Case (A) describes the situation facing John Davison after joining the company in December 2014 as the new CEO. A failing ERP implementation had led to serious operational issues in Singapore (its home base) and the Philippines (its biggest and most profitable market). Affected hospitals and doctors had complained directly to the Zuellig family, who owns the company. The board fired the two Co-CEOs who had been running the company and brought John in to turn it around. The company had lost ground with the ratio of operating profit to Gross Operating Revenue (GOR) dropping from 30% in 2009 to 14% in 2014. Increased competition leading to falling margins had contributed to this, as had a lack of focus on improving productivity. The company's most important clients, such as GSK, were threatening to take their business elsewhere if Zuellig Pharma did not fix its operational problems. The organization was fragmented, with a very small head office, disparate processes across the country operations, and no central leadership of key functions such as operations and quality assurance. The board had lost confidence in the leadership team which, in turn, felt that the board was interfering too much and not giving them the freedom to address the problems at hand. The company had invested in a number of businesses it saw as complementing its main distribution core, but these were sub-scale and (with one exception) loss-making. The leadership team needed to urgently develop a turnaround plan.
Case (B) is set in January 2020 when CEO John Davison decided to step down as CEO by end of June 2020. It describes the specific actions of Zuellig Pharma's transformation and how they resulted in more than doubling the company's net profit between 2015 and 2019 These actions included: (1) driving operational excellence by successfully completing the ERP implementation and taking other steps to fix operational problems; (2) fostering the leadership team through selective changes and aligning it around an integrated regional strategy; (3) increasing head office control while ensuring that country operations had the autonomy needed to operate effectively; (4) resetting the relationship between the management and the board to create more alignment and trust; (5) strengthening relationships with key distribution clients; and (6) growing the solutions businesses which accounted by 2019 for over 20% of GOR and net profit. The case also describes the situation facing Zuellig Pharma as the Covid-19 pandemic began to unfold, and John Davison's initial thoughts on related key issues facing the company.
Case (C) is set in July 2020 when John Graham took over as Zuellig Pharma's new CEO and he needed to decide how to take the company forward. Prior to that, John Graham had effectively led the company's Commercial Solutions business. However, as the new CEO he needed to manage the entire portfolio of new solutions businesses and investments in digital startups. Zuellig Pharma had successfully navigated the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. It had benefited from its earlier efforts to increase the robustness of its supply chain as well as the resilience and dedication of its employees. The COVID-19 crisis had accelerated the roll-out of its new e-commerce platform, which allowed for online ordering and cash collection. At the same time, the company had suffered financially because some costs had significantly increased. Zuellig Pharma faced an even more difficult environment with new stakeholders (like patient groups and Ministries of Health) playing a more important role. Given these challenges, its leadership needed to decide how to take the company forward and ensure that it continues to thrive in the future.
Associate Professor Chng Wee Joo, Director of the National University Cancer Institute Singapore (NCIS), started to move the treatment of cancer patients out of the hospital to the community and patients' homes. This innovative business model was implemented to manage the lack of space in the hospital and to reduce costs for patients. Chng also believed that an environment of strong family and community support would strengthen the morale of patients and result in fewer hospital readmissions. While Singapore had a reliable and balanced healthcare system, it faced higher healthcare expenses due to prolonged life expectancies and an ageing population just like other industrialised countries. Sedentary lifestyles, traditional diet habits and an increasingly polluted environment had led to an increase in cancer cases and cancer becoming the leading cause of death. The rising demand for cancer treatment had pushed the existing infrastructure and resources in hospitals to its limits and the shortage of hospital beds had resulted in a strategy to keep patients "out of the hospital" as long as possible. Operating under the National University Health System (NUHS) healthcare cluster, NCIS was a specialty centre designed to gain synergy by addressing all aspects of care related to the disease. With the clustering of public healthcare services in Singapore in 2017, NCIS now had the opportunity to incorporate primary care and end of life considerations in the care journey of a cancer patient. With his specialty in myeloma, a type of blood cancer, Chng led his team to focus on shifting healthcare out of the hospital and into patients' communities and home and started experimenting to deliver treatment outside of the hospital. Chng succeeded in treating myeloma in the outpatient clinic and subsequently in the patient's home. After the initial success, his team began working on similar projects in other type of cancers.
The three part case discusses managing the dilemma of compliance versus entrepreneurial decisions ("intrapreneurship") in a large corporation and decision-making processes in mature markets (here: US HQ) vs. emerging markets (here: Russia). The case concerns a medical devices company and the life sciences industry; however, market mechanisms are applicable to other industries as well. In Case A, two experienced Russian managers face a tempting business opportunity: founding a professional education center for healthcare personnel in one of the most prosperous regions of Central Asia seems to offer win-win situations for all stakeholders involved. Case B aims at strengthening the student's capabilities for thinking about alternatives and developing the tenacity to pursue entrepreneurial ideas. The case closes in the third section by asking "Was it worth it?"
The three part case discusses managing the dilemma of compliance versus entrepreneurial decisions ("intrapreneurship") in a large corporation and decision-making processes in mature markets (here: US HQ) vs. emerging markets (here: Russia). The case concerns a medical devices company and the life sciences industry; however, market mechanisms are applicable to other industries as well. In Case A, two experienced Russian managers face a tempting business opportunity: founding a professional education center for healthcare personnel in one of the most prosperous regions of Central Asia seems to offer win-win situations for all stakeholders involved. Case B aims at strengthening the student's capabilities for thinking about alternatives and developing the tenacity to pursue entrepreneurial ideas. The case closes in the third section by asking "Was it worth it?"
The three part case discusses managing the dilemma of compliance versus entrepreneurial decisions ("intrapreneurship") in a large corporation and decision-making processes in mature markets (here: US HQ) vs. emerging markets (here: Russia). The case concerns a medical devices company and the life sciences industry; however, market mechanisms are applicable to other industries as well. In Case A, two experienced Russian managers face a tempting business opportunity: founding a professional education center for healthcare personnel in one of the most prosperous regions of Central Asia seems to offer win-win situations for all stakeholders involved. Case B aims at strengthening the student's capabilities for thinking about alternatives and developing the tenacity to pursue entrepreneurial ideas. The case closes in the third section by asking "Was it worth it?"
The case starts in 1973 when Pina Bausch stood at the turning point of her professional career: the transition from being a celebrated dancer to becoming a choreographer. Reflecting on what made Pina Bauschs career as a dancer exceptional, the case then elucidates Pina Bausch´s leadership and working style during her years as artistic director at the Tanztheater Wuppertal. Not only did Pina Bausch become famous for her artistic work and creative productivity, but also for her way of leading people and making them grow long-term. Her capability of leveraging the diversity of her dancers - the collective genius - made her choreographies inherently innovative and ground-breaking. Demanding highest performance, she created one of the most successful companies worldwide. She died 2009, leaving behind a dedicated and outstanding dance theater.