to the responder from " Sat, 16/02/2013 - 13:54"

well said!

When OCD is compared to other IVD vendors in traditional Clin Chem business, they are profitable.
Across the board the ROI is in the upper quartile when matched to the other leading IVD's.

It is also true the 5600 is settling down.

One needs to realize that J&J corporate leadership does not want 3-5% ROI.

OCD has been hurt by the drive to gain ROI of pharma type growth. Same issues Abbott and to some extent Roche has.

The falicy is that pharma (Abbott, Roche, J&J) thought clin chem lab testing could 'marry' into targeted drug therapy leading to growth in both areas. This was the thought roughly 20 years ago. NO one has been able to do this yet.

Thus to reach the ROI targets, cuts occur. MBA 101, Process Excellence, LEAN, all of these areas teach that you can not cut quality and expect long term growth returns.

As an OCD employee, I can't see any benefit from JNJ except access to a company store. BIG DEAL. Years of JNJ demands of an 11% ROI in a market that only produces at 3-5% has resulted in minimal staffing levels, cuts in R&D, and diminished morale.
The VITROS 5600 has been making significant inroads and the staff work tirelessly. OCD meets industry profit expectations YOY. There could be a real opportunity here but the notoriously conservative JNJ puts so many roadblocks into daily functions you can barely manage your staff or have any staff at all.
All JNJ companies are experiencing this. How many recalls does JNJ need to experience before they back off the double digit ROI and reinvest in quality. The CREDO is dead and been turned upside down for a longtime. Stockholders come first, not patients. Long live the stock price.

We are not a good fit from JNJ and Alex Gorsky is pretty clear on that. I'm looking forward to a change.

DePuy's metal-metal hip joints would have been excellent had the company continued with surface treatment I witnessed (while an employee of another J&J 'franchise') at Harwell UK in the mid 1990's. Surface-coated with diamond-like carbon which was then implanted into the metal using high-energy N+ ions. Made the surface hard-wearing and bio-inert. Depuy's bean-counters presumably considered this part of the manufacturing process too expensive. But carried on regardless with the flawed concept of metal-metal in an aggressive bio-environment.
I do hope this attitude is not becoming typical within J&J, what was once a highly ethical and great organisation.
My guess is J&J want to sell O-CD because it has no significant R&D to develop to manufacture a new generation of assays. Dumped all that in 2000. Nor to make a value-judgement on any company it might wish to purchase to fill that gap. Problem for the company if it wishes to stay in the diagnostics business.
Who will buy,though? No assay platforms outside O-CD which are remotely compatible.

Hmmmmmmm?

Ortho, part of the J&J family of companies, suffered from years of lack of investment, several staff reductions to improve bottom line, now for sale

Ethicon, part of the J&J family of companies, included in Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit

"On Feb. 4, 2013, Dr. Uwe Klinge, a world-renowned expert on the biocompatibility of surgical mesh, told a jury about a talk he delivered in 2005 to Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon unit. During that talk, Dr. Klinge explained that, in order to be safe for patients, surgical mesh used in the pelvis would need to be very lightweight and have pores that are at least 1 millimeter in all directions. Later that year, Ethicon nevertheless began to market the Prolift vaginal mesh kit, a product with mesh that was larger and heavier than Dr. Klinge said it needed to be to be safe for patients."

DePuy Metal Hip Recall Lawsuits: February 2013 Update
DePuy, part of the J&J family of companies

The DePuy Orthopaedics ASR XL Acetabular and ASR Hip Resurfacing system hip are all-metal, also called metal-on-metal, artificial hip implants. Nearly 40,000 patients in the U.S. received the DePuy ASR implant from August 2005 through August 2010, when DePuy, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, recalled the device.

Data from a registry of patients in the United Kingdom indicates that up to 50% of patients implanted with the defective DePuy ASR hip implant may be forced to undergo revision surgery within six years of their original hip replacement surgery.

DePuy and Johnson & Johnson have not accepted full legal responsibility for the alleged defects and failure of their metal-on-metal hip implants. Hip replacement patients who received DePuy metal hip implants continue to suffer failure of their artificial hip and have filed lawsuits against DePuy to obtain just compensation for their pain, suffering, lost wages, and other losses.

You can go to any Roche automation line and find exactly where every sample is at. It isn't a hard concept and is exactly what you would have to do if you needed to remove any sample from any line. You can't magically know where a sample is without checking the system first.

