WHAT IS R&D ?

Research and development (R&D, also called research and technical development or research and technological development, RTD inEurope) is a specific group of activities within a business. The activities that are classified as R&D differ from company to company, but there are two primary models. In one model, the primary function of an R&D group is to develop new products; in the other model, the primary function of an R&D group is to discover and create new knowledge about scientific and technological topics for the purpose of uncovering and enabling development of valuable new products, processes, and services. Under both models, R&D differs from the vast majority of a company's activities which are intended to yield nearly immediate profit or immediate improvements in operations and involve little uncertainty as to the return on investment (ROI). The first model of R&D is generally staffed by engineers while the second model may be staffed with industrial scientists. R&D activities are carried out by corporate (businesses) or governmental entities. R&D is a form of applied research.

BACKGROUND
New product design and development is more often than not a crucial factor in the survival of a company. In an industry that is changing fast, firms must continually revise their design and range of products. This is necessary due to continuous technology change and development as well as other competitors and the changing preference of customers. Without an R&D program, a firm must rely on strategic alliances, acquisitions, and networks to tap into the innovations of others.
A system driven by marketing is one that puts the customer needs first, and only produces goods that are known to sell. Market research is carried out, which establishes what is needed. If the development is technology driven then R&D is directed toward developing products that market research indicates will meet an unmet need.
In general, R&D activities are conducted by specialized units or centers belonging to a company, or can be out-sourced to a contract research organization, universities, or stateagencies. In the context of commerce, "research and development" normally refers to future-oriented, longer-term activities in science or technology, using similar techniques toscientific research but directed toward desired outcomes and with broad forecasts of commercial yield.
Statistics on organizations devoted to "R&D" may express the state of an industry, the degree of competition or the lure of progress. Some common measures include: budgets, numbers of patents or on rates of peer-reviewed publications. Bank ratios are one of the best measures, because they are continuously maintained, public and reflect risk.
In the U.S., a typical ratio of research and development for an industrial company is about 3.5% of revenues; this measure is called "R&D intensity". A high technology company such as a computer manufacturer might spend 7%. Although Allergan (a biotech company) tops the spending table with 43.4% investment, anything over 15% is remarkable and usually gains a reputation for being a high technology company. Companies in this category include pharmaceutical companies such as Merck & Co. (14.1%) or Novartis (15.1%), andengineering companies like Ericsson (24.9%).[1] Such companies are often seen as credit risks because their spending ratios are so unusual.
Generally such firms prosper only in markets whose customers have extreme needs, such as medicine, scientific instruments, safety-critical mechanisms (aircraft) or high technology military armaments. The extreme needs justify the high risk of failure and consequently high gross margins from 60% to 90% of revenues. That is, gross profits will be as much as 90% of the sales cost, with manufacturing costing only 10% of the product price, because so many individual projects yield no exploitable product. Most industrial companies get 40% revenues only.
On a technical level, high tech organizations explore ways to re-purpose and repackage advanced technologies as a way of amortizing the high overhead. They often reuse advanced manufacturing processes, expensive safety certifications, specialized embedded software, computer-aided design software, electronic designs and mechanical subsystems.
Research has shown that firms with a persistent R&D strategy outperform those with an irregular or no R&D investment program.[2]

-------------------------------------------------
Busines
Present-day R&D is a core part of the modern business world. Major decisions in firms are made on base of research and development.
Research and development is of great importance in business as the level of competition, production processes and methods are rapidly increasing. It is of special importance in the field of marketing where companies keep an eagle eye on competitors and customers in order to keep pace with modern trends and analyze the needs, demands and desires of their customers.
Unfortunately, research and development are very difficult to manage, since the defining feature of research is that the researchers do not know in advance exactly how to accomplish the desired result. As a result, higher R&D spending does not guarantee "more creativity, higher profit or a greater market share".[3]
Benefit of research and development by sector[
In general, it has been found that there is a positive relationship between research and development and firm productivity across all sectors, but that this positive relationship is much stronger in high-tech firms than in low-tech firms.[4][5] In research done by Francesco Crespi and Cristiano Antonelli, high-tech firms were found to have "virtuous" Matthew effectswhile low-tech firms experienced "vicious" Matthew effects, meaning that high-tech firms were awarded subsidies on merit while low-tech firms most often were given subsidies based on name recognition, even if not put to good use.[6] While the strength of the relationship between R&D spending and productivity in low-tech industries is less than in high-tech industries, studies have been done showing non-trivial carryover effects to other parts of the marketplace by low-tech R&D.[7]

United States[edit]
President Barack Obama requested $147.696 billion for research and development (R&D) in FY2011.[8] Much of this spending is devoted to basic research on the mechanisms of disease.
European Union[edit]
The funding from government organizations, like the European Union's Seventh Framework Program (FP7), and their alliance with R&D has made their research more efficient. However, government-funded research that paid for the work in discovering the human genetic code (DNA) has patent-restrictions.

