1. SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY
Pfizer Building Value: A
Strategic Analysis
Strategic Management-Dr.Blockson
Michelle Neeck
6/15/2015

2. 1Neeck
Index
‘The Shark That Can’t Stop Feeding’ .................................................................................................39
Astra Zeneca......................................................................................................................................5
Blue Ocean Strategy.........................................................................................................................42
Boston Consulting Group matrix (BCG).............................................................................................26
competitive profile matrix .................................................................................................................12
DMAIC steps...................................................................................................................................54
ethical standing.................................................................................................................................47
external matrix ...................................................................................................................................7
FDA................................................................................................................................................54
Financial Prediction..........................................................................................................................58
financial recordings for 2014.............................................................................................................20
Genentech........................................................................................................................................52
history of Pfizer..................................................................................................................................2
Ian Read ............................................................................................................................................4
New Drug Application ......................................................................................................................56
Novartis.............................................................................................................................................4
penicillin............................................................................................................................................3
Phase 1............................................................................................................................................55
Phase 2............................................................................................................................................55
Phase 3............................................................................................................................................55
Product position maps.......................................................................................................................48
Research and Developmen ................................................................................................................53
Reviewing the three suggestions ........................................................................................................44
Roche and Pfizer ..............................................................................................................................52
Sig Sigma ........................................................................................................................................43
SPACE matrix..................................................................................................................................30
Strategical Analysis ..........................................................................................................................57
SWOT.............................................................................................................................................22
SWOT analysis ................................................................................................................................25
Terramycin.........................................................................................................................................3
The Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix................................................................................................15
The open innovation model...............................................................................................................40
Timeline ..........................................................................................................................................53
visual a milestone chart.....................................................................................................................56
Visual of the BCG Matrix .................................................................................................................30
visual representation of the Open Innovation ......................................................................................42
Visual representation of the SPACE Matric........................................................................................38

3. 2Neeck
Executive Summary:
Pfizer is one of the world’s most renowned bio-pharmaceutical companies with a rich
history of offering innovative and high quality products. Founded in 1849 by Charles Pfizer and
Charles Erhart, Pfizer, an America based company sought to assist in various aspects of
consumer life from creating powerful pain killers during the Civil War, to providing key
ingredients to favorite drinks such as Coca-Cola, and then expanding into the world of
antibiotics. Over the past several years Pfizer has developed award winning products such as
Viagra and Lipitor and has even been able to create a strong vaccine line with its successful
launch of Prevnar 13. Despite the continued success of the company many of its well-known
drugs are close to patent expiration and as such there is a strong need to develop another product
to replace those that will soon be available in generic form. The pharmaceutical industry
contains many different areas of current and future innovation from new drug therapies,
vaccines, and over the counter products this market is extremely diverse and offers many
opportunities for growth. Pfizer faces strong competition from major competitors Novartis,
Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Roche Pharmaceuticals who have also created best selling drugs
ranging from insulin to AIDS medications, each company is highly developed, but with the right
strategy Pfizer products will prove to be superior in both its effectiveness and economic
dominance. Creating new drugs can prove to be a risk as it takes many years of research and
investment for the chance of creating a drug that is suitable for market. Therefore, it is proposed
that in order to reduce risk and explore new areas of innovation Pfizer will be partnering with
Genentech, a division of Roche Pharmaceuticals, to create a new medication therapy for ovarian
cancer which has a current survivability rate of 44%. Using developing techniques in epigenetics
to reverse natural changes that occur in DNA such as cancer this partnership is hoping to further

4. 3Neeck
the use of this knowledge as well as offering for forms of therapy that are equal to if not better
than current options. Forming this partnership will reduce the amount of revenue needed to
create this new type of drug as both parties will be able to invest less financially, but gain the
expanded amount of resources and knowledge to make this drug a reality. Added benefits of this
partnership will result in less time spent in research and development and by combing efforts
increase the likelihood of this proposed drug surviving the FDA phases and creating a unique
and effective product. Pfizer has yet to create anything like this proposed product, nor has
formed intimate partnerships as the one suggested. However, it is crucial to the growth of this
company that new avenues of investment as Pfizer’s revenues have dropped slightly over the
past two years due other blockbuster going generic, it is therefore necessary to maintain our
promises to our stockholders in forming this partnership and move away from the traditional
merger path that Pfizer has been known for as this alternative strategy resulted in the loss of
acquiring UK based AstraZeneca. As a smaller bio-pharmaceutical company, Pfizer develop new
methods in which to attain the goal of the top global pharmaceutical producer using new
strategies such as partnerships will help increase the Pfizer’s knowledge of new technologies
available, seek alternative therapies for consumers, as well providing a steady rate of returns for
our investors.

5. 4Neeck
The United States over the past several years has experienced a dramatic change in
healthcare with the creation of Obamacare with the hope of increased access to more affordable
healthcare. There have been many varying opinions about this new system and its place in the
future, and as such healthcare companies are going to be the ones to watch and for this reason the
biopharmaceuticals company Pfizer has been chosen for this strategic management case. The
history of Pfizer began in 1849 by two cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles Erhart. (Pfizer, 2015)
The German cousins began their business venture in New York with only $2,500 with the
intention to develop new and better ways to combat diseases which is evident in one of their first
products created as described by “An anti-parasitic used to treat intestinal worms, a common
affliction in mid-19th century America. Combining their skills, Pfizer, a chemist, and Erhart, a
confectioner, blend santonin with almond-toffee flavoring and shape it into a candy cone. The
"new" santonin is an immediate success and the company is launched.” (Pfizer, 2015) After this
first success the company began creating a number of other products to cater to the needs of the
people at a given time. For instance in the 1860s the Pfizer made headway in the food industry
creating cream of tartar which is a common ingredient found in the spice section of a modern day
super market. Also during this time, a far departure from food ingredients, Pfizer was also asked
to help develop new drugs in response to the outbreak of Civil War that had begun in 1861.
According to Pfizer history records the company “As demand for painkillers, preservatives, and
disinfectants soars during the Civil War, Pfizer expands production of tartaric acid (used as a
laxative and skin coolant) as well as other vital drugs to help meet the needs of the Union Army.
Among these are iodine, morphine, chloroform, camphor, and mercurials, which, in addition to
medicinal applications, are used in the emerging field of photography, the new medium
photographer Mathew Brady employs to chronicle the Civil War.” (Pfizer, 2015) After the Civil

6. 5Neeck
War Pfizer began reaping the benefits from its successful products and began expanding the
company by increasing its number of employees and purchasing a larger headquarters in the New
York area. While there was no longer an overwhelming need for painkillers and antiseptics the
company began setting it sites on other popular products such as Coca-Cola and other fountain
drinks which contain citric acid, and as one of the largest producers of citric acid Pfizer
continued to remain successful as they entered the 20th century. In 1906 Charles Pfizer dies and
John Anderson becomes chairman of the company as Charles Erhart had passed away some time
before, and at this sales of Pfizer products had reached roughly $3 million. In 1919 new
inventions by James Currie who developed the process of using molasses for fermentation which
would eventually lend itself to large scale production of penicillin. (Pfizer, 2015) Other
techniques such as the one invented by Currie will allow Pfizer become one of the dominate
producers of vitamins including vitamin B-12 and bring worldwide notoriety as the pioneers of
fermentation. In the 1940s the government again turns to Pfizer to help with the war effort,
specifically to make penicillin which is desperately needed at the front lines and has proven
useful in combating bacteria. Pfizer’s innovation and technological skill allowed them to produce
more penicillin than any other company and led them to receiving various awards for their
efforts. Although Pfizer in modern times is commonly known as a pharmaceutical company
today, it wasn’t until 1950 when the company created and marketed their first pharmaceutical
product, Terramycin. (Pfizer, 2015) Terramycin is type of antibiotic which was marketed to treat
a wide variety aliments and propelled the company to expand to overseas markets. The
relationship Pfizer created was one that involved much of the foreign business and its individuals
a great deal of autonomy which can be quite risky, but by allowing individuals to make decisions
in their home countries without the tight control of the parent company and therefore better

7. 6Neeck
decisions can be made for a particular population. Over the next several years Pfizer continued to
expand, setting up operations in Great Britain, Mexico, Italy, and so on. The 1980s and 90s saw
Pfizer creating more pharmaceutical products such as Zoloft, Zithromax, and Viagra which are
still commonly used in the pharmacy today. Currently, Pfizer is working to create smaller
research units in order to respond to patient needs and innovate and create new medicines faster,
an essential tool for successful companies.
There are many individuals on the board of executives that help run the large
biopharmaceutical company that is Pfizer. The current CEO of Pfizer is Ian Read. Mr. Read
began his career at Pfizer in 1978 working as an auditor working in many different countries in
Latin America and Canada. (Pfizer, 2015) Another important member in leadership is Albert
Bourla who is responsible for vaccines, oncology, and consumer health and almost 20nyears
experience with the company. Bourla is responsible for the company producing cancer drugs to
target various cancers including various types of tumors and early stages of breast cancer all of
which are generally given large sums of money for research and for Pfizer, this has paid off
greatly. Adding to Bourla’s role to is the importance of offering consumer health products such
as vitamins such as Centrium and the most recent consumer health product to hit the market, the
over the counter version of Nexium which is a popular acid reducer for those who suffer from
acid reflux. Although there are only two members of leadership mentioned here there are many
more members who are a part of the board that contribute to the success of the company, and
help stay well ahead of their competitors. There are several competitors that encourage Pfizer to
continually innovate. Some of the top competitors include Novartis, Merck, and Astra Zeneca.
Each of these pharmaceutical all share in the race to see which company can develop a new drug
and keep a patent the longest. Novartis has several top grossing products including Exforge for

