CASE: PV TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Sales and Channel Management

Submitted by:
Debarghya Das(18021141033)
 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, PVT’s best salesperson Jim Salvotri, who is also managing PVT’s response to Solenergy’s
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 PVT’s 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 PVT’s products remained superior in terms of efficiency, reliability and productivity,
the bid prices of the competitor’s products were significantly lower than PVT’s- especially BJ
Solar’s
• 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 competitor’s 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 customer’s
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.