IMD-3-2051 © 2009
Nie, Winter; Ryans, Adrian; Lu, Abraham Hongze
Choice 1 utilizes the (A) case followed by the (B) case. The (A) case explains the Danfoss circumstance and concerns and likewise explains Holip, its history, its company design and its method. Choice 2 utilizes the (A1) and (A2) cases followed by the (B) case.
The (A1) case is practically similar to the (A) case, however has less details on Holip. The (A2) case is composed from the point of view of Holip management and provides total and in-depth details on Holip and the hopes and issues of the Holip management group. Much of this extra details was not understood to Danfoss at the time of the (A1) case.
Alternative 1 utilizes the (A) case followed by the (B) case. The (A) case explains the Danfoss scenario and concerns and likewise explains Holip, its history, its company design and its technique. Alternative 2 utilizes the (A1) and (A2) cases followed by the (B) case. The (A1) case is nearly similar to the (A) case, however has less details on Holip.
Subjects: Low cost competition; Mergers & acquisitions; M&A; Chinese entrepreneurs; Frequency converters; Multinationals competing in China; Pre-acquisition analysis; After acquisition integration; Dual-brand strategy
Settings: China; Frequency converters; 2004 sales €2.2 billion; May 2005
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Performance Analysis
Air Thread Connections
Hola-Kola – The Capital Budgeting Decision
Diamond Chemicals PLC
Bharat Motor: Transforming The Supply Chain
Hilti (B): Reflections And Outlook
NASCAR: Every Second Counts
Online Grocery Shopping 2.0: Tesco Homeplus Virtual Store In South Korea
Rebuilding A Passion Brand: The Turnaround Of Ducati (C)
Semi-Submersible Heavy-Lift Transport (D): Offshore Heavy Transport
