MediSys Corp.

:
The IntensCare Product
Development Team
GROUP 5

Presented by:
Betsy Susan Abraham (152013)
Jince Thomas Baby (152024)
Preemnath Katare (152041)
Ridhi Anand (152069)
Sharla Rahman (152070)

MediSys Corporation
MediSys Founded in 2002, U.S.- based medical device manufacturer
Developed, manufactured and sold medical monitoring system for hospital segment
Relatively small but very profitable company ( $400 million annual revenue in 2008)
Entrepreneurial culture
systems

Innovative thinking

Redesign and development of new

Specialty pulmonary and renal monitoring system, the first two products were highly
successful
Art Beaumont, was hired in January 2008 to play a strategic role for preserving
innovative culture and re-stimulate rapid growth
Focus was largely on speed so developed cross-functional teams

IntensCare
What is IntensCare?

R&D person gets

inspiration for the
product

Sept
2006

Oct
2006

Conversations include
software designer

Dec
2006

Sales person vets the

concept in the market

Senior leaders of MediSys

Beaumont formalizes NFD &
allocate $500,000 to
development of IntensCare charters a core team to develop
IntensCare

June
2007

July
2007

Ad hoc team presents

product concept to senior
leaders

Jan 2008 Aug

2008

Beaumont hired as
president

Most ambitious project in companys 10-year history

Aug
2009

Projected IntensCare launch

date

Situation Analysis
Two major competitors were planning to move into the firms market and products
designed to compete with IntensCare
Beaumont made changes to organizational structure to counteract these threats :

Beaumont created an Executive Committee consisting of 5 Vice Presidents from different functional
areas

Parallel development process was introduced by creating cross-functional teams

Delays in hardware engineering

Delays in software development
Modular design
Behind in clinical testing schedules

Situation Analysis
The group is in the transition stage of the PunctuatedEquilibrium Model
There is moderate productivity due to low cohesiveness and
high performance norms leading to problems in launching
the product at projected date

Organizational Chart
Art Beaumont,
President

Len Brown, VP
Design &
Engineering

Dipesh
Mukerjee
Software Design
Manager

Martha Hill, VP
Production

Peter Fisher,
VP
Sales &
Marketing

Jack Fogel
Senior Production
Manager &
IntensCare
Project Leader

Valerie Merz
Marketing
Manager,
IntensCare
Business Leader

Bret O Brien
Senior
Engineering
Manager

Arnie
Frederick, VP
Research &
Development

Aaron Gerson
Scientist

Zoe Thompson,
VP
Administration

Karen Baio
Regulatory
Affairs

Core team members

Jack Fogel (Senior Production Manager/IntensCare Project Leader )
Concerned only about production details. He doesnt really succeed in performing his role as a leader. For example, Valerie
Merz often questions his involvement in the modular design issue. He communicated well with technical savvy members:
Bret OBrien, Dipesh Mukherjee, and Aaron Gerson.

Valerie Merz (Marketing Manager)

Concerned about budget and product delivery date. Acts as leader but without any authority. Most of the team members
avoid her, have negative feelings about her and doesn't share information with her The lack of information constrained her
ability to assess the possibility to predict the products launch date. Her frustration resulted in a negative demeanor (e.g.
mistrust) and a demanding attitude with the rest of the team.

Karen Baio (Regulatory Affairs)

Concerned about strict quality and regulatory medical industrys standards. She opposes the idea of launching the product
without meeting qualitys standards. Team members avoid dealing with her due to the nature of her role. The controller

 Dipesh Mukerjee (Software Design Manager)

Concerned about managing issues in India related to software development. Initiator of outsourcing
software design. He had little time to meet with other members of the group in order to verify the
proper integration of the software with the rest of the project.

Bret OBrien (Senior Engineering Manager)

Concerned on how to utilize the human resources available (two engineers) for this project and
hardware and technical issues. He was the part of initial ad hoc team. He had an open and honest
communication with Jack Fogel about his concerns and status of the project. The promoter

Aaron Gersons (Research and Development)

Concerned about overseas software development team. Has four patents and was lead scientist
on both monitoring products. Created the product concept and was ad hoc leader of the initial
group. Did not worry much about the deadlines or competitors products. The creator

Problem Analysis
New process of product development did not compliment entrepreneurial culture
Poor communication among team members
Initiative among department heads to hold information to avoid criticism from others
No motivation to do work outside of their functional area
Atmosphere of mutual distrust within the team
Authorized leader focus is on technical details and has little concern regarding business
issues and approaching launch
Valerie Merz has taken responsibility as leader but lacks authority
IntensCare team acting as a group; not a team
Bret OBrien feels there is status inequity

Plan of Action

Plan of action is formulated addressing issues in accordance with team effectiveness model
Adequate Resources
A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of a team to perform its job effectively and achieve its
goals. Adequate staffing is required

Leadership and structure

A new leader who communicates well with each member and focuses on the overall business goal of the
project is required. Introducing flat structure so that communication flows faster with fewer disruptions
and distortions

Climate of trust
Trust among members can be formed by communicating openly, discussing trust issues, not blaming on
each other and leading by example. Trust facilitates cooperation and increases productivity

Performance evaluation and reward systems

Employees are currently evaluated based on performance in their functional areas. New evaluation
technique needs to be formulated which will align individual performance with organizational objectives to
improve business results