Strategic Analysis of Cochlear Limited

Internal analysis

(ii) Identify significant resources and capabilities associated with the various activity categories. For instance what sort of resources and capabilities are associated with inbound logistics?

Resources and capabilities are two important internal components of one company. In terms of of Cochlear, some of resources and capabilities have become its competitive advantages.

It is expensive to fulfill specific needs of children who have a loss of hearing as their parents are not affordable for costs of specific treatments and medical care. The cost of cochlear implants is so high that highly depends on consistent financial resources. In terms of funding issues, the company is financially supported by the three main parties, which are The Lions Club, The Gift of Hearing Foundation and Let them Hear foundation. All of them have contributed a lot to the development of cochlear implants in order to provide these biotechnology products to more disadvantaged people. Furthermore,the physical facilities which as the assisted equipment of Cochlear implant can be regarded as irreplaceable sign ificant resource. It can be explained by that implants are extremely rely on specific physical issues in order to provide advanced performance consistently. Specifically, the evaluation of inner ear is highly depend on the quality of imaging with CT, which is prior to the ear implantation. Therefore, the decision of side of implantation or type of electrode could be affected, which is caused by such results.  

Cochlear has built a strong relationship with its customers, which is focus of its strategy. It is the main aim of Cochlear to fulfill its customers’ needs. Also, it is keen on achieving excellence of its innovations and operations in order to provide more value for its customers and gain more satisfaction as a return. However, many of its patients are unable to afford a large amount of cost for implantation, which is the biggest barrier of customer service. Thus, it seems that customers are not very motivated to consider the adoption of implying implantable approaches. So the clinic capacity of Cochlear should be further enhanced in order to provide excellent service to customers. Employees are the key aspect of Cochlear and they work in a team.  They are engaged to communicate openly to enhance the quality of communication even if they belong to various departments such as marking or sales. Furthermore, employees are motivated to strive for greatness as their wages will be based on the performance of their work. Also, the program of recruitment is founded by merit, so new clients can be provided more opportunities for intensive competition. Thus, higher value of the company can be reached.

(iii) Identify and discuss the distinctive resources and capabilities that provide Cochlear with sustainable (or otherwise) competitive advantage. Provide as much evidence for your arguments as possible.

Distinctive resources and capabilities can help one company to gain its own competitive advantage with abnormal benefits and to be different with other firms from rivals. The company have experienced the crisis of meningitis in 2002. The customers suspected that the problem is caused by its immature technology of implantation However, the problem was proved to be the problem is caused by the design flow of its competitors’ products. Therefore, customers were convinced by the truth that its product “did not create the space in ear drum allowing the bacteria to grow” and the the reputation of this firm was not only retained but also further enhanced.

The advanced innovation resources can be regarded as the core competitive advantage of Cochlear. As the company has put much effort in its R&D, and 13.9% of revenue is being reinvested into around 100 projects. Then, the technological innovation has become the key component of its growth and hearing outcomes were further improved since 2009. This makes Cochelar’s products be less replaceable as it is costly to intimate and obtain knowledge for competing. Therefore, even though there are substitutes with similar functions for implants, they are less reliable and  competitive.  

REFERENCE

Cohen, N.L., Waltzman, S.B., Fisher, S.G. (1993). A prospective, randomized study of cochlear implants. New Eng J Med, 328:233-2372.

Osberger, M.J., Robbins, A.M., Miyamoto, R.T., Berry, S.W., Myres, W.A., Kessler, K.S., Pope, M.L. (1991). Speech perception abilities of children with cochlear implants, tactile aids, or hearing aids. Am J Otol, 12 (Suppl.): 105-115.

Gantz, B.J. et al. (1994). Results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenital and acquired prelingual deafness in children: Five year follow up. Am J Otol, 15 (Suppl 2):1-7.

Miyamoto, R.T., Osberger, M.J., Robbins, A.M., Myres, W.A., Kessler, K (1993). Prelingually deafened children's performance with the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol, 14:437-445.

Staller, S.J., Dowell, R.C., Beiter, A.L., Brimacombe, J.A. (1991). Perceptual abilities of children with the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 12 (Suppl.): 34S-47S.

Waltzman, S.B., Cohen, N.L., Gomolin, R.H., Shapiro, W.H., Ozdamar, S., Hoffman, R. (1994). Long-term results of early cochlear implantation in congenitally and prelingually deafened children. Am J Otol, 14 (Suppl.):9-13.