Executive Summary
Evaluation of Capital Investments at Cliniqa Corporation:
A Systematic Ranking and Evaluation Procedure
Cliniqa Corporation
Vy Nguyen
14 May 2014
Professional Science Masters in Biotechnology, California State University, San Marcos
Management teams are frequently charged with making informed decisions for valid investments and
cost-saving ideas for laboratory instruments. Cliniqa Corporation is a research and manufacturing
company that produces quality controls and calibrators for a number of in-vitro diagnostic
instruments. The semester-in-residence project resulted in an organized investment evaluation
procedure for management to consider all the relevant factors before committing to an instrument
procurement decision. Purchasing new equipment can extend the capabilities of the company into
additional product lines and strategically target desired customers. It was important to establish an
expert system to harvest the knowledge of senior management and to potentially improve on the
current evaluation techniques. The research methodology included an evaluation of the current
instruments in operation to set a baseline on the previous evaluations and to establish a quantitative
ranking system. The sensitivity of the factors required the continuous fine-tuning of the analysis tool.
The result of the project was a five-step evaluation tool with proof-of-concept pilot testing for the
recommendation of instrument investment. The process began with setting constraints based on the
needs and requirements that the company can commit to for asset acquisition. Secondly, data was
collected for the criteria of: manufacturer, type of analyzer, first year introduced to market, square
footage, routine maintenance, assay menu capability, test throughput, ability of being an open channel
instrument and continuous runs, requirement for mainline water hookups, and incremental training
required for a routine operator. Then, quantitative ranking values (1-10) were applied and compared
against the constraints. Third was to calculate the total cost of ownership for qualified instruments.
The fourth step was to consider the qualitative factors of: instrument usability, upholding company
reputation, customer satisfaction, self-imposed analyzers for strategic contractual purposes, and
product line expansion. The last step of the tool was to analyze all the factors involved for the
recommendation of new instruments. The pilot testing proposed the purchase of a refurbished Roche
cobas e411, Abbott Architect i1000sr, or Siemens Advia Centaur CP to meet the company’s
objectives of maintaining quality products and boosting overall profitability.
Evaluation of Capital Investments at Cliniqa Corporation:
A Systematic Ranking and Evaluation Procedure


Vy Nguyen
Cliniqa Corporation



14 May 2014
Professional Science Masters, Biotechnology
California State University, San Marcos

Committee




Julie Jameson
Mike Hoskins
Alan Styles
Casey Zace
Overview
Introduction
Background
Importance of Project
Research methodology
Analysis of current
situation through pilot
testing
Discussion
Future Directions
•
•
Retrieved from http://www.cliniqa.com/Custom-Manufacturing/OEM-Solutions.aspx
What do we do?
What are clinical analyzers?
•
Why do we need them?
•
How do we get them?
Retrieved from http://www.dealermarketing.com/bizdev/business-development/2725how-to-make-a-dealership-stand-out
An expert system captures the knowledge
from senior management
Retrieved from http://www.igcseict.info/theory/7_2/expert/
Research methodology
A.
Development
• Survey key operational personnel, review of
technical and support documents for
instruments
• Identify constraints
• Identify relevant/unique criteria for evaluation
• Identify all current instruments used by
organization
• Developed a data collection and analysis
approach
• Identify all current non-point-of-care (POC)
instruments used by organization
Research methodology
B.
Refinement
• Collect data for current non-POC equipment
• Rank instruments on evaluation criteria
• Evaluate current instrument decisions using
developed evaluation tool
• Identify differences, reconcile or consider
reasons for differences
• Identify qualitative decision criteria not included
in investment evaluation tool
• Amend/update investment evaluation tool
Research methodology
C.
Pilot testing
• Identify non-POC instruments not currently
used by organization (potential investments)
• Collect data for potential instruments
• Rank instrument on amended evaluation criteria
• Identify equipment that exceeds evaluation
thresholds
• Financial calculations
The developed investment evaluation tool
consists of five steps





Step 1: Determine constraints
Step 2: Collect data for potential instrument(s) and
quantitatively rank each instrument
Step 3: Perform financial calculations
Step 4: Consider the qualitative factors
Step 5: Propose instrument(s)
Step 1 Results
Step 2a Results
Step 2b
Step 2b Results
Step 3 Results
Step 4 Qualitative factors
Step 5 Instrument recommendations
http://reacting.ma/detail_siemens_ADVIA%20CENTAUR%20CP.html
http://www.sunflowerlab.net/pathology_laboratory_in_mumbai.php
http://www.roche-diagnostics.co.in/Products/Pages/COBAS4000platform.aspx
Discussion/Future Directions

Utility of tool: expert system, methodical tool






Determine alternatives for the company: purchase, lease,
external testing, maintain capital (pay off credit)
Not all variables apply
Improve on current analysis techniques
Opportunity costs, budget allocation, ROI based on cash flow determine risks/liabilities
Limitations of tool: subjectivity and sensitivity of factors
Future Directions: requires additional fine-tuning/updating
of analysis tool
References











Byers, S. S., Groth, J. C., Richards, R. M., & Wiley, M. K. (1997). Capital investment analysis for managers.
Management Decision, 35(3), 250-257. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.csusm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212065320?accountid=10363
CAP Today: Survey of Instruments (2007, June). In American Proficiency Institute. Retrieved March 2, 2014,
from http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/cap_today/surveys/0607ImmunoSvy.pdf
CAP Today: Survey of Instruments (2003, July). In American Proficiency Institute. Retrieved February 21, 2014,
from http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/cap_today/surveys/0703_3252_ChemSvy.PDF
Database (2013). In American Proficiency Institute. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from https://www.apipt.com/pds.aspx
Drury, C., &Tayles, M. (1997).The misapplication of capital investment appraisal techniques. Management
Decision, 35(2), 86-93. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.csusm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212053493?accountid=10363
Li,J., K., Min, J, Otake, T., Voorhis, T.V., (2008). Inventory and investment in setup and quality operations under
Return On Investment maximization, European Journal of Operational Research, 185(2), 593-605. Retrieved
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221707000823
Jiambalvo, James. Managerial Accounting. 4th ed. N.p.: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.
O'Kane, M. J. (2014, March). Point of Care Testing - Current and Emerging Quality Perspectives. Point of
Care, 13(1).
Shao, L. P., & Shao, A. T. (1996).Risk analysis and capital budgeting techniques of U.S. multinational enterprises.
Managerial Finance, 22(1), 41-57. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.csusm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212669275?accountid=10363
Sokoll, L. J., & Chan, D. W. (1999, June 15). Clinical Analyzers. Immunoassays. Analytical Chemistry, 71(1), 356R362R. Retrieved March 1, 2014