CaseScenario1:Compliance,Inc.
Compliance, Inc., (CI) conducts clinical human and animal trials for the pharmaceutical
and biotechnology industries. Revenues are split evenly between early and late drug
development services. While the bulk of its business is conducted in Europe and the
U.S. (10 and 17 subsidiaries, respectively), CI also has subsidiaries in Africa, Latin
America, Asia, and Australia. Historically CI operated under a multidomestic strategy,
owing to the fact that the clinical testing industry was geographically fragmented to
meet the diverse needs of the many strong local pharmaceutical companies and distinct
regulatory environments. CI’s organizational structure truly reflected the autonomous
character of each country’s businesses. Many of the country managers have been with
CI for more than a decade, and have a great deal of discretion over the activities of their
home-market businesses. However, globalization of the regulatory environment (both
global and local standards), globalization of the biotechnology firms (increasing the
geographic scope of their operations), and tremendous consolidation in the
pharmaceutical industry (reducing the number of pharmaceutical industry participants
to only a handful of major global companies) caused CI to question its multidomestic
strategy. Consequently, the firm has begun its transition to a transnational strategy.
What type of organizational structure was likely to have been in place under CI’s
multidomestic strategy?
Two key strategic leadership actions include
a. monitoring the hiring of key employees and focusing on growth but not learning
initiatives.
b. designing and then implementing the balanced scorecard.