SOURCES 2 : WHAT IS R&D?

R&D management is the discipline of designing and leading R&D processes, managing R&D organizations, and ensuring smooth transfer of new know-how and technology to other groups or departments involved in innovation.[1][2]

-------------------------------------------------
Definitions[edit]
R&D management can be defined as where the tasks of innovation management (i.e., creating and commercializing inventions) meet the tasks of technology management (i.e., external and internal creation and retention of technological know-how).[3] It covers activities such as basic research, fundamental research, technology development, advanced development, concept development, new product development, process development, prototyping, R&D portfolio management, technology transfer, etc., but generally is not considered to include technology licensing, innovation management, IP management, corporate venturing, incubation, etc. as those are sufficiently independent activities that can be carried out without the presence of a R&D function in a firm.[4]
-------------------------------------------------
Management models[edit]
Few dedicated management models for R&D exist. Among the more popularized ones are Arthur D. Little's Third generation R&D management,[5] the Development funnel,[6] thePhase–gate model All these models are concerned with improving R&D performance and result productivity, managing R&D as a process, and providing the R&D function with an environment in which the inherent technological and market uncertainties can be managed.
The Path to Developing Successful New Products[7] a joint research by MIT & McKinsey & Co. points out three key practices that can play critical role in R&D Management: Talkto the customer, Nurture a project culture, Keep it focused.

DEFINITION OF 'RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - R&D'
Investigative activities that a business chooses to conduct with the intention of making a discovery that can either lead to the development of new products or procedures, or to improvement of existing products or procedures. Researchand development is one of the means by which business can experience future growth by developing new products or processes to improve and expand their operations.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - R&D'
While R&D is often thought of as synonymous with high-tech firms that are on the cutting edge of new technology, many established consumer goodscompanies spend large sums of money on improving old products. For example, Gillette spends quite a bit on R&D each year in ongoing attempts to design a more effective shaver.

On average, most companies spend only a small percentage of their revenue on R&D (usually under 5%). However, pharmaceuticals, software and semiconductor companies tend to spend quite a bit more.

TOYOTA spent more on research and development (R&D) than any other company in the world in 2011, according to "Global Innovation 1,000". This report compiled by Booz &Company, a consultancy, looks at the companies with the 1,000 biggest R&D budgets. Toyota increased its 2010 spending by 16.5%, and the car industry as a whole increased spending by $13.2 billion, largely to meet fuel economy standards and improve electronics. Two health-care companies, Roche and Pfizer, had topped the 2010 table, but dropped to third and fourth places after reducing spending in 2011. Yet the health-care industry still supplied three of the five biggest budgets, and accounted for 21% of the $603 billion spent on R&D by the 1,000 companies. It is not the most lavish-spending industry, though: that title goes to computing and electronics, whose firms spent 28% of the total R&D expenditure and also increased spending more than any other sector (by $13.4 billion). Overall R&D spending in 2011 grew for the second year running

http://funtastickodesign.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/proton-dan-penganalisa-tempatan/

