Alternative 3:

This alternative mostly focuses on the internal issues in the organization. As

we already stated in SWOT that we perceive the current management a bit
inefficient, stating their direct inexperience in nanotechnology. Since this is a
high pace, rapidly changing industry, having that scientific knowledge is of
utmost importance to make major business decisions. Also, the employee
base at 85 is not really a strong point of the company. This seems to limit its
production capabilities, along with in-house knowledge and expertise.
Production efficiency, technology expertise are directly related to a stronger
workforce. So, the company needs to adjust their organizational structure.
Feasibility:
Looking at the current annual report, the term of every single member
of the current management team expires in 2016. The organization
needs to go back to the drawing board and find a balanced mix of
business minded and nanotechnology minded individuals to run the
management.
Most employees at nanotechnology dont have a direct expertise in
nanotechnology. It has been stated in companys annual report that
only 8 out of 85 employees hold advanced degrees in nanotechnology.
Company can get away with this if they have research alliances with
various research institutes, but having an in-house expert team is the
ultimate advantage.
High affinity to nanotechnology means high probability of venture
capital investments. This stands true for the top management, since
they are companys direct represents to venture capitalists, and
having that expert knowledge comes much handy in presenting a
stronger case.
Pros:
This will give a fresh approach and a new perspective to the company.
With a more balanced team, and more expertise the company can
focus on newer initiatives.
Company as a whole will have higher affinity to nanotechnology
science. From top to the R&D, having that right mix of knowledge,
understanding and expertise makes internal communication much
more efficient.
This team can help with further development of technological bases.
Having a business-minded plus nanotechnology-minded team brings in
more ideas to conduct business, both on research and sales level.
Cons:
There could be instances of internal conflict with this approach. Again,
nanotechnology is a broad field and nothing is very particular in terms
of experience and expertise. So, finding a right mix of personnel is a

big challenge. Business ideas and fitting them to the perspective of

R&D will and can cause strong debate internally.
With the current team going out, there might be some broken links
with some research facilities. This is not a sure-shot possibility, but
there is a probability. The current management team has been
associated with such facilities, so there is a possibility there. However,
we should also focus on the fact that new alliances might also be
formed.

Implementation:
The implementation timeline for this alternative is a more gradual process,
instead of being quantified in number of years. Nanophase needs to have a
more expert in-house scientist base, while having a restructured and more
in-sync management team. This will lead to a better sync in the R&D
department and management. And results from this can be measured with
the performance of team in being able to secure new contracts and to raise
capital.
Follow-up:
Our follow-up plan for this alternative basically measures the ability of new
team to raise capital. And then we focus on the internal growth of the
organization. To be a healthy advance nanotechnology company, there needs
to be constant growth within and this follow-up plan will measure that
growth. These are the various various that we suggest to employ (read all
the ratios on slide).