8. 7Neeck
blood pressure management and Focalin for ADHD. (Novartis Products, 2015) Merck has its
own line of competitive drugs such as Fosamax, a drug targeted towards women to stop the
destructive process of osteoporosis. Another popular drug or vaccine rather is the popular
vaccine called Gardasil. Gardasil is a vaccine to help prevent Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
which is a common sexually transmitted disease and culprit of cervical and ovarian cancers.
(Pharmaceutical Products, 2015) This vaccine is popular among pediatricians as the
recommended ages for the vaccines is roughly between 9-25 and most encourage inoculating
their child before they are sexually active. Lastly, Astra Zeneca is another competitor that has
had an interesting history with Pfizer. In May of last year Pfizer decided it would merge with
Astra Zeneca for $118 billion. The possibility of the two competitors combing was creating quite
a stir both in the United States and in Britain, the home of Astra Zeneca. Some of the
controversies including included jobs and corporate taxes. (Hirschler, Pfizer walks away from
$118 billion AstraZeneca takeover fight, 2014) The merger was not possible for several reasons
as Hirschler mentions in his article as “The proposed transaction into ran into fierce opposition
from politicians in Britain, Sweden-where Astra Zeneca has half its roots…Ultimate it was price
and the lack of room for eleventh-hour maneuvering by Pfizer that killed the deal.” (Hirschler,
Pfizer walks away from $118 billion AstraZeneca takeover fight, 2014)
Although the competition that Pfizer must compete against is quite stiff their mission and
vison statements are just one of the many ways in which Pfizer stays competitive. The mission
statement for Pfizer can be exemplified as such “We will become the world's most valued
company to patients, customers, colleagues, investors, business partners, and the communities
where we work and live.” (Le, 2015) In the course there has been much emphasis placed early on
regarding the importance of having an effective mission statement. Author Fred David suggests

9. 8Neeck
that there are nine elements that are key for having a successful mission statement including:
word limit, broad scope, inspiring, utility, social and environmental responsibility, the nine
recommended components (customers, stakeholder, etc.), reconciliatory, and enduring. (David,
2014) Keeping in mind these nine different recommendations it is important to evaluate the
Pfizer model to see how it matches up with mission statement standards.
Pictured above is the analysis conducted and the findings indicate that the Pfizer mission
statement is lacking in some necessary elements such as an inspirational message. Upon reading
the mission statement there was nothing to indicate any sort of inspiration or even utility as there
was no mention of what type of products they sell. Some positive aspects however, include
having a short statement and by mentioning the importance and their dedication to stakeholders
and customers which is import for reassuring potential investors and potential customers looking
to contract with the Pfizer Company. Adding to the mission statement is Pfizer’s vision
statement which is as follows “Pfizer will strive to achieve and sustain its leading place as the
world's premier research-based pharmaceutical company. The company's continuing success
benefits patients, customers, shareholders, business partners, families and the communities in
which they operate all around the world. Pfizer's mission is to become the world's most valued
company to all of these people.” (Le, 2015) The vison statement of Pfizer seems to be more
fitting as a mission statement rather than a vision statement because this statement evokes a more
inspiring message as well as stating their utility of the company which was much more
informative than their mission statement and as a potential investor or customer it should be
suggested that the vison statement should be altered to become the mission statement of the
company and vice versa.
Broad Scope Less than 250 words Inspiring Utility Social Responsibility Enviormental Responsibility 9 Componets Reconcilatory Enduring
Pfizer Pfizer Pfizer Pfizer

10. 9Neeck
Once a company has been established and begins to gain formidable place in the market
there are several different analysis that can be performed to determine a how company compares
to other similar ventures in this case how Pfizer compares to Novartis and Astra Zeneca and so
on. This section will focus on external factors that contribute to the success of Pfizer which is
called the external factor evaluation matrix. The external factor evaluation matrix is defined most
commonly as “Strategy tool used to examine company’s external environment and to identify the
available opportunities and threats.” (Jurevicius, 2014) The external environment can help Pfizer
identify what areas of the company are stronger compared to competitors as well as what aspects
or threats of other companies may hinder the growth of Pfizer in the future by listing areas of
concern and assigning a weight and a rank to identify which external factor should be tackled
first in either improving or maintaining at a given level. An example of an external matrix for
Pfizer Company is presented below.
.
Technology advancement as first listed is a key external factor that all biopharmaceutical
companies wish to harness in order to study , create, and produce mass quantity of drugs in order
to answer the demand for new drugs for various diseases as well as obtaining patents and

11. 10Neeck
keeping patents for extended period of time in order to hopefully decrease competition. A recent
technology advancement created in 2009 that has changed the manner in which new drugs are
being created is through the use of a new idea called nanofluidic real time qPCR (quantitative
polymerase chain reactions) technologies. This testing method helps to increase the amount of
high value information that can be obtained in short period of time in order to overcome some of
the challenges associated with the creation of a new drug such as a high failure rate by focusing
on the transcription process of DNA and RNA thereby leading to the ability to create drugs with
high efficacy and faster and more reliable pace. (Colin Brenan, 2009) While new advancement in
technology is necessary for the external growth of Pfizer it should go hand in hand with the
expansion into new emerging markets. Gaining access to emerging markets and being successful
are two entirely different factors. According to global business researches the emerging markets,
more commonly known as BRIC (Brazil, China, India, and China) house most of the world’s
populations and creating viable business in these emerging markets is critical to large
pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer who are interested in manufacturing and selling new
drugs to new consumers. Despite emerging markets being an idea for essential growth for the
company and what Sanjaya has considered an opportunity for Pfizer, is an opportunity with
many struggles. Some of the many obstacles which limit Pfizer’s expansion into new markets
include taxation laws, regulations both from the parent and host country, as well as the need for
highly trained individuals to work in these labs can prove daunting as well as access and
distribution issues. (Mooraj, 2013) While the opportunity for expansion into emerging markets
may be an opportunity that will occur at a much slower rate there are two opportunities listed
that are currently growing at an exhausting rate and could result in a large payoff for Pfizer.
Longer life expectancies and chronic conditions are two health factors that are increasing hand in

12. 11Neeck
hand. As the average life expectancy increases and the health of many Americans, at least
becoming worse, leading to more preventable chronic conditions. Companies such as Pfizer are
able to capitalize on such cause and effects. In 2007, the Pfizer conducted an outcomes research
study on the aging population in the United States. In their findings researches McDonald and
Hertz have predicted that by 2020 16% of the population will consist of individuals 65 and older.
Having these types of predictions on hand can help Pfizer prepare today for the future needs of
their potential consumers, looking at this population the study also showed that the most
common diseases these individuals suffer from include heart disease and cancer as the two most
common reasons for mortality. (Margaret McDonald, 2007) Further adding to this knowledge,
research conducted by Pfizer has shown that other common diseases that plague this population
are hypertension and hyperlipidemia both of which are preventable diseases. The United States is
at the center of chronic disease crisis as many as 7 in 10 adults suffer from at least one chronic
disease according to author Tom Bodenheimer. The increase in the amount of chronic disease in
the United States as compared to many other first world countries is astronomical and as such it
is driving up healthcare costs, which means pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer can benefit
from this opportunity to create more efficient drugs in order to manage this seemingly
overwhelming condition. (Bodenheimer, 2015) As individuals there is also a very high likelihood
that the chronic conditions that began to develop around middle age will continue on until late
adulthood prolonging the need for medication and as a large pharmaceutical company Pfizer is
more than happy to oblige.
While there are many external opportunities for Pfizer to thrive there are also external
threats that must be taken into consideration in order for the company to remain profitable in the
future and survive the healthcare reform. One of the threats suggested by Sanjaya that could

13. 12Neeck
prove less than desirable for the company is a higher effective tax rate. Effective tax rates are
different for large corporations than they are for individuals. Effective tax rates for corporations
are calculated by dividing total tax expenses by firm’s earnings before taxes, thereby creating a
net rate. (Effective Tax Rates, 2015) Pfizer over the past several years has been struggling
according to its effective tax rates as one of its most successful drugs, Lipitor, went generic and
no other new drugs have made through the pipeline of testing and FDA approval analysts show
Pfizer’s tax rates in 2013 as the following.
(Sullivan, 2013)
The bar graph above displays Pfizer’s tax rates from 2004-2013 with one of the most
recent analysis of a tax rate of 29.6%; increasing the tax rate even higher for a biopharmaceutical
company like Pfizer could be devastating. If Pfizer were required to pay a higher tax rate it could
result in the company being forced to downsize for economic reasons, slow research and
development, and possibly halt in exploration into new ventures for the company which could
have both private and public gains. In addition to the threat of higher tax rate an equal or even
more formidable threat Pfizer could endure is the threat of a patent litigation, which the company
endured in April 2015. Patents help pharmaceutical companies protect the rights of their drugs
for an extended period of time, this exclusivity ensures that the company will be able to regain

