Reference no: EM133439648

Question: A biotech firm creates bone replacements that have been used successfully for about 5 years in a variety of applications-joint replacements, trauma, etc. The parts are primarily titanium, a metal that has a decent track record for such uses because it is strong yet lightweight. It is also said to be biocompatible (i.e., rarely causes rejection problems). None of that is new. What's new to the firm's technology is that the titanium is calci-plated. Bones wear down faster than titanium, and in fact, titanium is so strong that it causes further wear on surrounding tissue. The calcium-like plating surrounding the bone pieces offers the advantage of slowing down that friction, making the pieces last longer, but also greatly slowing the onset of any returning aches and pains. A by-product of the calci-treatment is that it does not set off security systems at airports. The firm is obviously happy about their products' successes, but they are regretting their status as a component piece. They wish to begin branding their pieces. Much like the success of the "Intel Inside" advertising campaign for their micro-processing chip, the biotech firm draws an analogy and wants people to understand that they are offering an excellent "ingredient" brand. The firm is pretty set on calling the product lines by the brand name 6MD. It began as a skunkworks project nickname, representing the bio-engineers' respect for the Six Million Dollar (6 m.d.) Man. They had even hoped to get Lee Majors to be their spokesperson, but initial contact made clear that he was too expensive. He was also looking a little long in the tooth. The name also stuck because the "MD" piece of the brand name should resonate with one of the constituencies who would use the brand.

Using this case study, in paragraph form please help me identify: The most important facts of the mini-case, key issues, alternative courses of action, Evaluation of the Courses of Action, Recommendation of the Best Course of Action of this case.