Alternative 3:This alternative mostly focuses on the internal
issues in the organization. As we already stated in SWOT that we
perceive the current management a bit inefficient, stating their
direct inexperience in nanotechnology. Since this is a high pace,
rapidly changing industry, having that scientific knowledge is of
utmost importance to make major business decisions. Also, the
employee base at 85 is not really a strong point of the company.
This seems to limit its production capabilities, along with
in-house knowledge and expertise. Production efficiency, technology
expertise are directly related to a stronger workforce. So, the
company needs to adjust their organizational structure.
Feasibility: Looking at the current annual report, the term of
every single member of the current management team expires in 2016.
The organization needs to go back to the drawing board and find a
balanced mix of business minded and nanotechnology minded
individuals to run the management. Most employees at nanotechnology
dont have a direct expertise in nanotechnology. It has been stated
in companys annual report that only 8 out of 85 employees hold
advanced degrees in nanotechnology. Company can get away with this
if they have research alliances with various research institutes,
but having an in-house expert team is the ultimate advantage. High
affinity to nanotechnology means high probability of venture
capital investments. This stands true for the top management, since
they are companys direct represents to venture capitalists, and
having that expert knowledge comes much handy in presenting a
stronger case.
Pros: This will give a fresh approach and a new perspective to
the company. With a more balanced team, and more expertise the
company can focus on newer initiatives. Company as a whole will
have higher affinity to nanotechnology science. From top to the
R&D, having that right mix of knowledge, understanding and
expertise makes internal communication much more efficient. This
team can help with further development of technological bases.
Having a business-minded plus nanotechnology-minded team brings in
more ideas to conduct business, both on research and sales
level.
Cons: There could be instances of internal conflict with this
approach. Again, nanotechnology is a broad field and nothing is
very particular in terms of experience and expertise. So, finding a
right mix of personnel is a big challenge. Business ideas and
fitting them to the perspective of R&D will and can cause
strong debate internally. With the current team going out, there
might be some broken links with some research facilities. This is
not a sure-shot possibility, but there is a probability. The
current management team has been associated with such facilities,
so there is a possibility there. However, we should also focus on
the fact that new alliances might also be formed.
Implementation:The implementation timeline for this alternative
is a more gradual process, instead of being quantified in number of
years. Nanophase needs to have a more expert in-house scientist
base, while having a restructured and more in-sync management team.
This will lead to a better sync in the R&D department and
management. And results from this can be measured with the
performance of team in being able to secure new contracts and to
raise capital.
Follow-up:Our follow-up plan for this alternative basically
measures the ability of new team to raise capital. And then we
focus on the internal growth of the organization. To be a healthy
advance nanotechnology company, there needs to be constant growth
within and this follow-up plan will measure that growth. These are
the various various that we suggest to employ (read all the ratios
on slide).