14. 13Neeck
revenue from sales of a new drug in order to balance out its accounts payable from the money
used to research and develop a new drug. In April 2015, Pfizer and Mylan ended their patent
litigation over the soon to be generic Viagra. Viagra is used to help treat a condition called
erectile dysfunction. Pfizer’s patent for Viagra will end in 2020 and as a result from patent
litigation agreements, generic drug company Mylan will be able to sell its generic form by
December 2017 or earlier depending on FDA approvals. (Koppala, 2015) This litigation could
prove costly for Pfizer over the next several years as sales for Viagra in 2014 were reported to
measure approximately $1.3 billion and if no new drugs are in the making for Pfizer this could
be a devastating loss in the market and make the company more susceptible to falling to their
competitors such as newcomer on the market Gilded Science who released Harvoni, a cure for
Hepatitis C, could take control away from Pfizer who still have patents on life saving drugs for
patients with HIV and AIDS and therefore may require Pfizer to spend several years as a less
competitive pharmaceutical company before launching a new drug require Pfizer to spend
several years as a less competitive pharmaceutical company before launching a new drug.
Another external analysis tool that can help Pfizer realizes their place in the market
against their competitors through the use of a competitive profile matrix. A competitive profile
matrix allows a company such as Pfizer to compare themselves with other similar companies and
for these particular example pharmaceutical companies Bristol-Meyers Squibb and Novartis has

15. 14Neeck
been chosen as factors for comparison. Below is the competitive profile matrix.
The competitive profile matrix is similar to that of the external matrix in that there are
several key points that a company such as Pfizer should focus on and each focus carries with a
rank or significance. In this instance, the competitive profiles there are ranks which vary as to
how well each company varies between one another. In the sample matrix provided by Sanjaya it
is evident that despite much of the success that Pfizer has had over its 150 years in existence it is
not as competitive currently with other pharmaceutical companies. Innovation is a key feature
that is necessary for success in the pharmaceutical sphere as it is important to produce new and
effective drug products every few years. However, Pfizer has not had a new and popular drug
enter the market in quite some time. Novartis has many patents with various insulin drugs and as
the rise in type 2 diabetes increases and poor diabetes management can lead to insulin
dependence there are a number of areas of revenue that Novartis is benefiting from at the
moment. Bristol-Meyers Squibb also benefits from several brand name drugs with longer patents
such as Abilify for depression and Atripla for HIV. The lack of innovation from Pfizer will
surely hurt the company over the next few years as several of their products will be going

16. 15Neeck
generic and without new drugs Pfizer will surly fall short. Strategic analysis of various
companies is important to engage and encourage future investors in a company and comparative
matrix such as the one depicted above can help investors make sound financial decisions.
According to the matrix supplied the Pfizer Company has a lower financial soundness compared
to its competition. Despite this seemingly low score in financial soundness, in 2012 Pfizer was
still regarded as one of the most reliable picks for investors to choose if considering a
biopharmaceutical market share. Over the past several years Pfizer has downsized slightly over
the years selling some of its business ventures to other giants such as Nestle and cutting research
by nearly 30 percent. However, analysts suggest “The downsizing was not perceived as reckless
or as a forbearer to financial doom…company stock actually soared over 5 percent helping to
increase the overall Dow Jones industrial average.” (Freelance, 2012) Despite Pfizer’s lower
marks in financial soundness it is evident that there are still those that believe in the company
that is Pfizer, and trust that from previous successes that this company will still prevail in the
future against competitors such as Novartis. Responsibility, on the other hand is quite different
from financial soundness but no less important as consumers and investors alike are interested in
how large pharmaceutical companies contribute to global health. Pfizer receives high marks for
responsibility as there are several areas in which Pfizer contributes such as global health
programs focusing on infectious disease as well as grants and contributions through political
lobbying and healthcare charitable. (Pfizer, 2015) Conversely, to these approaches Novartis has
undertaken a different route than Pfizer resulting in a higher ranking is the result of social
responsibility work through making their product more affordable and easier to access. One of
the many projects undertaken by Novartis is to help control the spread of Malaria. Malaria is a
preventable and treatable disease, but many of the areas in which Malaria is found most patients

17. 16Neeck
do not have access to such care, therefore Novartis has donated nearly 700 million Malarial
treatments as well as helping to curb incidence of Leprosy in other communities. (Acess to
Healthcare, 2015) This type of social responsibility far exceeds many of the other pharmaceutical
companies and as an external comparative is concerned; far out marks any other competition
especially Pfizer and Bristol-Meyers Squibb. Global competitiveness is also a key strategy point
that all companies, especially pharmaceutical companies should considered when making
decisions that may affect the external standpoint of the company. One point of global
competiveness contention is currently being manufactured in the form of a new type of breast
cancer drug being created. Pfizer, an American company, and Novartis a Swiss company are
pharmaceutical giants that are constantly working to outperform one another on a global scale.
Currently, a new class a breast cancer drug is being tested called a CDK, or cyclin dependent
kinases which blocks two specific enzymes to help combat the disease. (Hirschler, Novartis
chases Pfizer in hot new breast cancer drug area, 2013) Novartis is working diligently to catch up
to Pfizer who is also making a CDK breast cancer drug and already in Phase 3 testing whereas
Novartis is just beginning Phase 3. Despite the head start that Pfizer has on this particular breast
cancer drug with predicted revenue starting in 2019 many investors are warning that Novartis
will more than likely offering a great deal of competition and profits could be lower than
expected. However, in order to maximize any potential profits both companies are striving for
each of their perspective CDK cancer drugs to be used for multiple types of cancers as the
prediction for these types of drugs are predetermined to generate the most revenue. Using the
results presented in the matrix by Sanjaya and the current statuses being reported by both
pharmaceutical companies so close in standing with one another for releasing breakthrough

18. 17Neeck
drugs it is clear that the given ranks for each being 3 and 4 respectively on global
competitiveness is an appropriate analysis.
Large companies such as Pfizer often focus much of their time attempting to understand
their place in the market and how they are able to better their positon is just one of the many
reasons for in depth analysis. Previously, external factors were reviewed in an effort to
understand how forces outside the company were affecting the overall performance. What is
important to note that not only do external factors play a role in the overall view and status of a
particular company, but internal factors also play an equally as important in effort to understand
how to improve market perceptions and overall company standing. One such internal analysis
that is commonly preferred method for identifying internal factors is the Internal Factor
Evaluation Matrix. The Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix (IFE) is similar to the analysis of the
EFE which focuses on external factors, in an IFE various strengths and weakness identified
within a company such as Pfizer are listed and weighted based on their level of importance or
perceived effect that these issues may have on the company at a given moment. Internal factors
like external factors may change overtime or they me be seen as a constant in the matrix. Pfizer
has several different strengths and weaknesses that are contributing to its current position in the

19. 18Neeck
market demonstrated in the following matrix.
In conducting an internal analysis an important factor to include in this type of matrix is
the strength of a brand’s image. Image branding is an important factor in creating recognition for
a given company and can hinder or encourage investors and patients alike. For Pfizer, brand
image is classified as strength and with good reason as in 2008 Pfizer conducted an overhaul on
their image in an effort to enhance profits and increase recognition for their products. One of the
methods in which Pfizer attempted and successfully rebranded itself is through creating as Siegel
and Gale called the “One Pfizer” model. (Gale, 2015) Siegel and Gale reported in an expert from
Pfizer’s Lauren Albert’s opinion on the new brand as “Lauren Albert, director of corporate
reputation and brand for Pfizer, "Our new visual identity system has become an invaluable asset
for the enterprise. It provides the structure and guidance we needed to amplify our corporate
brand voice in a cohesive way, and it provides flexibility to satisfy complex, globally diverse
branding challenges. Plus, it's visually beautiful!"” (Gale, 2015) Creating a strong brand image
and as Albert mentions a cohesive view of a company can lend itself in helping to expand the
company into new markets either foreign countries or new products. Establishing unity from

20. 19Neeck
within is equally as important as the visual image that is chosen to present to the public.
According to Furrer, “This motivation is particular important for firms that have some intrinsic
advantage such as technology based patent or strong brand that gives them a competitive
advantage in a foreign market…many firms internationalize their activities to reap additional
sales that enable them to exploit further economies of scale and scope. (Furrer, 2010) While all
of the benefits Furrer that mentions are external it is important to keep in mind that the original
source for this success is internal. Adding to the strength of strong brand image for the internal
matrix of Pfizer Sanjaya also suggests that a strong sales force also contributes to the strong
internal success of the company. Sales forces within the Pfizer Company are responsible for
sharing knowledge with various physician groups about new drugs, uses, and potential risks and
side effects of new drugs. In 2008, Bloomberg author Jessica Makovsky working closely with
GFK Marketing Measures reported that Pfizer continually outscored and outperformed attaining
the rank of ‘most effective sales force.’ Pfizer was ranked most effective in sales force in six
different segments of measurement out pacing Merck and Novartis. (Makovsky, 2008)Within the
six segments each represents different type of medical or physician settings and how these
particular medical settings react towards Pfizer sales. Different segments require different needs
and information from Pfizer concerning new drugs for instance Makovsky mentions that
“Corporate Professionals are the least likely segment (29 percent) to require research data as they
tend to be creatures of habit, yet they express one of the highest needs for product information
(61 percent) that centers on new indications for known products.” (Makovsky, 2008) As a
company that relies on knowledge of products and selling highly effective products is one of the
main contributors to total revenue and as such it is necessary to know the target of the sale and
what information should be filtered for this individual body and how Pfizer products will benefit

