What were the performance problems in the 1970s and in what context? What were the root causes why Medtronic almost lost its leading position in the 1970s and 1980s? Examining the case initially, it can be seen that the main reasons for the company's declining productivity and market share resulted primarily from market forces, including increased competition, product regulations and scrutiny, and the rapid pace of pacemaker technology in the global market. Additionally, Medtronic itself has suffered from internal worker attrition (forming a fast-moving new competitor/startup), failure in product development (lack of new value and differentiation), and disaster in two major pacemaker lines. Copied and spin-off pacemaker design and technology pushed Medtronic's market position out and allowed early adapters and late followers to outperform and innovate before Medtronic, despite pioneering advantages at the start of the latter decade. Medtronic, through faulty product development mentioned below, produced late entries that were behind in functionality, compatibility, and even ability to operate/operate (leading to uncertainty and fear of implementing additional Medtronic products, thus a loss of 70% market share in 1970) That said, the main reasons why Medtronic suffered from various performance problems was its structure in strategy, business decisions, and product development team architecture. In other words, its NPD structure (defined as functional team structure) failed to adapt and function with the ever-growing company size, market, and rapid pace of new innovation and pacemaker design. Although mentioned early on as the centerpiece of the company's success, it proved to be an inefficient system. Manager… half the work… and game-changing projects/products. While a standalone plan seems like a better fit due to fully dedicated, full-time work and focus on major innovation projects/platforms, potential shortcomings such as expenses, separation from the core business, and the ability to create your own processes and procedures. That said, the company needs to create a new organizational structure to meet new market and customer demands. The most effective thing to do would be to implement an ambidextrous organization, so that multiple focused business groups (such as existing and emerging ones) with a loosely paired structure (greater network effects, greater flexibility, ongoing shared adherence to standards/practices and core business strategies) to quickly adapt and satisfy the “new” innovative demand in RF technology and be able to satisfy the most personalized requests of customers.

Topic > What were the performance problems in the 1970s and in what context? What were the root causes why Medtronic almost lost its leading position in the 1970s and 1980s? Examining the case initially, it can be seen that the main reasons for the company's declining productivity and market share resulted primarily from market forces, including increased competition, product regulations and scrutiny, and the rapid pace of pacemaker technology in the global market. Additionally, Medtronic itself has suffered from internal worker attrition (forming a fast-moving new competitor/startup), failure in product development (lack of new value and differentiation), and disaster in two major pacemaker lines. Copied and spin-off pacemaker design and technology pushed Medtronic's market position out and allowed early adapters and late followers to outperform and innovate before Medtronic, despite pioneering advantages at the start of the latter decade. Medtronic, through faulty product development mentioned below, produced late entries that were behind in functionality, compatibility, and even ability to operate/operate (leading to uncertainty and fear of implementing additional Medtronic products, thus a loss of 70% market share in 1970) That said, the main reasons why Medtronic suffered from various performance problems was its structure in strategy, business decisions, and product development team architecture. In other words, its NPD structure (defined as functional team structure) failed to adapt and function with the ever-growing company size, market, and rapid pace of new innovation and pacemaker design. Although mentioned early on as the centerpiece of the company's success, it proved to be an inefficient system. Manager… half the work… and game-changing projects/products. While a standalone plan seems like a better fit due to fully dedicated, full-time work and focus on major innovation projects/platforms, potential shortcomings such as expenses, separation from the core business, and the ability to create your own processes and procedures. That said, the company needs to create a new organizational structure to meet new market and customer demands. The most effective thing to do would be to implement an ambidextrous organization, so that multiple focused business groups (such as existing and emerging ones) with a loosely paired structure (greater network effects, greater flexibility, ongoing shared adherence to standards/practices and core business strategies) to quickly adapt and satisfy the “new” innovative demand in RF technology and be able to satisfy the most personalized requests of customers.