As for the ineffeciency of alliquoting, your view is short sided. You see alliquoting every sample as inefficient and while yes it will add a small amount of time lets break it down shall we? Lets say 10 seconds per aliquot, and an average of 2 aliquots, equaling 20 seconds extra per sample. Then the system can send each aliquot to whatever analyzer it needs to get testing done quicker, not to mention Roche's line has some of the fastest testing capabilites; at least on the IA side.

Now pretend that your sample can't be aliquoted on the automation line and you can't put integrated platforms on the automation line, meaning there is a gate for each analyzer. Lets use Abbott as the example. Let us say they have 2 c8000 and 2 i2000; 4 gates. The sample has 18 Chemistry tests that need done and 5 IA. The tube goes to the Chemistry side and sits there while the sample is drawn out. If there was an aliquot the other sample could be going to the IA side, but No, aliquoting is "inefficient".

I don't know how quickly the c8000 can pipette, but I can't imagine it is faster than 2 seconds per test. So 36 secs sitting at chemistry, 15 seconds to travel to IA. Almost a minute more per tube.

That all said, back to Ortho. None of the current vendors could possibly want to buy that line, but I agree with previous posters that GE may be a good candidate.

Not bar-coded, then?

lol nobody questioned the purpose of an aliquot ---- just the inefficiency of the requirement of making one on every sample, and then having it being unidentifiable...

"This SCREAMS Abbott rep. Aliquots allow for parallel processing. If you don't know why that is more efficient then please leave the industry."

No...just a laboratorian not impressed with Roche automation.

"I am actually a little startled that Roche has improved their revenue in Diagnostics. I've always been a bit skeptical with Roche because they always sell something that appears to be much more inexpensive than it really is. Their hidden costs can add substantially to the Lab's expected cost with Roche. Roche's automation system is pretty inefficient because it has to make aliquots on all specimens and those aliquots are not labeled if they have to be removed from the track."

This SCREAMS Abbott rep. Aliquots allow for parallel processing. If you don't know why that is more efficient then please leave the industry.

US staff's have been told not to move to other divisions. Most europe markets have reduced their staff. All senior members have left ASPAC. Three companies have been shortlisted to buy. Poor management led to huge collapse.

This thread is drifting off to leeward.
Is J&J disposing of O-CD? If so, to whom?
What the competition does is only relevant in as far as their possible fit with O-CD.
See Beckman and Siemens as examples of buying competitors which do not fit and they do nothing about it.
Er...probably none, then.
So O-CD stays or goes to hell down the Bain/Danaher route.

I am actually a little startled that Roche has improved their revenue in Diagnostics. I've always been a bit skeptical with Roche because they always sell something that appears to be much more inexpensive than it really is. Their hidden costs can add substantially to the Lab's expected cost with Roche. Roche's automation system is pretty inefficient because it has to make aliquots on all specimens and those aliquots are not labeled if they have to be removed from the track.

Abbott says, "You'll save 100k on capital!"
Roche says, "You'll save 100k over the life of the deal!"
Ortho says, "You won't have to do any construction!"
Beckman says, "Everything we have is the cheapest on the market!"
Siemens says, "Just buy one of these and one of these and you'll have a huge menu!"

sounds like no one is looking at the quality of the test results, just be the cheapest, biggest, fastest.... ?

"You are correct, but not in the way that you stated. Roche will be the least expensive at point of sale when playing hide the cost to get chosen.... "

No, I was correct in the way I stated it. There is a lot of irony in your statment too. Here is what I've noticed. Beckman sells on price, Ortho sells on dry slide and the lack of a need for connected water, Abbott sells on analyzer price (not assay), Siemens sells...well frankly I'm not sure right anymore, and Roche tends to be higher for analyzer price (not assay). Then it just comes down to each vendor playing their gimmick.

Abbott says, "You'll save 100k on capital!"
Roche says, "You'll save 100k over the life of the deal!"
Ortho says, "You won't have to do any construction!"
Beckman says, "Everything we have is the cheapest on the market!"
Siemens says, "Just buy one of these and one of these and you'll have a huge menu!"

Yet Roche contiues to growing its diagnostic businesses faster than the market (RMD, RPD, RTD)

"Roche is consistently the most expensive choice for labs."

You are correct, but not in the way that you stated. Roche will be the least expensive at point of sale when playing hide the cost to get chosen.... and THEN end up being the most expensive choice for labs once the bills come due.