24/01/2012 by campromania 94 Komen

TERPANGGIL untuk saya menulis tentang tajuk di atas selepas membaca laporan akhbar di Utusan Malaysia hari ini (24 Januari 2012). Laporan akhbar tersebut ialah mengenai wawancara pemberita dengan seorang penganalisa ekonomi dari FA Securities Bhd, Zakie Ahmad dan juga seorang pakar ekonomi, Datuk Dr Norraesah Mohamed, yang juga pengerusi eksekutif MYEG). Menurut Zakie, penggabungan PROTON dan DRB-Hicom akan membenarkan PROTON mencari jalan untuk berkongsi teknologi dengan VW, Honda dan Suzuki, kesemuanya rakan perniagaan DRB.
Beliau juga menambah bahawa rakan kongsi PROTON perlu mempunyai modal yang besar dan juga mempunyai teknologi yang tinggi untuk memajukan PROTON. DRB-Hicom juga menurut beliau mampu membawa PROTON ke pasaran luar negara hasil dari bantuan rakan kongsi DRB dan oleh kerana DRB pernah memiliki saham terbesar PROTON suatu ketika dahulu, ini akan memudahkan lagi DRB untuk membawa PROTON maju ke hadapan.
Saya rasa, mungkin penganalisis ini kurang prihatin tentang industri permotoran. Terima kasih kepada PROTON, rakyat Malaysia menjadi begitu “mahir” tentang automotif. Kalau tidak pun, mempunyai perasaan ingin tahu. Inilah yang dikejarkan oleh mantan Perdana Menteri kita dahulu, Tun Mahathir, agar rakyat Malaysia lebih berfikiran secara industrialistik. Namun begitu, industri automotif adalah lebih kompleks dari setakat masalah power window yang sering kali rosak. Apa yang Zakie katakan itu mungkin benar, JIKA pihak DRB-Hicom benar-benar mempunyai talian kuat dengan jenama-jenama automotif tersebut.
Jika kita kaji, DRB-Hicom sebenarnya tidak mempunyai rekod yang menarik dari segi membangunkan sebuah jenama kenderaan. Benar, ia menjadi rakan kongsi kepada Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Isuzu, Suzuki dan Volkswagen tetapi sejauh manakah “kuasa” DRB di dalam syarikat tersebut? Honda Malaysia contohnya, penglibatan DRB tidak lebih dari memudahkan Honda untuk berurusan dengan pihak kerajaan. Lebih kepada mediator.
Pihak pengurusan atasan yang lebih dominan masih datang dari Honda Japan. Baik di kilang di Pegoh, Melaka mahupun di pejabat kecil mereka di Petaling Jaya. Untuk Mercedes-Benz, DRB hanya lebih kepada tuan tanah kepada kilang pemasangan enjin di Pekan. Benar, ada juga muka-muka Melayu yang bekerja di sana tetapi adakah kepakaran mereka yang diberikan oleh Mercedes-Benz AG itu mencukupi? Bagi Volkswagen, DRB mendapat bantuan Perdana Menteri yang mahu menaikkan kampungnya, Pekan.
VW mendapat pelbagai keistimewaan tetapi di dalam dunia industri automotif, VW terkenal dengan sikap sombongnya. Mangsa terbaru mereka ialah Suzuki, di mana presiden Suzuki memaki hamun sikap VW secara terbuka di media antarabangsa. Di Malaysia, VW nampaknya menggunakan peluang ini untuk meraih pelbagai kesitimewaan. Dengarnya, pihak Naza yang sering mendapat layanan istimewa dari pihak kerajaan turut mengadu akan keistimewaan yang dikecapi oleh VW. Adakah VW benar-benar jujur untuk menaikkan industri automotif negara atau hanya mahu jumlah jualan yang tinggi?
DRB baru sahaja mendapat hak menjual model VW CKD, satu pencapaian yang menarik dan boleh dikatakan bijak, tetapi adakah negara mendapat sedikit bantuan teknologi? Syarikat automotif yang mempunyai pegangan majoriti oleh DRB-Hicom sebenarnya ialah Suzuki Automobile Malaysia. Dua jika kita masukkan sekali arwah Hicomobil yang dulunya menjual Chevrolet. Adalah prestasi mereka mantap? Suzuki masih lagi menjual Swift model lama walhal model terbaru sudah hampir dua tahun di dalam pasaran.
Model Alto di bawa masuk dari India dan langsung tidak memberikan apa-apa pulangan kepada rakyat Malaysia dari segi TOT (transfer of technology) ataupun vendor. Model Swift yang dipasang di Pekan juga mempunyai peratusan komponen Jepun yang tinggi. Model sedan Kizashi yang digembar-gemburkan akan dilancarkan masih tidak terlancar. Hicomobil pula dikudakan oleh pemegang AP, dan nilai jual balik jenama tersebut yang tidak memberangsangkan serta perangan sombong General Motors Asia Pasifik turut menjadi punca kejatuhan jenama tersebut di bawah DRB-Hicom.
