CASE: PV TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Submitted by:
Nikita Runwal: PGP/17/096
PV Technologies, Inc.: Were They Asleep at The Switch?
Case Summary:
PV Technologies (PVT) is a global leader in the photovoltaic inverter industry. It is a dominant
supplier to several segments of the solar energy technology field. The case focuses on a RFP (request
for proposal) received from its long-time customer Solenergy who has recently won large contract
from the City of Barstow, California, to construct a PV solar energy power plant and is looking for a
supplier of utility scale central inverters.
Along with many other suppliers, PV Technologies also bids for that. Solenergy has performed
confidential evaluations of the select group of companies it invited to bid on the concerned project.
Jim Salvatori, PVTs best salesperson Jim Salvotri, who is also managing PVTs response to
Solenergys RFP get to know from his network in the industry that PVT trailing the other
competitors- SOMA Energy and BJ Solar. The evaluator Greg Morgan, Chief Electrical Engineer at
Solenergy is the respected person whose judgements are highly influential across the industry.
Solenergy has an image to include his comments in the press release. These press release comments
can affect the purchase decision of PVTs prospective clients and can potentially damage its image.
To fight with this situation Salvotri, along with Nathan Rubenstein, Director of Sales and Marketing
at PVT develop four alternative strategies. They are now wondering which alternative they should
choose to get desired results.
Questions to be addressed:
What could be the reasons for the unfavourable evaluation of PV technologies by Greg Morgan?
However PVTs products remained superior in terms of efficiency, reliability and
productivity, the bid prices of the competitors products were significantly lower than PVTs-
especially BJ Solars
Solenergy was committed to a renewed focus on expense control. The upfront cost
differential was high
Solenergy argued to compensate for the inferior performance characteristics of the less costly
inverters by an enhanced maintenance schedule, coupled with a proactive quality control
program that would be able to identify potential performance issues even before they occur
Evaluate alternative course of action available to PVT to gain favourable evaluation by Solenergy
for the Barstow Project?
The following four alternative courses of action were presented by Rubenstein and Salvatori:
1. Offer to extend the original warranty at internal cost from 10 to 20 years
PVT already has a significant competitive advantage with its 10 years warranty against the 5 years
warranty offered by competition. This extra 5 year advantage should have been more than enough for
Solenergy to show confidence in PVT
2. Offer a 99% uptime guarantee at no cost
This approach can reduce their profit margin if the frequency of product failure is higher or repairs
were more costly than assumed. Moreover it can impact the future deals with Solenergy and other
customers as others can also demand the similar benefits.
3. Accelerate the introduction of a new product, scheduled to release shortly, with higher
capacity at 1.25 MW and 98.5% efficiency
Given the fact that they are focusing on expense control and are trying to reduce upfront cost,
launching a new product will not help. Moreover they have positive attitude towards the low cost
inverters. In this situation giving them an equal priced solution will not solve the purpose.
4. Tactfully initiate a dialogue with Morgan to confirm the reported findings of the evaluation.
Given the fact that the evaluation was an internal process of Solenergy and the report that Salvatori
obtained was from his network, asking him direct confirmation can offend Morgan. It can also impact
the year long relationship with Solenergy.
To conclude, PVT should not react based on the report which is not authenticated. Rather than
contacting Morgan for direct confirmation, PVT should contact him to showcase their value
propositions and negotiate on the project at the personal level.
What short term and long term policies and processes should PVT develop and implement to
effectively improve its marketing programs?
Short Term:
PVT should review the current policy of testing equipment performance and specifications
against competitors offerings
Revaluate the needs of its business segment and key customers on a more frequent and
regularly scheduled basis to mitigate the risk of occurring similar problem in future
Review of manufacturing costs to identify opportunities to price the product more
competitively
Long Term
PV Technologies should be actively involve in market place analysis to know the customers
varying need
Collaborate with customers to develop new products that best need their requirements on both
short term and long term basis
Before quoting RFP, the evaluation criteria of customer should be evaluated
Keep a close eye on your competition and offer competitive products at lower price. PVT can
offer various price point to cater the need of different segments.