Mediquip Case Analysis

1440 Words6 Pages
Question 1: Going in to this situation, what were Thaldorf’s major strengths and weaknesses as a representative of Mediquip? Kurt Thaldorf enjoyed a strong set of strengths over weaknesses going into the tendering process with Lohmann University Hospital (LUH). Strengths: 1) Mediquip had successfully positioned their brand as Kotler et al. point out (2012 P 396) as it enjoyed a reputation for technology and after sales service. This reputation also gave Mediquip some corporate credibility in the market. 2) Kurt believed strongly in the Mediquip scanners superiority, therefore giving him confidence and positive selling intentions towards the product. These attributes have been identified to positively impact on…show more content…
Mr Hartmann’s concern here also impacted his motivation in terms of which product from which supplier he was drawn to buy. The higher the perceived risk, the less he is likely to buy from a new supplier. This perception is key to his concerns and motivations. Mr Hartmann’s main motivation was to get the scanner purchased by year-end; as this was a time dependant purchase. Dr Rufer’s main need was to ensure the scanner specifications met the criteria LUH required. Dr. Rufer showed a concern only for the specification of the scanner. The risk to his decision was a “functional risk” (Kotler et al. (2012) p277) as if the scanner did not perform post purchase the responsibility would be his. Another concern was to ensure patient safety as the appointed physicist in the DMU. Dr Rufer seemed to be motivated towards another supplier, as he had used competitor’s handbook as supply specification. He seemed to display a “belief & attitude” (Kotler et al. (2011) p.273) towards a competitor product. Question 3: How well did Thaldorf interact with each member? Thaldorf interactions were generally weak and much of his communication misdirected. His drive was poor and he missed clear signals for intervention throughout the tender process. Initially Thaldorf did not identify all of the members of the DMU, Jackson, Keith and Burdick (1984 p 82) concluded that the

More about Mediquip Case Analysis

Open Document