Dominion Motor Ltd

1. Dominion Motors Ltd
Case Analysis
BBM, NMP Term III
Group 4
Argha Ray - 15
Chakra Dhar Kundu - 22
Khushal Malik - 28
Sanjay Kumar Prasad – 45

2. Context
• Dominion manufactures Control Panel and Pumping Motors for Canadian Oil
producers.
• Commands 50% Market share.
• Spartan and Universal are chief competitors.
• Addition of 1000 New Wells each year for next five years offered a mouth
watering Market Opportunity.
• Had heart in their mouth after discovery of Hamilton’s Engineering Report.

3. Alternatives:
• Slash prices of 10 HP Motor and bring at par with 7.5 HP Motor.
• Reengineer 7.5 HP Motor with 105 Torque.
• Build 5 HP Motor with 105 Torque.
• Persuade Hamilton to overturn Bridges’ study.

4. Considerations:
•
Bridges’ study still not in public domain.
•
Study still to be independently verified.
•
Wind may blow Bridges’ way as an immediate impact.
•
Study ignores Overmotoring guideline of NEMA.
•
Industry shift from General Purpose to Special Purpose Motors may eat into
profits of all Canadian Motor Manufacturers.
•
Immediate loss of sales to Spartan.
•
Advocating NEMA standards.
•
Engineer’s Love of Margins.

5. Timelines:
Year 1985
Jan
Bridge's concludes Oil
Pumping Motor field Tests
Feb
Mar
Dominion discovers about
Tests from salesforce
Apr
May
Reengineer 7.5 HP Motor with
105 Torque (Alternative 2)
Bridges to submit Test to
Hamilton Top Honchos
Build new 5 HP Mortor with
105 Torque (Alternative 3)
Jun
Seasonal Sales Cycle for 80%
of Mortor Market
Jul
Aug
Sep
• It took Bridges’ 5 months to submit study to Hamilton’s Top Management.
• Study unlikely to percolate to entire industry before September.

6. Analysis:
Alternative 1:
• Foolhardy to reduce prices of 10 HP Motor as kneejerk reaction.
• Sends out signal of capitulation to the market.
• Tacitly acknowledges Bridges’ study.
Alternative 2:
• Violates NEMA standards.
• May encounter resistance from Rig Operators.
• Tacitly acknowledges Bridges’ study.

7. Analysis Contd..
Alternative 3:
• Tactical advantage in long run.
• Production can be started before completion of 1985 sales cycle and still has one
month cushion before September.
• Minimal sales impact as Bridges’ study, if accepted, is likely to have impact from
next sales cycle.
Alternative 4:
• Bridges may not see reason on Overmotoring.
• Collusion between Bridges and Spartan may not be ruled out as study suggests acts
of omission and commission on Overmotoring.
• Further tests may even acknowledge Bridges’ study as Industry standard.

8. Decision:
• Highlight Overmotoring.
• Lobby with NEMA to institute independent study.
• Approach Hamilton and Bridges to work further on the study to buy time.
• Work on 5 HP Motor (Alternative 3) to cover flanks for 1986 Sales cycle.
• Strengthen Intelligence Gathering by Salesforce.
• Uphold NEMA standards for long run industry viability.