getting a patent. Hence, this
criteria is also fulfilled. d. Academically, Dr. Ramakumar is getting
patent in his name and also his product and process will be used in
market. This will work as an incentive and encourage other researchers
for such product oriented research, which will help IMC get recognition
academically. Hence this criteria is also fulfilled. 3. IMC could use a
registered pharmaceutical unit to manufacture the formulation, but do
the marketing itself. a. IMC mandate is fulfilled as the product is getting
into market and Siddha is promoted. b. As shown in Exhibit 3 of given
data, we can see that IMC get profit from the product sales, over a year
of 5 years. With this kind of projected money, we see that total profit
over 5 years turns out to be Rs. 58000, which is distributed over 5 years.
Hence, its present value will be even less. So we can conclude that we
are not getting profit as in comparison as that of alternative 2. c. Here,
IMC will have to acquire marketing skills which is not their expertise
 currently. Hence IMC will not prefer this option on priority. d.
Academically, Dr. Ramakumar is getting patent in his name and also his
product and process will be used in market. This will work as an
incentive and encourage other researchers for such product oriented
research, which will help IMC get recognition academically. Hence this
criteria is fulfilled. 4. IMC has to enter into an agreement with an
entrepreneur under which the later would pay annual royalties at 6% on
sales of formulation a. IMC mandate is fulfilled as the product is getting
into market and Siddha is promoted. b. As shown in Exhibit 3 of given
data, we can see that IMC get royalty as 6% of product sales, over a
year of 5 years. This is projected money on basis of expected sales, we
see that total revenue over 5 years turns out to be Rs. 55200, which is
distributed over 5 years. Hence, its present value will be even less. So
we can conclude that we are not getting profit as in comparison as that
of alternative 3 as well as alternative 2. c. Here, IMC will have to
acquire expertise in the legality of contractual parameters and must
see to it that they get their just share during the years of contract,
which is not their expertise currently. Hence IMC will not prefer this
option on priority. d. Academically, Dr. Ramkumar is getting the patent
in his name and also his product and process will be used in market.
This will work as an incentive and encourage other researchers for
such product oriented research, which will help IMC get recognition
academically. Hence this criteria is fulfilled.
7. 7. C) Choice of an alternative or chosen decision After evaluating all the
options available Dr. Narendran should choose alternative 2 i.e. giving
the license to a registered pharmaceutical company/ organization for
one time license fee as it is in line with the decision rule that we are
following. Implementation The action plan would entail following steps:-
1. IMC will be inviting interested registered pharmaceutical units for
the buying of license on electronic media. 2. Interested partners will be
shortlisted on the basis of : IMC’s Mandate: IMC will choose the buyer
whose mission and vision lies in line with that of IMC’s. Net worth of the
company/partner: Since chances of seeking higher bid of 75000 is 30%
and 70% for receiving the bid of 50000, therefore IMC will target
companies/organizations which are growing in the field. Brand value:
IMC would look out for potential buyers who are well established in
medical fraternity and have experience in sastric medicine. Customer
reach: The buyers should have an outreach in the medical market, also
the price band of the medicines should not be high but considerate.
Final decision will be taken on the basis of above mentioned criteria to
the interested bidder who is the highest bidder among the pool of
bidders satisfying the above criteria. Risks While executing the plan the
following risks could be encountered: 1. Lesser acceptance of the
product in the allopathic market 2. Issues of the pricing of the product
Conclusion Dr. Narendran’s dilemma can be resolved by implementing
the 1st option which is giving the license to a registered
pharmaceutical company/ organization for one time license fee.