PV Technologies, Were They Asleep at the Switch?
Case: PV Technologies
Bidding round with Solenergy – requires evaluation of subcontractors
Decision already made.
They didn’t know the criteria for the choice – perhaps price?
PVT Background, An industry leader, not least because of Salvatori
Sales driven by subsidies
Selling PV inverter for private, business and utility companies
Stability (and of course cost etc) key selling points
Product evaluation showed PVT to be far more expensive.
PVTs options
Extend warranty
Marketing and sales executives: Would offset cost related shortcoming
Finance, production and engineering: No clear advantage, already have sufficient warranty
Offer 99% uptime guarantee
Sales and marketing believed it reinforced quality and durability reputation
Finance and product: Will negate the profits
Accelerate product development
Engineers: It will be great
Strategic planning: Liked it, would just re-arrange testing plans.
Sales force: Can sell this
Marketing and PR: What the market wants
R&D: Concerned about quality at the early time
Finance and production: Also concerned, maybe reduce cost and combine inverters
Initiate a dialog tactfully
Perhaps he will just evaluate based on price
Perhaps the relationship will work
Approaching could result in ill will
Finance and production: Skeptical about the existence of the report.
Solution
Find objective value
SOMA
BJ
PVT
Efficiency
96.5
95.0
97.5
Years
12.5
10.7
13.2
Price
170,000
160,000
180,000
96.5 * 12.5 / 170,000
95.0 * 10.7 / 160,000
97.5 * 13.2 / 180,000
Objective value*
7,096
6,353
7,15
Index
99,24
88,85
100
*Multiplied by 1000
As evident, the objective value is highest for PVT. The client being famous for objectivity should be made aware of this. Along with the good reputation of PVT and the longer warranty, this should make PVT the best choice for the client without making any changes. (Alternative 4).
The warranty itself should be a $1.6 million value, judging from calculations
Bidding round with Solenergy – requires evaluation of subcontractors
Decision already made.
They didn’t know the criteria for the choice – perhaps price?
PVT Background, An industry leader, not least because of Salvatori
Sales driven by subsidies
Selling PV inverter for private, business and utility companies
Stability (and of course cost etc) key selling points
Product evaluation showed PVT to be far more expensive.
PVTs options
Extend warranty
Marketing and sales executives: Would offset cost related shortcoming
Finance, production and engineering: No clear advantage, already have sufficient warranty
Offer 99% uptime guarantee
Sales and marketing believed it reinforced quality and durability reputation
Finance and product: Will negate the profits
Accelerate product development
Engineers: It will be great
Strategic planning: Liked it, would just re-arrange testing plans.
Sales force: Can sell this
Marketing and PR: What the market wants
R&D: Concerned about quality at the early time
Finance and production: Also concerned, maybe reduce cost and combine inverters
Initiate a dialog tactfully
Perhaps he will just evaluate based on price
Perhaps the relationship will work
Approaching could result in ill will
Finance and production: Skeptical about the existence of the report.
Solution
Find objective value
SOMA
BJ
PVT
Efficiency
96.5
95.0
97.5
Years
12.5
10.7
13.2
Price
170,000
160,000
180,000
96.5 * 12.5 / 170,000
95.0 * 10.7 / 160,000
97.5 * 13.2 / 180,000
Objective value*
7,096
6,353
7,15
Index
99,24
88,85
100
*Multiplied by 1000
As evident, the objective value is highest for PVT. The client being famous for objectivity should be made aware of this. Along with the good reputation of PVT and the longer warranty, this should make PVT the best choice for the client without making any changes. (Alternative 4).
The warranty itself should be a $1.6 million value, judging from calculations