download-our-whitepaperthe-n

About Reverse Logistics Today

Your source for news and insight on the Reverse Logistics & Aftermarket Services Industry, offered by Blumberg Advisory Group. We will tell you what's going on with the tech, systems, methods, news, and everything else that comprises the growing and important field of Reverse Logistics (RL), Field Service,Aftermarket Services (AMS) and Reverse Logistics Management Systems (RLMS)

Follow Me

Reverse Logistics Today Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Competition in the Aftermarket Never Hurt Anyone

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Aftermarket Competitors

Quite frankly, I am not sure why some OEMs want to take an adversarial stance against ISOs. Sure, it is within the legal rights of an OEM to withhold intellectual property but this can be counterproductive to the market.  First, customers want choices when it comes to purchase of the equipment as well as purchase of aftermarket services. By trying to squash competition through adversarial tactics, the OEM eliminates choice.

Second, a landmark Supreme Court Case in the 1990s between Eastman Kodak (Defendant) and Image Technical Services (Plaintiff) ruled that an OEM can have monopoly control over the After Market even it doesn’t have control of the Product market. AS a result, certain competitive practices like tying in the purchase of parts or diagnostics software with service contracts is a violation of Sherman Anti-Trust Laws.

Rather than erecting competitive barriers, OEMs are advised to consider how Companies like IBM, Siemens, HP, Comcast, and Philips, etc. effectively use ISOs to deliver field service on an efficient, productive, and quality basis. Over the years, a number of OEMs have acquired ISOs to not only augment and expand service capabilities but also to develop multivendor service skill sets in order to better service customers who require a single point of contact, total service solution.

The fact of the matter is that independents provide value to manufacturers by the mere fact that they force manufacturers to be proactive and innovative in serving their customers. Let’s face it; implementing strategies and tactics to squash compettion is the act of  desperate company.   Most companies win market share and create sustainable, profitable revenue growth through a business model built upon a committment to customer satistaction,  quality processes, highly effecient systems, and well trained people.   Furthermore, these companies view compeitition  as a healthy thing.  Why not use the same standard when it comes to the Aftermarket?

To learn more about strategies and tactics for winning business in the Aftermarket contact us at 215-643-9060 or visit us at www.blumberg-advisor.com

Comments

Great article. Thanks for sharing
Posted @ Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:10 PM by Claudia Betzner
Good insight on the power of choice which customers will appreciate in the future
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 2:57 AM by Samuel Premkumar
Thought provoking , it will be intresting to find out how HP & IBM upgraded the ISO. lessons can be learnt.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 4:50 AM by Ajay
Mike, you wrote a very good article. 
 
 
 
It has been my experience that to level the playing field and make medical devices safer the current laws that are on the books need to be used and applied by all companies providing installation and other related functions to all medical devices. 
 
 
 
There are Federal laws (21CFR primarily) State laws (NFPA99 primarily) and other laws governing the access to information which is supplied by the manufacturer as software, various manuals, and special tools and test equipment. 
 
 
 
These laws create an environment of safety for the patients by allowing others to examine the equipment and to assure the equipment is up to manufacturer’s performance levels.  
 
 
 
All of which is critical to patient safety. 
 
 
 
Manufacturers have rights to trade secrets claims but only after they fully meet their legally required safety requirements.  
 
 
 
It is up to the company or person asking the manufacturing company to assess the adequacy of the information being supplied.  
 
 
 
It is not the function of the manufacturer to evaluate the adequacy of the information being supplied and manufacturer’s cannot profit from the sale of this information. No license, no restrictions, no delays and no refusals by any manufacturer to produce the information upon request. 
 
 
 
Total proprietary, trade secret claims cannot exist in this environment and any manufacturer that says so differently is not being truthful. 
 
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 1:58 PM by Tom Quinn
PS 
 
 
 
Many regulated device manufacturers, medical and other industries, use computer systems that are part of the regulated device but are common in the industry for other uses. 
 
 
 
If required, the regulated device manufacturer must make information available for those computers as part of their legal requirements. The fact that these computers, PCB’s or other parts are from another manufacturer or under frivolous claims of secrecy does not grant proprietary trade secrets to the OEM that sold the computer systems to the regulated device manufacturer. 
 
 
 
How many OEMs have made legal claims of trade secrets, proprietary, etc. that were and are simply not true? Many! 
 
 
 
How many ISO’s have been affected and what are the costs to our economy in wasted spending attributed to these wrongful claims? Many! 
 
 
 
The secret to running an ISO is to comply with all laws and in order to do that one has to know what the laws are. This is especially true in litigation. By knowing your laws you will know what the manufacturers you are competing with are required to provide to you as an ISO. 
 
 
 
Manufacturers will not tell you what they are required to do, you must find that out for yourselves. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:22 AM by Tom Quinn
Comments have been closed for this article.

Subscribe Now!

Your email: