Atharva Temkar

Synthes Case Analysis

MBAD 505
10/7/23
 This case report analyzes Synthes’ strategic decision making regarding its entry into the

bioresorbable implant market. Synthes, a leading manufacturer of orthopedic implants, faced the

dilemma of whether to invest in bioresorbable implants which is a potentially disruptive

innovation in orthopedic market. Using the framework introduced in the “Innovators Dilemma”

by Clayton Christensen, this report evaluates the options available to Synthes, with a focus on

the wait-and-see approach.

Synthes, a renowned manufacturer of metallic orthopedic implants, has been planning

whether to explore the emerging bioresorbable implants. These implants offered the advantage of

being absorbed by the body after a while, removing the need for removal surgery which could

complicate the recovery process. This innovation being a potential disruptor in the market, there

is a dilemma whether to invest in this technology or not due to the tradeoffs that are associated

with this investment. The competitive landscape consists of three categories, heavyweights,

specialists, and potential. The heavyweights are Johnson & Johnson and Biomet who are already

active in the bioresorbable market. The specialists, who are Bionx and Macropore focused

exclusively on manufacture and sale of bioresorbable devices for trauma, sports medicine, and

maxillofacial markets. The potential being Smith Nephew who has over 1.5 billion in sales

across products in implants to plaster casting systems for burn care products.

An advantage of coming out with the bioresorbable product is that Synthes have an early

market entry and potential market leadership and the ability to shape the market. The

disadvantages are that there are high development costs and market acceptance risks. Market

acceptance is one of the key risks with making this decision, highly experienced surgeons are

hesitant to adopt these implants due to concerns of strength safety and clinical complications.
The advantage of not coming out with the implants is that the company avoids immediate

financial risk and can focus more on the metallic implants market they already run. The

disadvantage to that strategy is missed opportunity for growth and lost competitive edge.

There are 4 choices Synthes can opt for moving forward, the wait and see approach,

where Synthes would adopt a cautious approach, allow the company to monitor the market and

conserve resource. The second approach is to ignore the bioresorbable; this avoids risk with the

uncertain market but if it gains market wide acceptance, Synthes may miss out on a significant

market opportunity. The third approach is to develop and market a line of bioresorbable products

using the currently available polymers, there may be uncertainty about market acceptance and

long-term viability. Finally, invest in research and development of third generation of implants.

The cost of these efforts is the biggest disadvantage as there is no guarantee of the success of

developing superior implants.

The most viable option is the wait and see approach, it aligns with several critical facts in

the case. It acknowledges that the bioresorbable implant market has been growing slowly with

only $10 million in annual sales by 2000. This supports the fact that the market is still evolving.

Furthermore, the case states that experienced surgeons have reservations about bioresorbable

implants, concerning their strength and clinical complications. By adopting this strategy, Synthes

can address these concerns by monitoring data and experience of their competitors. The

advantages of this approach are the reduced immediate investment risk and avoidance of

potential early failures. Synthes can continue to make their metallic implants, as it is a sustaining

innovation, to keep driving their income while they wait until the bioresorbable implant moves

up the disruption curve phases. The table in Exhibit A shows how Synthes are dominant leaders

in the trauma implant manufacturers. Once the bioresorbable product is viable and is widely
accepted, Synthes can move into the market very quickly. According to the innovator’s dilemma,

the failure framework states that the disruptive technologies create products that perform worse

than their first generation, and they often quickly evolve to become competitive. Established

companies move upmarket from the bottom and the new entrants usually overtake these

established companies. Similarly, Synthes can do the same and wait to see other companies

create these disruptions and they quickly move in when the technology becomes widespread.

This way Synthes can be in an advantageous position in the market and have the least amount of

investment risk involved.

In conclusion, by carefully assessing market dynamics, competitors and needs of

customers, recommending the wait and see approach is the best-case scenario moving forward.

It aims to strike a balance between innovation and risk mitigation. This decision is formed by a

strategic perspective that prioritizes long -term sustainability while remaining agile in adapting to

industry shifts.

Exhibit A: Estimated U.S Sales across Trauma Implant Manufacturers in 2000

Company Total Plates Rods Hip Fixation Other

Sales and Screws
Synthes $ 262.5 $ 153.8 $42.0 $40.7 $ 26.0
Smith & Nephew 91.9 9.9 38.2 38.5 5.3
Zimmer 59.8 20.9 12.9 17.7 8.3
Stryker 46.3 0.5 11.8 22.8 11.2
Johnson&Johnson 26.8 9.3 7.6 7.6 2.3
Biomet 22.1 0.5 10.6 8.0 3.0
Other 32.0 16.6 12.3 3.1 0.0
Total $ 541.5 $ 211.5 $135.4 $ 138.5 $ 56.1
Source: HBS Case: Synthes
Sources Cited

HBS: Synthes

Innovators Dilemma by Clayton Christensen