Novartis Pharma restructured into five business units to increase speed, focus, and attract talent. The new structure divided the business into units focused on oncology, transplantation, ophthalmology, mature products, and primary care. This was intended to make the organization more responsive to customers and allow the units to leverage their scale while maintaining focus in specialized areas. However, some concerns remained about how accountability would be determined between global and unit development efforts and how autonomy and synergies between the units would be managed.
Novartis Pharma restructured into five business units to increase speed, focus, and attract talent. The new structure divided the business into units focused on oncology, transplantation, ophthalmology, mature products, and primary care. This was intended to make the organization more responsive to customers and allow the units to leverage their scale while maintaining focus in specialized areas. However, some concerns remained about how accountability would be determined between global and unit development efforts and how autonomy and synergies between the units would be managed.
Original Description:
Personal summary case of Novartis Pharma study case
Novartis Pharma restructured into five business units to increase speed, focus, and attract talent. The new structure divided the business into units focused on oncology, transplantation, ophthalmology, mature products, and primary care. This was intended to make the organization more responsive to customers and allow the units to leverage their scale while maintaining focus in specialized areas. However, some concerns remained about how accountability would be determined between global and unit development efforts and how autonomy and synergies between the units would be managed.
Novartis Pharma restructured into five business units to increase speed, focus, and attract talent. The new structure divided the business into units focused on oncology, transplantation, ophthalmology, mature products, and primary care. This was intended to make the organization more responsive to customers and allow the units to leverage their scale while maintaining focus in specialized areas. However, some concerns remained about how accountability would be determined between global and unit development efforts and how autonomy and synergies between the units would be managed.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
People in Organization Assignment Week 3
Novartis Pharma : The Besiness Unit Model
Case Summary This case study is about restructuring of an organization called Novartis Pharma, one of the best pharmacy company in the world. Daniel Vasella, Chairman and CEO of Novartis AG, announced a new organization within the companys pharmaceutical business on July 10, 2000. He claims that this new structure would help company close to the customers, create positions to attract and retain talented people, at the time when the company was in the midst of launching five potential blockbusters drugs. Thus, Thomas Ebeling, the CEO of Novartis Pharma send a letter to 36,700 Pharma employees to explain that the business would be restructured into five business units (BU), which are : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Oncology (based in the U.S)
Transplantation (Basel, Switzerland) Ophthalmology (Bulach, Switzerland) Mature Products (Basel, Switzerland) Primary Care, including the General Practitioner (GP) products (Basel)
Why They Create New BUs?
There are some reasons why the executives want to restructuring the organizations into several business units, these are : 1. Novartis senior management believed that Bus offered a number of competitive advantages that would make the position of company better. 2. According to Vasella, the decision to create Bus was founded in the philosophy of big and small, while small focused units would increase speed and competence yet having a big scale that had obvious benefits. 3. Delayered management structure would enable the business to move more quickly. Smaller, distinct units would be able to focus and could get closer to the customer as quick as possible since they can understand what customers needs. 4. By focus on certain area, those Bus could become a leader in the specific market. For example, in Oncology, Epstein and his colleagues can focus entirely in oncology. With this focused oncology, Epstein has the potential to drive the business to a leading position in the oncology area, when at the same time creating excitement and attracting best talent in the world.
But What Are the Issues By Creating BUs?
There are also issues that need to be addressed by management regarding this creating of BUs, these are : 1. There was some debate around about accountability. This BUs still not specifically determine what would distinguish between global development and development between BUs itself. Even this matrix structure itself would create accountability issues since it diffuses accountability. 2. The structure still not determine how they keep well-defined roles among the BUs while at the same time exploiting synergies. 3. The structure still does not give clear explanation how the various global functions and BUs would interact with one another and how much autonomy BUs actually had because it seems there was a little differentiation between them 4. The CSO could change the terms of the agreement due to unexpected market shifts if implementing this new structure. 5. The restructured organization could fragmented Novartis R&D efforts. Vasella stated, We aim to create a powerful new structure for research that will allow us to share large, best-in class technology platforms, while at the same time gaining the focus advantages of units that concentrate on distinct disease areas. This will have a great impact on our productivity, speed, and innovation that meets the market needs. 6. There is a risk that BUs structure could slowed down the company because the country managers lost the ownership of the product lines. One of many reasons that they implement this BUs was because they had a lot of new products and wanted to invigorate sales from these new products. But since the product lines were owned centrally by BUs, the confusion would happen and everything got left behind 7. There is a risk to not balancing the efficiency of BUs. In previous structure, they have been a very efficient company, but they cannot ensure the BUs will have the same level of efficiency. 8. There is a risk of losing some flexibility in the market since they need to shift the resources to create BUs and cannot exploit the products to their full potential.