Dt. 27.06.

2017

DR. NARENDRANS
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)
 CASE REPORT FOR DR. NARENDRANS 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 elses in the institution. Therefore, Dr. Narendran isolated
essential decision criteria which will be used to cater to IMCs 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 IMCs. 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.
 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 institutes 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.
 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. Ramkumars 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. Ramkumars 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. Narendrans 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.
 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.
 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.
 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 :

IMCs Mandate: IMC will choose the buyer whose mission and vision lies in line with that of
IMCs.
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. Narendrans 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.