Note to lab leadership and decision makers - NOTHING IS FREE

"Complete disrespect of the technical staff by a weak management staff".
From Day One of J&J's take-over. Bad enough after Kodak bought I-D and SPR from Amersham.
Senior management wasn't weak. It was technically ignorant and overbearing. 'Performance-related pay'...My arse.
We worked our nuts off for no reward. Turned out it was the company's performance not ours. Over which we had no control. Con-men/women.
Cathie the Terminator..... Say no more.
Canning UK R&D? Slash and burn in Rochester? Madness.
I am amazed that the company has lasted so long. Sad that it could have been so much better.

"You Roche Reps may think that is true, but your products only win when the purchasing dept makes the decision, rather than the techs in the labs. It is the cheapest and you get what you pay for"

A sign that you know nothing about the Market. Roche is consistently the most expensive choice for labs. People are jumping ship because Beckman, Siemens and Ortho are floundering and bad choices are catching up. Abbott is doing quite well too, but they are literally giving away their analyzers to gain market share. Abbott is the Jehovah's Witness of the diagnostics market. They will come in and tell you all the reasons the competitor is the wrong choice, fail to explain why they are the right choice, and then two people are so incompetent and blinded by the BS that they choose them.

Necessary exercise but far too late. Roche has capitalized on everyones else's problems and managed to continually steal market share in not only the mature but also emerging markets. Rather than cutting and slashing their growth has allowed them to invest in new systems across the board, which will make it all the more difficult for anyone to play catch up.

You Roche Reps may think that is true, but your products only win when the purchasing dept makes the decision, rather than the techs in the labs. It is the cheapest and you get what you pay for

I'm suprised it took this long. It's been horribly managed for the past 8 years or so. Complete disrespect of the technical staff by a weak management staff.

I wish they would sell Mentor!

Necessary exercise but far too late. Roche has capitalized on everyones else's problems and managed to continually steal market share in not only the mature but also emerging markets. Rather than cutting and slashing their growth has allowed them to invest in new systems across the board, which will make it all the more difficult for anyone to play catch up.

What is J&J but an equity firm? All its subsiduary companies are 'franchises'.
After J&J bought the immuno (ex-Amersham) and clin chem business from Kodak it merged it with its existing bloodbank business in Raritan and Neckargemund.
"A tight fit but its gonna go in" as the monkey said to the cat. Not a marriage made in Heaven.
J&J left us alone for two years while we struggled to get ECi to production, then demanded a 30% ROI. Only possible by successive savage staff cutting. Not a lot from the ex-Ortho Diagnostics at Raritan even though they had had a number done on them by the FDA.
It is amazing that, despite the elimination of UK R&D (which held most of the enhanced chemi-luminescent immuno expertise and many patents), Vitros ECi is still on the market. And by the look of it, still considerably better than most of its shambling and dis-organised competitors.
O-CD needs to be sold off to a 'Bain' or a 'Danaher' like a hole in the head. Can't see it being good for patients needing assay test results either.
However, if the honchos at J&J Bank HQ in New Jersey think it doesn't make the 'bottom line', off it goes........

Unfortunately, with OCD's diagnostic business, they have not had much success with their Vitros 5600, 3600, or their automation line. Their hepatitis/HIV ab testing and blood bank products are still very valuable. Chemistry should go....

I wonder if they are sold to an equity firm, they will be broken up to rid the poor performing products and to come out a more profitable company....or, it could be the final death spiral for OCD. I just hope a good company will pick up the blood bank products.

Ex-colleagues at Amersham taken over by GE would say so. And Beckman/Danaher/Tektronix.....?
I hope J&J keeps O-CD. My ex-colleagues at Canal Ponds do not need the hassle. Or the Pink Slips.

Whoa! Butt *&%$ really that bad????

-Rochester NY resident

Neither Danaher nor GEHC would be good for O-CD. Especially Danaher. Although neither as dreadful as Bain.
GE had its chance when O-CD still based its manufacturing on the Cardiff site. Long gone up the Valleys now.
Amersham should never have sold off Amerlite and SPR to Kodak, let alone on J&J. Although at least Kodak had an R&D with instrumentation expertise. J&J is a bank. Stop.
I do not envy my ex-colleagues in O-CD. Alas, you will be butt-f**ked.

what comes around goes around

what comes around goes around.....

I wonder if they are going to break up the diagnostics company. I wonder if GE is looking to buy it. I would say that if JNJ was going to break up the company, Danaher might want to buy their IA because Beckman is the only company without a Hepatitis/HIV ab menu....also they would own the IP to finally put them on the DXI's after they sunset the ECI.

No one really wants the Chemistry because their analyzers are very problematic. Blood Bank is a stable market and I hope their next generation Provue will be successful.

Years of senior "mismanagement" has finally taken its toll.

the best option is to put it out of its misery...