Persoalannya di sini ialah, bagaimana DRB-Hicom yang mempunyai profil sebagai pengimport, pemasang dan pengedar kenderaan mampu membantu PROTON untuk menjadi pengeluar kereta yang baik? Zakie dan juga Datuk Dr Norraesah berkata, Honda, VW dan Mercedes-Benz mampu membantu. Boleh saya tanya, apa hasilnya jika mereka membantu PROTON? Apa mudah untuk sebuah syarikat memberikan teknologi yang bernilai jutaan Euro kepada sebuah syarikat baru? Kenapa pula Honda dan Suzuki mahu menolong PROTON menjual model mereka di pasaran antarabangsa? Bukankah itu akan menjadi tindakan bunuh diri kerana PROTON bakal menjadi pesaing mereka bagi model-model entry level? Bagaimana pula sejarah lama DRB yang dahulunya memiliki PROTON mampu membantu PROTON sekarang?
Saya sokong DRB mempunyai kepakaran mereka yang tersendiri dari segi business mangement and no-nonsense attitude (terutama dari teraju utamanya yang cukup berdisiplin) tetapi yang akan membantu DRB untuk mengubah PROTON bukanlah sejarah pemilikannya, tetapi lebih kepada cara pengurusan. Datuk Dr Norraesah berpendapat, cabaran utama PROTON ialah untuk memastikan harga dan teknologi model PROTON akan menjadi lebih kompetitif. Saya bersetuju bahawa cabaran PROTON ialah memastikan teknologi dan harga produk mereka lebih berdaya saing. Tetapi perlu difahamkan, bila jenama lain menjual jutaan unit setahun, Proton menjual lebih kurang suku juta unit dalam tempoh yang sama.
Kita semua faham kenapa barangan di Mydin murah – kerana ia dijual dalam kuantiti yang banyak. In bulk. PROTON umpama membeli komponen di 7-Eleven sedangkan syarikat lain membeli barangan yang sama di Mydin. Jika PROTON tidak berubah, akan ada hanya satu cara sahaja untuk PROTON menjadi kompetitif – perlindungan pasaran oleh kerajaan. Suka atau tidak, itulah hakikatnya. Datuk Dr Norraesah juga berkata, DRB mampu membantu dari segi rekabentuk dan penyelidikan model terbaru PROTON agar menjadi lebih kompetitif berbanding dengan produk negara lain.
Mungkin Datuk Dr boleh berkongsi di manakah kepakaran DRB dari segi R&D dan design. Setahu saya, DRB-Hicom hanya ada satu sahaja jenama automotif yang dimiliki sepenuhnya oleh DRB-Hicom – Modenas. Adakah teknologi dan kepakaran Modenas mampu membantu PROTON? Ke mana hala tuju PROTON Teringat bila berbual dengan seorang wartawan permotoran tempatan dahulu di mana beliau berkata jika PROTON dicabut tiang kilangnya dan dipasang di Thailand atau negara lain, pasti PROTON akan menjadi syarikat automotif yang lebih hebat dalam masa lima tahun. Mungkin ada benarnya kerana beliau cuba memberikan penekanan masalah PROTON sebagai sebuah GLC (Government-Linked Company) yang sering menjadi kambing hitam pihak-pihak kementerian yang perlukan sumbangan modal untuk acara nasional atau bila memerlukan tajaan kenderaan.
Dengan kemasukan DRB-Hicom sebagai tuan punya syarikat, diharapkan pihak-pihak kementerian ada rasa malu untuk mengganggu PROTON. Biarlah PROTON menumpukan sepenuh perhatian terhadap core business mereka – membuat kenderaan. Bukannya menjadi penaja pertandingan badminton, bukannya untuk jadi penaja kenderaan bagi parti politik dan bukannya untuk jadi sasaran kelemahan kerajaan. Pekerja PROTON juga perlu sedar, tiada syarikat kenderaan di dalam dunia yang mampu hidup di dalam satu pasaran sahaja. Ia perlu lebih global, dan untuk itu, ia perlu lebih penelitian.
Bukan gah dengan anugerah tempatan yang hanya laku di dalam negara sahaja. Kilang yang dibiarkan beroperasi jauh di bawah kapasiti maksimum adalah bukti kelemahan pengurusan. Tak pernah lagi saya melilhat kilang kenderaan yang separuh kosong tidak digunakan. Ini perlu diatasi kerana di mata pemain industri ini seperti Jepun dan Jerman, PROTON tidak serius di dalam pengurusan syarikat. PROTON perlu tumpukan perhatian kepada pakar-pakar automotif mereka yang terbukti berjaya bila mereka dicuri oleh syarikat lain. Di dalam syarikat kenderaan global, kemahiran di dalam R&D diberi tumpuan. Ini ialah kerana tulang belakang dan nadi syarikat automotif terletak di dalam kumpulan R&D.