21. 20Neeck
them over a competitors drug. This knowledge of how to interact with physicians must come
from within the company by training and hiring highly competent individuals who as many
physicians agree are “respectful of time as well as articulate.” (Makovsky, 2008) Creating a team
of highly effective sales individuals can be an arduous task and finding the right type of person
and the right training program to create a unified sales front is equally challenging yet, Pfizer has
managed to find a recipe that works, and as such has continued to reap the benefits from its
strong internal sales design.
While Pfizer continues to be successful in the market due to various factors there are still
weaknesses that still reside within the company and identifying them is a key part of creating a
successful biopharmaceutical company. Forbes writer Maggie McGrath reported in 2014
regarding the substantial loss that Pfizer was and will be reflecting over the next several years as
many blockbuster drugs such as Lipitor and Viagra will be going the way of all brand name
drugs, generic. Pfizer has already begun to report an average loss of 6% in revenues due to patent
expirations and will have to rely on drugs such as Lyrica to help avoid seeing red in the coming
future. (McGrath, 2014) A 6% loss in revenue can be considered quite substantial for any
company Sanjaya only weighed patent expiration as a 2 in the IFE matrix, a possible reasoning
for this score could be Pfizer’s ability to constantly innovate. While there are no new drugs
coming out from Pfizer any time this year the 2014 annual review indicates that Pfizer is looking
into many unexplored or underexplored areas of research and development. Some innovations
being done within the walls of Pfizer made an appearance in the annual review hinting at future
vaccines to help eradicate the amount of teenagers and young adults becoming victims of
Meningitis B which has a fatality rate of 10% and new research in inflammation and rare
diseases have also made headway in Pfizer’s future strategic initiatives. (Annual Review 2014,

22. 21Neeck
2015) Therefore, having such diverse and innovative projects underway would seemingly equate
to having several patents expiring not affecting the company in quite substantial manner making
the weight of 2 for this weakness and appropriate score. Adding to the expiration of patents as a
source for internal weakness the transition of business executives and internal politics also play a
role in the internal weaknesses. Many senior executives fail in their new role within the first 18
months and promoting a manger from within the company to senior level positions dose not fare
much better. (Vollhardt, 2005) Vollhardt acknowledge in a case study that was conducted about
an employee moving into a new role and some of the preventable hardships that could have been
avoided if better politics were set in place. In the study, Vollhardt found that the newly hired
employee had not been in the pharmaceutical industry for the past two years and felt ill-equipped
to handle some of roles and responsibilities of this position despite previous roles where this
individual performed exceptionally. Adding to the feeling of unpreparedness other individuals in
the company who were hoping to be promoted to this role felt resentment towards this individual
which was not properly addressed before the transition began and caused problems within the
company itself. (Vollhardt, 2005) While it is true that there exists internal politics in every
company, having poor politics and poor relations among employees can hinder the process of
development and the cohesive image the Pfizer has begun to promote and as such a weak or
distrustful frame of employees can destroy a company from the inside out and in Sanjaya’s
matrix this weakness should have been given more weight as it is a more threating weakness than
others.
Conducting internal assessments is an important tool for companies to understand how
their inner workings of their own making can strengthen or weaken their stance in the market in
the eyes of the stakeholder, the competitor, and the consumer. An accurate depiction of how well

23. 22Neeck
a company is functioning both internally and externally are the results from the financial report
and financial ratios. In the Pfizer Annual Review the company listed there end of the year
financial recordings for 2014 and the results were as follows.
(Annual Review 2014, 2015)
(Annual Review 2014, 2015) (Pfizer Company Profile, 2015)
Financial Ratios 2014 2014 calculations 2013 2013 calculations 2012 2012 calculations
current ratio 2.66 57,702,000/21,631,000 2.4 56.244,000/23,366,000 2.22 64,831,000/29,186,000
quick ratio 2.4 57,702,000-5,663,000/21,631,000 2.14 56,244,000-6,166,000/23,366,000 2.01 64,831,000-6,076,000/29,186,000
debt to total assets 0.03 547,000/169,274,000 0.02 2,788,000/172,101,000 0.01 2,159,000/185,798,000
debt to equity 0.14 97,973,000/71301,000 0.04 2,788,000/76.307,000 0.03 2,159,000/81,260,000
long term debt to equity 1.06 76,021,000/71,301,000 0.94 72,115,000/76,307,000 0.92 74,934,000/81,260,000
time interest earned 5.43 49,605,000/9,135,000 2.34 51,584,000/22,003,000 3.75 54,657,000/14,570,000
inventory tunrover 3.49 14,097,000/4,039,000 3.12 14,355.000/4,599,000 2.96 15,171,000/5,109,000
fixed assests turover 11,757.30 14,097,000/1,199 11,903 14,355,000/1,206 11,432.55 15,171,000/1,327
total asset turnover 0.08 14,097,000/169,274,000 0.08 14,355,000/172,101 0.08 15,171,000/185,798,000
accounts receivable turnover 1.18 175,000/148,000 0.57 538,000/940,000 1.71 631,000/367,000
average collection period 3.83 148,000/(14,097,000/365) 23.9 940,000/(14,355,000/365) 8.8 367,000/(15,171,000/365)
gross profit margin 0.71 (49,605,000-9,577,000)/49,605,000 0.81 (51,584,000-9,586,000)/51,854,000 0.82 (54,657,000-9,821,000)/54,657,000
operating profit margin 0.86 12,240,000/14,097,000 1.09 15,716,000/14,355,00 0.74 11,242,000/15,171,000
net profit margin 0.64 9,135,000/14,097,000 1.53 22,003,000/14,355,000 0.96 14,570,000/15,171,000
return on total assets 0.05 9,135,000/169,274,000 0.13 22,003,000/172,101,000 0.08 14,570,000/185,798,000
return on stockholder equ 0.13 9,135,000/71,301,000 0.3 22,003,000/76,307,000 0.18 14,570,000/81,260,000
earnings per share 1.45 9,135,000/6,291,000 3.4 22,003,000/6,399,000 2 14,570,000/7,276,000
price-earnings ratio 2.76 31.33/11.33 2.56 30.64/11.93 2.22 24.89/11.17

24. 23Neeck
Using the information presented above creates a visual demonstration of how well a
company such as Pfizer is performing. The financial results printed in the Annual Review
demonstrate a slowing of overall revenues and a decreased amount in both total assets and
stockholder’s equity, but an increase in long term obligations. In previous sections, it has been
mentioned that in previous years Pfizer created a goal in which to create a more unified company
and part of this unification came as a result reducing some of the company’s size in order to
focus more sustainable projects and maintaining promises to stakeholders and consumers of
products alike and because of this downsizing has caused a shift in revenue. However, despite
this slump in revenue from 2013 and 2014 using the current ratio allows a company to obtain a
realistic idea of a company is performing by identifying if the company like Pfizer is successful
by having a ratio in which the assets outweighs the liabilities. In the calculations conducted for
2014, it was shown to have a positive or high ratio in part because the current assets outweigh
the liabilities and these resources can then be redirected to either paying off debt, acquiring more
assets, or focusing this liquidity into research and design. Furthermore, the quick ratio represents
Pfizer’s ability to respond to short term goals which can lend themselves to probability of a
company being able to be successful when conducting longitudinal projects and in the
calculations the ratio derived is 2.4 respectively which could be an indication of the rapid
expansion of the biopharmaceutical company yet also reassure investors that despite a slowing in
the company over the past year Pfizer is still a strong contender and dose not respond drastically
to having a slower financial periods and can still be relied on to pay off quick debt. (David,
2014) Knowing the value of the current and quick ratios are useful in understanding how a
company is performing financially at the given moment, but it is equally important to understand
a ratio for the long term and its implications it may have on a company such as Pfizer later on

25. 24Neeck
down the line. A useful predictor for this type information is the long debt to equity ratio which
according to David is the balance of debt to equity and the long term capital structure. (David,
2014) Pfizer’s current ratio for long term debt to equity is 1.06 which is a bit high, but it is not a
cause for concern as Pfizer is considered one of the stronger biopharmaceutical companies on the
market and in the Annual Review CEO Ian Read mentioned in his letter to the stakeholders
mentioned several longer tern projects such as further research into rare diseases, biosimilar, and
new immuno-therapy cancer drugs, all which require investment and borrowing from lenders in
order to fund the research with the best researchers and the best facilities in order to create an
effective drug in a reasonable amount of time. (Annual Review 2014, 2015) Therefore, having a
higher long term debt is not concerning at this point as long as the research for these new drugs
are underway and the result is a drug that is approved by the FDA and offers consumers new and
innovative healthcare drugs to help improve various healthcare conditions and provide Pfizer
with stronger financial ratios from year to year.
While financial ratios are important indicator for how well a company is performing it is
also important to note that ability to look beyond numbers and identify how those numbers came
to be based on strengths and weaknesses within the company is also of equal importance. One of
the many assessments that can be conducted to identify such information is through the use of a
SWOT analysis. A SWOT analysis lists a company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats. Creating a visual template with these four indications can help better direct a company’s
focus by showing areas of improvement, areas of new potential growth, areas in which the
company is already exceling, and identifying possible gains from competitors in the form of
threats. A large company such as Pfizer relies on matrices such as the SWOT analysis to aid in
the decision making process as well as identify the possible implications for the decisions that

