KONE: The MonoSpace Launch in Germany

Harvard Business School Case #501-070

Case Software #XLS-199
Copyright 2011 President and Fellows of Harvard College. No part of this product may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any meanselectronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwisewithout the permission of Harvard Business
School.

Table A Estimated Demand by Region for 1996 (units)

Residential
Low-rise
Europe, Middle East, and Africa
North and South America
Asia and Australia
Total
Current Total Elevator Installed Base

Source: Company records.

65,000
18,000
50,000
133,000

Other
Low-rise
8,500
10,500
10,000
29,000

Mid-rise High-rise
4,000
10,000
20,000
34,000

500
1,500
10,000
12,000

Total
78,000
40,000
90,000
208,000
>5,000,000

Table B KONE Aufzug Summary Financials (figures in DM 1,000s)

V1 Revenue
V1 Profit
V2 Revenue
V2 Profit
Total Revenue
Total Profit

Source: Company records.

1993

1994

1995

88,003
-4,328 (4.9%)
114,718
17,140 (14.9%)
202,721
12,812

87,876
-1,886 (2.2%)
116,762
18,140 (15.5%)
204,638
16,254

86,852
-6,300 (7.3%)
118,628
19,086 (16.1%)
205,480
12,786

Table C Unit Sales and Market Shares in 1995

France
United Kingdom
Netherlands

Units

KONE

Otis

Schindler

Thyssen

Others

7,000
3,300
2,100

14%
20%
40%

41%
30%
19%

20%
10%
13%

18%
10%
6%

7%
30%
22%

Source: KONE's Director of Marketing Communications.

Table D Price Levels for KONE Low-Rise Elevators, 1996 a

Netherlands
France
United Kingdom

PH (Hydraulic)

PT (Traction)

PU (Traction)

MonoSpace

DG 65,000
?
15,800

DG 62,000
FF 150,000
30,000

DG 68,000
?
?

DG 69,000
FF 180,000
30,750

Average 1995 currency exchange rates were: DG 1.60/$1.00, FF 5.0/$1.00, and 0.65/$1.00.

Table E German Elevator Industry: 1995 Market Shares

New Elevator Market
Value
Units
Schindler
Otis
Thyssen
KONE
Haushahn
Schmitt & Sohn
Others

Source: Company records.

17.7%
13.8%
15.4%
8.5%
6.5%
5.4%
32.7%

19.4%
11.6%
12.9%
9.2%
5.8%
5.8%
35.5%

Lifts in Service
Units

Total Revenues
Value

13.3%
11.3%
12.4%
4.9%
6.4%
3.3%
48.2%

21.1%
19.4%
18.1%
6.7%
5.6%
4.4%
25.0%

Exhibit 7 A Comparison of Hydraulic, Traction, and EcoDisc Drive Units

Feature
Speed (mtrs/s)
Load (kg)
Motor size (kW)
Main fuse size (amp)
Energy consumption (kWy)
Thermal loss (kW)
Oil requirements (Liters)
Weight (kg)
Machine room (m2)

Hydraulic
0.63
630
11
50
7,500
4.3
200
650
5

Traction

EcoDisc

1.0
630
5.5
35
5,000
3.0
3.5
430
11

Source: Company records

Note: kWy - kilo-watt years is a standard measure for comparing energy consumption of equipment.

1.0
630
3.5
15
2,500
1.0
0
190
0