Jika PROTON tetap membiarkan mereka ditarik keluar untuk bekerja dengan syarikat vendor atau syarikat automotif yang lain, perlu ada kajian kenapa ada aliran keluar skil-skil penting ini. Dari segi penjenamaan dan juga pemasaran, PROTON dilihat masih lagi terkial-kial ingin meletakkan nama mereka sebaris dengan Edaran Tan Chong Motors (Nissan), UMW Toyota, Honda Malaysia dan lain-lain di Malaysia. Dalam proses itu, cukup gelihati kerana PROTON terlupa ia ialah sebuah syarikat PENGELUAR kenderaan, bukannya pengedar kenderaan seperti saingannya di Malaysia. Jika PROTON masih melihat UMW Toyota sebagai pesaing dan bukan Toyota Motors Corporation sebagai seteru utama, maka ia akan tetap menjadi jaguh kampung. Rakyat Malaysia sebenarnya sudah lama dibiarkan hidup di bawah tempurung.
Harga minyak yang disubsidikan ialah contoh utama mengapa kita tidak mampu bersaing di pasaran global. PROTON tidak terlalu tertekan untuk mendapat enjin yang lebih menjimatkan minyak kerana harga minyak di pasaran utamanya (iaitu pasaran tempatan) adalah lebih rendah dari harga sebenar minyak global. Tanpa enjin yang lebih baik, bagaimana PROTON mahu berdaya saing di pasaran global seperti China atau Eropah di mana harga minyak lebih mahal. Mungkin ada bagusnya jika pekerja PROTON dipaksa membayar harga minyak global, barulah mereka memahami kepentingan sebuah enjin yang menjimatkan minyak. Saya ingin memberi cadangan kepada DRB-Hicom agar membawa balik tumpuan PROTON kepada produk utama mereka – kenderaan.
PROTON menghabiskan jutaan Euro untuk Lotus, sebuah jenama yang tiada kena mengena dengan teknologi kenderaan entry level yang dihasilkan oleh PROTON. PROTON juga menghabiskan jutaan Ringgit untuk pasukan Rali Dunia mereka, sedangkan pulangan balik tidak setimpal. PROTON juga tidak menggunakan publisiti dari Rali Dunia itu ke tahap global, sesuatu yang mengecewakan. Paling menarik, jualan kereta Satria Neo jugak tidak begitu memberangsangkan. Malah, model skala (scale model) Satria Neo S2000 WRC juga tidak wujud di dalam pasaran. Apa gunanya kita masuk WRC jika publisiti bertumpu ke pasaran yang sudah kuat, atau ke pasaran yang terlalu asing bagi PROTON? Mungkin konsep PERT ingin diterapkan di sini, tetapi PROTON juga perlu ingat, motorsports ialah satu sukan yang mahal dan aliran duit keluar selalu menjadi tidak terkawal.
Bukankah lebih menarik jika duit yang dilaburkan untuk penjenamaan itu digunakan untuk menghasilkan produk yang lebih baik. Bila PROTON sudah ada produk yang lebih baik, barulah dilakukan penjenamaan. Buat apa kita lakukan branding bila orang akan datang ke showroom untuk melihat produk yang tidak segah namanya? Lihat sahaja kepada Hyundai-Kia, syarikat gergasi Korea yang secara asasnya bermula sama dengan PROTON. Hyundai-Kia sedar mereka perlukan peningkatan dari segi kualiti dan teknologi. Ini terbukti di dalam produk Kia Optima mereka yang lama. Kualiti sudah jauh meningkat dan teknologi sudah on-par dengan barisan gergasi lain.
Sayangnya, jenama itu terlalu lemah untuk menarik orang ke dewan pameran bagi menghayati sendiri kemajuan syarikat Korea itu. Oleh kerana itu, Hyundai-Kia memberikan tumpuan sepenuhnya kepada rekabentuk. Dan ternyata, rekabentuk yang menarik membawa pembeli yang dahulunya lari jauh dari jenama Korea untuk membeli produk terbaru mereka dan merasakan sendiri kualiti pemasangan yang jauh lebih baik dari sesetengah jenama Jepun. Ini ialah satu template yang sudah tersedia untuk ditiru oleh PROTON. Mungkin sebelum PROTON membuat proses penjenamaan, perlu dilakukan proses management overhaul dan gunakan mereka yang terbukti di dalam bidang automotif.
Pada hemat saya, DRB-Hicom tetap menjadi pilihan utama walaupun kepakaran mereka terbatas. Namun begitu, mereka tahu apa benchmark syarikat automotif global dan itu ialah sesuatu yang pihak pengurusan atasan PROTON tidak ada. Sebagai “taukey” baru, pastinya DRB-Hicom perlu bersikap garang. Kepada orang lama PROTON yang berlindung di bawah payung, payung itu bakal ditarik balik. Kepada mereka yang ada “hanky-panky” business di dalam PROTON, bersiap-sedia kerana pengurusan DRB memang akan bertindak keras. PROTON sebenarnya masih milik negara, cuma rakyat sudah jelak memberikan peluang kepada PROTON. Jangan harapkan sentimen nasionalistik untuk meraih jualan. Taktik lapuk itu hanya akan memakan diri sendiri. Rakyat kini lebih mementingkan kualiti produk dan diharapkan PROTON baru ini akan memberikan sesuatu yang lebih berdaya saing.