26. 25Neeck
are either currently being made or will be made based off of the matrix created. Currently, Pfizer
has several strengths in which Pfizer can continue to foster and outperform their competition.
One such strength that Pfizer which include strong top sellers on the drug market such as Lyrica
and Viagra which are top sellers for the company and continue to bring high revenue results for
the past several years. Although the patent on these drugs will eventually end currently the
company is reaping the benefits from these successful drugs. (Pfizer's Show of Strength , 2004)
Adding to the strength of strong presence of their current drugs on the market, Pfizer’s strength
also lies in its sheer size. Pfizer has reached many different parts of the globe, originating in the
United States, but has expanded to other parts of the globe including Latin America and Canada.
A strong global presence has allowed for Pfizer to market new products in various markets. The
size of Pfizer also lends itself to having the availability of large cash supply which in turn has
provided Pfizer the opportunity to focus much of this cash revenue on research and development
of new drugs for various diseases such as cancer and chronic pain. (Annual Review 2014, 2015)
While Pfizer does possess some impressive strength that does not mean that the company is
lacking weakness. There are several weaknesses that should be considered as areas of increased
concern over the coming years. One of the most important weaknesses that Pfizer or any
biopharmaceutical company faces is the ending of a patent. Pfizer has experienced some
financial pains in recent years as Lipitor and Celebrex joined the list of newly available generics
on the market. The ending of patent means that companies like Pfizer will no longer enjoy the
security of receiving income from a given drug as most patients prefer generic alternatives due to
price forcing the company to constantly develop new drugs to enter the market which can be a
costly venture. Adding to weaknesses that Pfizer is experiencing is the limitation of co-marking
agreements which can limit Pfizer’s ability to conduct business in other markets. (Pfizer Inc,

27. 26Neeck
2001) An example of co-marketing can be found in the Annual Review of the company, a new
partnership on an anticoagulant drug called Eliquis with Bristol-Myers Squibb has recently
entered the market within the past year. Although Pfizer will be able to collect on the success of
this drug, being in co-marketing situation can limit the amount of influcene Pfizer has over the
marketing and distrubtion of the product which can lead to not being able to recoup finances lost
in the research and development of the drug as profits must be shared and not always equally.
(Annual Review 2014, 2015) Moving forward, there are many opportunities available to Pfizer
that either have yet to be entered or could be expounded upon. Again, the Annual Review
mentions new headway into vaccines which Pfizer has recently been successful with the launch
of Prevnar 13 a vaccine to prevent pneumonia and diphtheria in patients over 50 years of age has
spurred research and development of other vaccines including Trumenba which helps prevent
Meningitis B are underway and preparing for launch in the pharmaceutical marketplace. (Annual
Review 2014, 2015) Other areas of increased opportunity for Pfizer include immuno-oncology
drugs working with Merck to develop therapies using T-Cells and iTeos to fight cancer cells is a
new age in an attempt to combat cancer. Other opportunities also include the leap into a new area
of pharmaceuticals called bio-similars which set to improve already existing drugs particularly
those used for cancer and Pfizer predicts to begin this introduction of bio-similars by 2020.
(Annual Review 2014, 2015) While there are many opportunities for Pfizer to innovate and
improve over the next decade there are also threats which can make current opportunities and
strengths unavailable if these threats are not taken seriously. One threat that is currently plaguing
Pfizer is the presence of counterfeiting drugs and importations of counterfeit or cheaper drugs
from other countries. This threat not only threatens Pfizer, but consumers as well as these
counterfeit drugs are not deemed safe by the FDA as they are not produced under strict

28. 27Neeck
regulations which can be potentially deadly to those who choose to purchase these drugs over
those provided in a pharmacy setting. These counterfeit drugs could also damage the reputation
and credibility of Pfizer should a negative effect happen if these drugs are consumed.
(Counterfeiting & Importation, 2015) Other threats that should be considered and analyzed are
the threat of competitors releasing drugs before Pfizer. Currently, pharmaceutical company
Bristol-Meyers Squibb has currently two immuno-oncology drugs that are now marketed and
development and are geared towards helping combat metastic melanoma, while Pfizer is still in
research and development. (In the Pipeline, 2015) Another threat to Pfizer’s success includes
cutbacks made in 2008. Although, this may not show its effects now in 2015 , but it could quite
possibly show its effects in the coming years as Pfizer concentrates more on research and
development and having less of a workforce may slow development of new drugs, which is
evident in Leixnering article reporting that “The layoffs, which amount to about 10 percent of
Pfizer's total workforce, will take place by the end of 2008, it said. The company will also close
production sites in the US and Germany -- reducing its manufacturing plants from 93 to 48 -- as
well as shut down research centers in Japan and France.” (Leixnering, 2007) This cut in
workforce and closing of plants especially in foreign markets loses workforce and presence in
overseas markets which could make marketing new future drugs much more difficult than if an
existing plant was already visible in the target market. Below is a visual example of the SWOT
analysis conducted for the Pfizer.

29. 28Neeck
SWOT matrices are an excellent indicators of how well a company is performing,
however, one type of matrix is not enough. Therefore it is strongly encouraged to use multiple
matrices to understand a more intricate look of how well a company is performing and what
changes could be made to change its current status. One type of matrix to consider is the Boston
Consulting Group matrix (BCG). The BCG is uses market share and growth rate data
surrounding the products of a company or in Pfizer’s case types of drugs available. (Arline,
2015) The matrix itself is split into four quadrants labeled in general stars, questions, cows, and
dogs respectively. Stars are generally labeled as those products that are considered to have the
highest market share and require the most amounts of cash in order to create these products with
high market share. (Arline, 2015) The next quadrant is traditionally labeled as questions or
question marks and these are products that have high growth capabilities, but may consume a
large amount of cash and are not yet bringing in a high rate of return. The author does suggest
that these questions could turn into stars if the proper care is taken foster these products and
Pfizer Swot Analysis
Oppertunities
1.Vaccines
2.Immuno-Oncology
Threats
1.Cut-Backs
2.Competiton Durg Relalse
Counterfieting
1:1 Cut backs could affec the size
ofthe company makeit less
competitive andhave less cash
flow
1:1 Large Cash Flow canhelp
develop morevaccines
Strengths
1. Size
2. Cash Flow
3. Strong Drug Presence
Weakness
1. Co-Marketing
2. Ending ofPatents
1:2 Co-Marketing could mean
other drug compnaies have the
right to the patent
2:2 Ending ofpatents increases
the liklihood ofcounterfieting

30. 29Neeck
promote them successfully. (Arline, 2015) The third quadrant is represented of the cash cow
which consists of steady products that generate revenue, but do not consume too much cash in
the process. The products in this category however, are generalized as low market growth
products and unlike questions or question mark products do not turn into stars. The last quadrant
reflects those products as dogs which are attributed to products that are low market share and low
returns. Arline says that most of these are scraping by just breaking even and are considered by
business executives and accountants as possible money pits. (Arline, 2015) Using this matrix
style in particular can be beneficial to determine the revenue of various specific drugs produced
by Pfizer as well as vaccines. Beginning with stars Pfizer has several outstanding drugs available
one the market that creates large amounts of revenue and have high market share. Three drugs
that have generated high revenue include Lyrica, Inylta, and Xalkori which generated $397
million dollars in revenue. (Pfizer, 2014) However, in the Annual Review Lyrica was reported
to have generated $5,168 million in revenue market share. (Annual Review 2014, 2015) Each of
these drugs are useful stars for Pfizer as each are designed to treat different various health issues
ranging from never pain to cancer and therefore having a diversified top selling drug list can
ensure that the company will be highly likely to obtain revenues in lieu having several products
to treat the same medical condition. Continual research into finding drugs that treat medical
conditions successfully and are also well known either because there is a strong lay medical
knowledge of conditions such as blood, pressure, diabetes, and cancer as well as through
marketing such as commercials or brochures. Although the guarantee that every product that
makes it through the FDA approvals will be a star is slim and therefore the Pfizer Company
should therefore continue to obtain long standing patents and increase research and development
in order to increase the chances of their product becoming a star product. Following stars,

31. 30Neeck
questions or question products that could potential alter the market for Pfizer and could become
star products include several items in their consumer health range which houses several well
know products, Centrum Vitamin line and Nexium OTC. Each of these products has continued to
gain notice of both consumers and Pfizer executives alike. The over the counter version of the
well-known pharmaceutical drug Nexium was launched in the United States and several other
countries in foreign markets. Additionally, Centrum sold worldwide in 86 counties and an
additional 16 countries by the end of 2016. (Annual Review 2014, 2015) Although these
question products have been successful for Pfizer their future in the Company and as they rate to
future competition products is unknown, but further marketing and pricing will be essential for
the continued success of these two products as both can be used to treat and/or prevent further,
more expensive medical issues. Adding to the questions quadrant the move into biosimilar will
be a product of question as this is a new market for this company and many products are
underway yet none are available for market just yet. Biosimilars are drugs closely related to
original biological drug, but have a slightly different makeup yet work just as well. Currently,
Pfizer is working to create more affordable medicines in the form of biosimilars for medical
fields including endocrinology, neurology, immunology, oncology, and hematology. (Biologics
and Biosimilars, 2015) Despite there not being any products available there is a high probability
that these products have the potential to be successful and if not able to work as biosimilars the
research put into these products could also be used for other projects that are occurring within the
Pfizer Company. Moving forward to the third quadrant, cash cows, Pfizer has a group of
products that fit this description as provided by Arline is the vaccine program. Top vaccine
Prevnar 13 has become a success for Pfizer and research and development for other vaccines
such as the Meningitis B vaccine Trumemba. Prevnar 13 was one of the first drugs of its kind to

32. 31Neeck
fight against valent 13 pneumococcal strains and in 2012 generated $4.2 billion in revenue.
(Bryant, 2013) Although, the revenue for vaccines is higher the reason for not making this
product a star in the BCG matrix because most vaccines are only given a few times per lifetime
whereas other medications for chronic conditions are taken frequently over a long period of time,
therefore despite high revenues these vaccines cannot be guaranteed to be used regularly, but are
frequent enough to garner a portion of high market share. Pfizer then should continue research
and development into vaccines as there is still many conditions scientist, medical professionals,
and pharmaceutical industries are attempting to eradicate for better health across the globe and so
far Pfizer has proven that this portion of pharmaceuticals can be profitable and should continue
to focus a portion of research and development funding to vaccines. The final quadrant of the
BCG matrix, dogs has been useful in identifying products that are no longer generating enough
revenue for Pfizer and/or losing patent exclusivity rights soon or have lost it in other countries.
There are several drugs that have recently lost their exclusivity recently such as Detrol and
Detrol LA which control overactive bladder recently lost exclusivity in Europe in 2012 and the
United States in 2014 and therefore sales have dropped dramatically due to recent generic
releases. Conversely, Viagra was a number one selling drug for many years, but the patent for
Viagra is set to expire in by the end of the decade and the preparation for the end exclusivity has
made Viagra a less than desirable drug to have on the market in the eyes of Pfizer as it will no
longer generate the accustomed revenue due to the pending generic release as well as other
cheaper alternatives such as Cialis or Levitra. One of the benefits of understanding what products
are dogs in the Pfizer drug market can help the Company understand when to expect decreased
revenues and when to focus on other upcoming drugs or the creation of new and innovative
marketing techniques to promote awareness for other Pfizer products. In preparing for the future

33. 32Neeck
Pfizer has several options to deal with these dogs. Pfizer can release new versions of these drugs,
such as lower dose forms, or creating over the counter equivalents. Both of these tactics can help
Pfizer retain exclusivity of their product as well as offering more options to patients in the
management of their health. Below is a visual of the BCG Matrix conducted for Pfizer.
The BCG Matrix is an excellent representation of how well products are doing in the market
compared to other drugs offered by competitors or if they’re the first in their class, how are
consumers responding to this new type of therapy and are physicians writing for it frequently and
other factors that are considered in this type of matrix. However, if a company prefers an
approach similar to the SWOT analysis ,but is looking for more in-depth analysis then the
SPACE Matrix is a common tool to help a large company such as Pfizer analyze the type of
market position they have at their current state. The SPACE matrix looks into four variables
which are split equally between external and internal factors. The four factors in which
information will be divided is split between financial strength, competitive advantage,
environmental stability, and industry strength. (The Strategic Position and Action Evaluation
(SPACE) Matrix, 2015) After the factors for each area have been identified and given a weighted
Lyrica
Inlyta
Xalkori
Prevnar13
Trumemba
Centrum
Nexium
Bio-Similars
Viagra
Detrol/LA
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
01234567
Stars
Cash
cows
Questions
Dogs

34. 33Neeck
score, averages are taken and a line is plotted. The direction of the line plotted can then be
associated by an assigned quadrant based the x and y axis points, a line can either be associated
as the company taking an aggressive position, competitive, conservative, or defensive position
within the current market. (The Strategic Position and Action Evaluation (SPACE) Matrix, 2015)
Looking first internally at the financial strength of Pfizer, the rate of return is an accurate
indicator of how well a company is performing. The rate of return is defined as in short gain or
losses over a given period of time and the result is written in the form of a percentage. (Rate of
Return, 2015) Using the rate of return, it was reported in March 2015 that Pfizer’s rate of return
is 6.22%, which according to the history of return rates for Pfizer is below their average rate of
9.66%. (Pfizer's ROI per Quarter, 2015) Some of the possible causes for the lowered rate of
return can be attributed to approaching patent expirations as well as no new drugs at the end of
the pipeline, but despite these factors Pfizer is still ranked fourth based on their rate of return
score which could signify the strength of the company holds a tremendous amount of weight as
well as a general lull in the pharmaceutical industry for new product releases. (Pfizer's ROI per
Quarter, 2015) Not only do returns on investments indicate the financial stability of a company,
but this is not the only factor that should be considered when identifying how stable a company
is, cash flow or cash flow statements are also widely used indicators to identify how well a
company is performing. In 2014, the operating net cash flow for Pfizer was reported as $16.88
billion whereas Novartis reported $12.72 billion and Bristol-Myers Squibb $3.15 billion. (Pfizer,
2015) Large operating cash flows can allow for a pharmaceutical company such as Pfizer the
opportunity to use more funding for research and development which is the driving force of all
pharmaceutical companies and for investors strong or large cash flows are good indicators of
financial stability. Adding to financial stability is the amount of debt and liquidity a company

35. 34Neeck
carries which can add to the well-rounded view of Pfizer’s overall financial stability. In 2015,
Pfizer currently carries a debt amount of roughly 34% which is higher than the traditional debt
amount carried in the past, however, the lack of new products and the need for more research and
development to create new drugs have added the growing increase of debt. (Pfizer Inc, 2015)
Despite a higher amount of debt, this debt can be attributed to what many accountants consider
as good debt and needed debt to be more successful in the future. Liquidity is also essential for a
complete financial stability analysis. Liquidity ratios such as current and quick ratios are those
most often used to identify the liquidity of a company. In previous sections the liquidity ratios
were reported as 2.66 and 2.4 respectively indicating a strong financial standing as most ratios
are deemed acceptable between 1.5 and 3. (Pfizer Company Profile, 2015) Adding to the
financial stability to understand the internal strengths and weaknesses of Pfizer is to also evaluate
the competitive advantage of the company which is promoted from within. The first method of
evaluation to determine competitive strategy is to identify market share, and the strength of a
Pfizer’s market share. Currently the market share or market cap for Pfizer is $211.27 billion with
roughly 73,000 employees whereas competitor Novartis reported a market share of $250 billion,
but with 120,000 employees nearly doubles that of Pfizer. (Pfizer inc-direct competitor , 2015)
Although Pfizer is not at the top of the market share it is still competitive with their competitors
despite the smaller employee population. In addition to the market share results of how Pfizer
compares to others, the life cycle of creating a new drug is important to bear in mind. On average
it takes roughly 12 years for a drug to go from an idea in a lab to the patient’s prescription bottle,
a much longer time than products of other industries. (Fact Sheet New Drug Developemt
Process, 2015) Despite the long product lifecycle timeline, Pfizer is at an advantage despite
being a victim of the 12 year life cycle as all pharmaceutical companies are subject to the same

36. 35Neeck
timeline so competition from this point of view is much more equal. Product life cycles may
equalize Pfizer’s competitive advantage over other pharmaceutical companies, but customer
loyalty can make a difference in revenues, recognition of product, and use of product. Positive
feedback regarding a specific drug and continual use of a specific drug can help improve
competitive advantage over other pharmaceutical companies if patient feels that a given product
is better than all others. In 2004, researcher Pincus conducted a double blind study regarding
patient preference for placebos, Tylenol, or Celebrex (a Pfizer product) for treating knee or hip
osteoarthritis. The study covered a six week period of time and randomized the treatment
between the three drugs mentioned above and patient’s pain was determined through a visual
pain type analogue that measured patient preference between two given drugs. (Pincus, 2004)
The results of the study Pincus concluded that patients reported Celebrex more efficacious in
treating pain associated osteoarthritis than Tylenol or a placebo. (Pincus, 2004) Creating drugs
with high efficacies over other traditional products is powerful indicator that drugs such as
Celebrex offered by Pfizer generate brand loyalty because the products offered are known to
work. Most consumers purchase products because they believe the product works better than
other options available and this idea can be applied to drugs as well. If a patient knows that a
drug has worked for them successfully in the past, most are very reluctant to switch to other
alternatives offered by other pharmaceutical companies. Generating high quality products in
response to consumer needs can help improve or create brand loyalty. Therefore both brand
loyalty and highly effective products are both tools Pfizer should harness to gain competitive
advantage from an internal standpoint.
Moving to the external factors that affect a company such as Pfizer, industry strength can
have a monumental effect on how well the company performs. One such external influence is

37. 36Neeck
growth potential. Growth potential is an important external factor is important because having
the ability for growth potential can increase interest the potential amount of future investors by
discussing future events in which the Pfizer Company hopes to bring to fruition, as wells offer
stakeholders the opportunity to identify future opportunities for return on investments. In March
2008 Pfizer released an article highlighting areas of potential growth for the company for the
next decade, and what investors, potential investors, and consumers could expect to see from the
company by 2020. Pfizer reported that in terms or research and development there were going to
be several main areas of focus which included 20 products entering phase 3 testing which
include drugs for cancer, pain, and diabetes. Adding these products going through the final phase
of testing is to increase the number of projects that make it to phase 3 testing which could more
drugs in the pipeline for Pfizer over the coming years. (Pfizer Presents New Opportunities for
Global Growth , 2008) In addition to increased research and development in the future Pfizer
also hopes to tap into the new emerging markets such as the Asian pharmaceutical market, by
becoming an emerging leader in the area by using local sources to identify areas of need and
appropriate methods for marketing towards this population as well as increasing cancer research
in Asia which is incentive for any stakeholder and potential investor as the Asian market has
been slightly elusive for American pharmaceutical companies. (Pfizer Presents New
Opportunities for Global Growth , 2008) As well as growth potential as means of identifying
industry strength , the ease of market access can also be telling external indicator of how well a
company functions. As mentioned in the potential growth section, moving into China is a goal
for many bio-pharmaceutical companies and the ease at which Pfizer can gain market access is
very important. Preparing for the loss in exclusivity for some of its top products Pfizer has
decided to gain market access in China, to start Pfizer has allocated $150 million and hired 500