Published: Friday July 18, 2014 MYT 12:00:00 AM
Updated: Friday July 18, 2014 MYT 8:01:48 AM
Mahathir says Proton wants Govt to pay research and development cost
BY IZWAN IDRIS | |

| |

|

Proton chairman Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (second from right) flagging-off the "Drive For Gaza" fund raising initiative while Proton CEO Datuk Abdul Harith Abdullah (right) and Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) chairman Tan Sri Norian Mai (third from right) look on. - IZZRAFIQ ALIAS / The Star SUBANG JAYA: Proton Holdings Bhd, a unit of DRB-Hicom Bhd, is seeking reimbursement from the Government for the amount spent on its research and development (R&D) programmes to produce new cars.
Its chairman Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Proton would be launching a new carby the end of the year and seeking reimbursement from the Government for its investments in R&D works.
“We have asked the Government to reimburse some of the money we invested on R&D projects,’’ Dr Mahathir told reporters when met after launching the “Drive for Gaza” fund-raising campaign to help victims in the Palestine-Israeli conflict.
“This is a normal practice in the car industry, where incentives are given to carmakers for development of new technology,’’ Dr Mahathir said, citing South Korea as an example.
According to Proton, the new car had cost as much as RM300mil to develop.
Dr Mahathir said Proton never received any direct cash handouts from the Government and had over the years invested its own money for R&D projects.
He said in the past two years, it had launched two new car models, which it had developed in-house.
Proton was taken private by DRB-Hicom in 2012 after it acquired a controlling stake in the carmaker from Khazanah Nasional Bhd.
Khazanah decided to divest its interest after its attempts to restructure thecompany with the entry of foreign car manufacturers failed to get the approval from the Government.
Proton, despite launching two car models –the Preve in April 2012 and the Suprima in August last year – continued to struggle with slumping sales.
Proton sold 52,920 units of cars as of end of May, slower by 2% compared with 53,909 units it achieved during the same five-month period last year.
Its domestic market share had shrunk to 19% as of end of May 2014 compared with 21% a year ago.
While Proton’s market share continued to decline, the other national carmanufacturer - Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Nasional Sdn Bhd (Perodua) – continued to increase its market share.
Also, the non-national cars that are viewed as having better build-quality have gained market share over the years because of their ability to produce vehicles at competitive prices.
The dismal performance of DRB-Hicom’s share price reflected Proton’s operational challenges and “investors’ disappointment” over its inability to turn around Proton after acquiring it two years ago, Public Investment Bank said in a note yesterday.
“Proton sold around 11,000 units a month during the first half of 2014 and we estimate Proton will need to sell around 150,000 units per annum to break even,’’ it said.
The firm said Proton would be launching a a new model under its global small car(GSC) programme by as early as the third quarter of 2014. “We believe the GSC will be Proton’s key product to provide the sales volume necessary for Proton to break even,’’ it said.