38. 37Neeck
new employees to help gain access to China before other pharmaceutical companies.
Additionally, Pfizer has also teamed up with a local Chinese pharmaceutical company called
Shanghai Pharma in hopes of creating a joint venture, which would in turn be a more successful
business strategy than attempting a solo venture. (Pfizer Inc, 2012) Adding to the need to expand
into new markets and the ease at which a company can perform this task, also is the importance
of technology, and for a biopharmaceutical company harnessing technology is very important. In
2014, Pfizer has begun to move into a new technology sector that has recently become available
for pharmaceuticals called gene therapy. Pfizer has decided to create a new area research for its
company to begin to use the new gene therapy models with the help of a London gene therapy
expert. The first project that Pfizer will be tackling is to help treat hemophilia B. (Hirschler,
Pfizer bets on gene therapy as technology comes of age, 2014) Gene therapy has been a part of
scientific research for a number of years, but it has been plagued by various issues, but have
recently been solved by scientist, and according to Mikael Dolsten “The fundamental
understanding of the biology of hereditary rare diseases, coupled with advances in the
technology to harness disarmed viruses as gene delivery vehicles, provide a ripe opportunity to
investigate the next wave of potential life-changing therapies for patients.” (Hirschler, Pfizer bets
on gene therapy as technology comes of age, 2014) This new technology, and Pfizer’s
cooperation with a leading expert could prove to be a pivotal external factor for demonstrating
industry strength. Finally, a fourth indicator for understanding a company’s industry strength is
productivity. Productivity is key for pharmaceutical companies, because the ability to turn out
projects and create out revenue from projects that make it to the final stage of production and
public consumption. One of the solutions Pfizer took to increase their productivity was quite
different to traditional methods. A traditional method that many pharmaceutical companies

39. 38Neeck
follow is to acquire smaller pharmaceutical companies which can be good for creating diversity
,but it could be difficult to coordinate all of the new acquisition. (Owens, 2007) Therefore, in
order to avoid this Pfizer decided that instead of increasing its size it decided to downsize in
order to become more productive by allowing the Company to focus on projects that they feel are
going to be more beneficial and increase revenue versus having a diverse setup , but do not
produce products on consistent basis that are representative of that diversity. Despite being a
smaller company employee wise compared to other large pharmaceutical companies, but it has
not reflected negatively as the Annual Review reported Pfizer having an end of year revenue as $
49 million. (Annual Review 2014, 2015) Therefore, the ability to generate productivity regarding
company size or circumstance is a valid indicator for how well a company performs and its
industry strength. Second classifications of external factors that determine how well a company
performs include environmental stability the first subcategory of which is price range. Creating a
pricing range is a very important factor in having a successful product. There are various factors
that affect the pricing of products and as Jean-Michel Halfon, the General Manager of Emerging
Markets at Pfizer. Some of the strategies mentioned by Halfon include socioeconomic and Pfizer
has created several programs to help the underprivileged receive the proper care that they need,
disease areas such as cancer or antibiotic which may affect pricing based amount of research
debt and how many consumers need these particular drugs, and viable margins which include
marketing and administration costs. (Halfon, 2010) All of these strategies affect the pricing of
the product and may contribute to the environmental stability if a competitor has a similar
product on the market. Adding to pricing of products , competitive pressure is also a contributing
external factor to a company’s environmental stability. The main competitive pressure Pfizer is
facing is the competitive pressure coming from generics. A manner in which to combat this

40. 39Neeck
outside pressure, Pfizer has chosen to enter various licensing deals so as to not loose full
exclusivity. (Team, 2015) Other competitive pressures that exist include the need to be
constantly innovative. Astra Zeneca has been one of the main contenders in harnessing the
cancer drug market, and in order to become more competitive in the oncology market Pfizer has
decided to collaborate with a French company Cellectis to work on developing cancer drugs
which work with leveraging the immune system against the cancer cells. (Team, 2015)
Developing other strategies to help alleviate some of the competitive pressures in unique and
successful ways are some of the important characteristics in obtaining high level of
environmental stability. A further example of a determining factor of environmental stability
includes risk. Risk can manifest itself in several fashions, either financial, global, or in Pfizer’s
case the risk associated with its products. Pharmaceutical drugs carry with them a great deal of
risk and much research and development is needed to ensure that the benefit strongly outweighs
the risk. One of Pfizer’s products that were associated with increased risk was Zoloft, an
antidepressant medication thought to contribute to increased number of birth defects. In April
2015, Pfizer won an important victory as it was cleared of any liability in the case of Peasante v.
Pfizer who began fighting Pfizer in 2012 sighting that her baby was born with a congenital heart
defect which she claims happened because she was taking Zoloft while pregnant. However,
Pfizer sought advice from the American Heart Association regarding if there were indeed any
links to Zoloft and heart defeats ,but no such link has been found. Winning in the early stage of
the court case has proven that the product produced by Pfizer is still a safe product and should be
seen as an at risk drug, thereby creating an increased outlook on Pfizer’s environmental stability.
Despite Pfizer being a strong pharmaceutical company, there is a threat to its environmental
stability which is patent expiration. The loss of patents plagues every pharmaceutical company

41. 40Neeck
and Pfizer is no exception. Within the past several years Pfizer has lost exclusivity to some of its
major drugs including Lipitor for cholesterol. Although Pfizer performed well fiscally the
company is still below where it has been in the past several years. Lorenzetti reported in Fortune
earlier this year that “Pfizer has been working on a series of new products that could replace
diminishing sales of no-longer-patent-protected medicines. However, the drug maker has yet to
come up with a blockbuster to replace declining sales of Lipitor and Celebrex, which fell 6% and
31%, respectively, worldwide last year.” (Lorenzetti, 2015) Therefore, this could be an area of
concern for Pfizer in the coming years and it may decrease some the environmental stability that
Pfizer has been privy too in the past, but this could be the needed pressure for the Company to
focus on creating new drugs and dominating the market again in a few years’ time. Below is a
visual representation of the SPACE Matric created for Pfizer.
The visual representation as shown demonstrates Pfizer’s current position in the market and is
representative of the type of strategy the company is currently using based on an analysis of the
Financial Strengths Industry Strength
Return on investments 3 Growth Potential 6
Cash Flow 5 Ease of Entrance 3
Debt 4 Technology 5
Liquidity 3 Productivity 4
Competitive Advantage Environmental Stability
Market Share -5 Pricing -2
Product Lifecycle -2 Competitive Pressure -5
Customer Loyalty -4 Risk -2
Quality of Product -3 Patent Expiration -6
x= -3+4.5 1.5
y= 8.2-3.7 4.5

42. 41Neeck
various subunits associated with the four quadrants. The ranking of each subunit is based on
interpretation of how much emphasis the company is perceived to place on each subunit. Based
on interpretation Pfizer appears to be taking an aggressive strategy approach. This interpretation
is relativity accurate as Pfizer has reduced its number of employees in order to reduce reckless
spending and reroute extra revenue towards research and development. The increase in research
and development is in response to Pfizer’s approaching deadline for patents expiring and the
need to put more drugs in the pipeline. Also, an aggressive stance is important strategy to have
within the pharmaceutical market as many of the pharmaceutical giants are working tirelessly
against one another to produce a new drug which is either using new technology such as gene
therapy mentioned previously or developing a better version of drugs that already exist.
Therefore, if a bio-pharmaceutical is not taking an aggressive stance then it is more likely than
not that these companies will not survive against larger institutions and run the risk of being
acquired by a larger pharmaceutical company or being pushed aside due under development,
Pfizer however has not fallen victim to this possible outcome because its ability to innovate and
form new relationships with other companies and working on new drugs together which helps
ensure valuable revenue being generated which can then be re-dispersed into single projects as
well as pay dividends to stakeholders who also contribute to funding of new drugs.
While the matrices mentioned previously are key to understanding how external and
internal factors working together affect the type of strategy, a company like Pfizer is currently
using in response to these factors. Currently, Forbes contributor John LaMattina refers to Pfizer
as ‘The Shark That Can’t Stop Feeding’ in his review of the current strategy and this description
of Pfizer is also supported by the SPACE matrix which indicated that Pfizer is taking a very
aggressive approach in the market. LaMattina describes how previous philosophies of CEOs of

43. 42Neeck
Pfizer viewed mergers as a sign of weakness, but today many of CEOs of pharmaceutical
companies including current Pfizer CEO Ian Read view mergers in a very different manner.
Many mergers are view as a necessity as nearly 30% of revenue for pharmaceutical companies
is derived from outside sources. (LaMattina, 2014) One of the merger proposals that was on
track to happen in 2015 came to a halt in April of this year when the merger between Astra
Zeneca and Pfizer fell through and as a result the potential for new revenue and the opportunity
to be taxed by the U.K. instead of the U.S. was no more. Despite this setback for Pfizer the
Annual Review did mention other mergers occurring later in 2015 which will include a merger
with a company called Hospira, to help developed injectable or infusion drugs , as well as,
continual work on the bio-similars project created by Pfizer. (Annual Review 2014, 2015) While
a majority of Pfizer’s strategy is centered around mergers and increased focus on R&D has
predetermined these strategies take on an aggressive role has by all accounts made a Pfizer a
successful bio-pharmaceutical company for the moment, but this strategy will not serve as model
of best fit for the future.
There are many other types of strategies that could work better for Pfizer or could be
strategic alternatives to help guide them in the future. One of the strategies that Pfizer may want
to consider using is the open innovation model. The open innovation model is a very different
from traditional strategies as Chesbrough describes this strategic model as ““The use of
purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the
markets for external use of innovation, respectively…the antithesis of the traditional vertical
integration approach where internal R&D activities lead to internally developed products that are
then distributed by the firm.” (Chesbrough, 2011) This type of strategic model helps to manage
in the flow of knowledge in and out of Pfizer. This type of model is most closely associated with

44. 43Neeck
minimizing competition or gaining a foothold on competitive advantage through meaningful
partnerships. In the Annual Review, Pfizer mentioned their current partnership with Bristol-
Myers Squibb to create the anticoagulant drug Eliquis which helps treat a number of issues
which require the use of an anticoagulant. Forming partnerships with other pharmaceutical
companies could help increase the amount of knowledge that is available in regards to what
scientist currently know about given drugs or new types of drug therapies and collaborating with
other pharmaceutical could increase that rate which drugs make it through the pipeline. Working
together with other companies can help reduce some of the aggressive completion and create a
culture that shared knowledge is better than no knowledge. Other added benefits of using an
open innovation model includes the increased feasibility to penetrate a new market by having a
strong partnership either with a local company or another large pharmaceutical company that
have existing knowledge of the market in which Pfizer may want to enter such as Asia.
(Gassmann, 2010) However, one of the weaknesses of this model does include the sharing of
profits with another company reducing the amount of revenue Pfizer could have achieved it had
created a product on its own. Other possible weaknesses from using this business model include
the negotiation of the partnership which may or may not be as favorable for Pfizer, which despite
their notoriety for being a top bio-pharmaceutical company they are much smaller than other
companies of equal standard which could affect the outcome of the agreement. Adding to this
weakness could also be challenges associated with the dissolution of the agreement and which
company would retain exclusivity rights and if Pfizer were to not retain exclusivity rights would

45. 44Neeck
lose out on future revenue and lost opportunities to repay debt on research and development.
(Above is a visual representation of the Open Innovation Model)
Aside from the Open Innovation Model, a secondary strategy model that could beneficial
to Pfizer is the Blue Ocean Strategy. Blue Ocean Strategy was originally developed out of the
Harvard Business School by professors Kim and Mauborgne that works to create new markets or
‘blue oceans’ in which these markets are considered uncontested as Van Assen writes. (Assen,
2009) This type of strategy is different from what most companies practice as many are involved
in red ocean markets where there is much competition, exploitation of demand, and constant
tradeoffs for market value and costs. The goal then is to create a blue ocean for the company by
developing products or ideas in which competition is deemed irrelevant because the market
being entered is untouched all the while creating a new demand. (Assen, 2009) This type of
strategy focuses on organization and beating out competition, which Pfizer as a smaller company
should be interested in doing given the fact that many of its products are still several years away
before entering the market. Blue Ocean Strategy focuses more on value than competitors. For
instance many consumers would rather have a cure for disease rather than a product that simply
manages their condition, speaking in pharmaceutical terms that are, therefore Pfizer needs to
Early stages
• Shared knowledge
• Global access
• Increased R&D
Middle
Stages
• Complications of
Agreement
• Exclusivity Rights
Final
Stage
Successful
Market Launch
of Product

46. 45Neeck
understand where patients/consumers place value. Many consumers place high value on
prevention. Prevention for many is found in vaccines. While Pfizer has already produced a
successful pneumonia vaccine and a Meningitis B in the making, more should be done to tap into
how to create more vaccines for more diseases or find vaccine alternatives through further
exploration into gene therapy. Putting this type of strategy into a form Pfizer can use occurs
using six principles. The first principle is to identify market limits and where blue oceans may lie
and how to limit risk while exploring these potential oceans such as unexplored areas of the
pharmaceutical industry or new ways in which to price medication. The second principle
encourages to look at the big picture of what the ocean may look like and the risks involved on
planning how to get there. The third principle is similar to the first principle which is to look
beyond current demands and develop ideas or products that are not yet in demand. The fourth
principle requires developing an effective model to ensure success. Next, overcoming internal
hurdles that may affect the result or probability of creating a successful blue ocean. Lastly, is
putting the idea or product into motion using resources such as employees and technology and
reduce risk while accomplishing. (Assen, 2009) Successfully managing through these six
principals could help ensure a better future for Pfizer by encouraging new and innovative ideas
beyond the parameters that have already been set, creating new demand when it has yet to
realized.
The third and final suggested strategy for Pfizer is called Sig Sigma. Six Sigma is a
common strategy that many companies have begun to use this type of strategy with great effects.
Six Sigma originated with the Japanese company, Motorola to help develop a method to handle
the pressure of competition by choosing to focus on quality improvement as well as financial
improvement. (Assen, 2009) Six Sigma works by applying the five steps commonly referred to

47. 46Neeck
as DMAIC. The first step of the Six Sigma process is Define, this step refers to identifying which
steps require improvement and the goals associated with this improvement. The next step is
Measure which collects data to evaluate and use for future comparisons. Next is the Analyze to
differentiate between the current and future stage. Fourthly, is the Improvement phase which the
process is implemented and then modified based on need. The final stage is called the Control
which is the final formulized and control idea put into place as a permanent fixture for how to
maintained improved performance. (Assen, 2009) One area of improvement that Pfizer could
implement Six Sigma is to create more effective and less costly ways to develop medicine
through reach and development or pricing costs generated towards patients as some drugs such
as Viagra prepare to go generic offering incentives for patients to remain with the brand name is
key to continuing to increase revenue from year to year.
Reviewing the three suggestions, the strategy in which Pfizer should implement first is
the Open Innovation Model as this strategy would be the most beneficial for Pfizer at the
moment because it will allow the company to increases their research and development
availability and funding by forming a partnership with another pharmaceutical company, which
Pfizer has done with one of their newer drugs Eliquis, however the dissolution of the merger
talks with Astra Zeneca earlier this year should push Pfizer towards creating more partnerships
with the Open Innovation Model as this would encourage a safer business practice. Partnerships
offer a safer business practice because it allows for each company for a set period of time take
advantage of increased access to revenue and research without the responsibility of acquiring
another company, sorting out employees, identifying any divisions which might need
improvement and could take many months to rectify as well funds to help promote these changes
as well as funding to purchase another company. Using the Open Innovation Model, therefore

48. 47Neeck
can help Pfizer achieve the same goal that the Company has, which would allow it to further
research and development and turning out highly effective drugs that the consumers and
healthcare professionals are looking for currently as Pfizer’s current issue is the need to create
new drugs to replace many of their big blockbuster drugs have gone to generic or soon to go
generic as this strategy will be most helpful in creating faster drug turn around. Next in ranking
of priority strategies that could also be applied to the Open Innovation Model is Six Sigma. Six
Sigma could be a helpful strategy as Six Sigma is used to help identify areas of improvement,
develop manners in which to improve the area, and also establish a system of continuity to
continue the implemented plan. Sig Sigma could be a strategy solution implemented as a
secondary course of action because while Six Sigma may help improve problems occurring
within Pfizer, such as identifying manners in which to speed up research for drug creation, it may
require Open Innovation beforehand to place Pfizer in a situation in which the proposed ideas
suggested by Six Sigma experts which may not have been possible if a partnership had not been
made. Therefore, Six Sigma is a useful strategy, but it is possible that the ability of its
effectiveness may be contingent on another strategy occurring first, before Six Sigma could be
used to its full potential to help Pfizer harness better structure, partnership relations, or quicker
research and development opportunities and success. The last strategy that should be
implemented then is the Blue Ocean Strategy is it should be attempted after Pfizer has
established a strong pipeline of products through the use of the two previous strategies. The Blue
Ocean Strategy can be best used once a company is ready to look beyond what the current
market has, and create new experiences and new needs for consumers, but this ability to move
into the Blue Ocean cannot happen unless sound funding and sound practices to solve problems
are in place before venturing into a new untouched market. The ability to use this strategy can

49. 48Neeck
demonstrate how well a company is performing by their ability to move other markets. Using
Blue Ocean can help diversify Pfizer and tap into new markets of patient need and patient care,
and moving into an environment where there is no competition allows for innovation to happen
organically and not from the threat of another company possibly out pacing Pfizer to the finish
line. In the Blue Ocean Strategy Pfizer is required to think more abstractly, which could be
difficult for a company who relies on science, regulations, and barriers normally associated with
the Pharmaceutical industry. Blue Ocean encourages focus on driving down costs, identifying
where a possible demand might be, and developing a strategy. While there is no set blue print for
how to exactly carry out this strategy, as it is mostly abstract, it can help companies like Pfizer to
think differently about its current focus. However, this strategy has not been considered to be the
most important of three because in order to think differently, it is important to know how others
think before moving into an unknown world. Using the previously mentioned strategies
beforehand will allow Pfizer to position itself into an area of higher market share by reducing
excessive competition through various well thought out partnerships while also solving internal
disabilities that could stifle current or future partnerships as well as stifle the ability to innovate
and think abstractly in Blue Ocean terms. Using these alternative strategies in this particular
order could help achieve greater market success by moving to embrace the need to work together
with other companies, the need to have a strong internal organization, and finally the ability to
think differently. Pfizer as a large pharmaceutical company needs to find ways in which to
remain one of the leading bio-pharmaceutical companies and to do so it is best advised to begin
by implementing these strategies in order to plan for a future a greater healthcare needs both
locally and globally.