Page 27 - 麻醉与监护论坛2015年第8期

Rankings of Top 10 competitiveness enterprises in the radiology field of China medical devices industry during 2014-2015

Standard value weighted of the financial data(70% weight) Standard value weighted of the survey data (30% weight)

The The

Sales average average Total Total
standard
Return Return growth growth value Technology Customer Brand Management Corporation standard Comprehensive Comprehensive
on total on net revenues rate of sales rate of net weighted innovation satisfaction awareness level of culture value index of score of
Company Ranking Sales Net Net assets assets contribution revenues profit for Source of financial data
revenues assets profit of the enterprise weighted competitiveness competitiveness
weight financial
weight weight 11% per employee for the last the last of the
6% 12% data
three years three years survey
(A) data (A
70%+B
30%)
weight weight weight weight weight weight weight weight weight weight
26% 11% 5% 15% 14%
34% 18% 12% 11% 25% (B)

Siemens Healthcare 1 Annual report of listed company

GE Healthcare 2 Annual report of listed company

Philips Healthcare 3 Annual report of listed company

Carestream Healthcare 4 Annual report of listed company

5 Taxationǃresearch ˂ survey

Toshiba Medical information˗self-reported figures and

hospital’s tender results

Hitachi Medical 6 Annual report of listed company

Agfa Healthcare 7 Annual report of listed company

WanDong Medical 8 Taxationǃresearch ˂ survey

Shimadzu 9 information˗self-reported figures and

hospital’s tender results

Annual report of listed parent company

SHINVA 10 Annual report of listed company

Note 1: (About revenues) Because some enterprises have lots of products in different fields, the revenues here refer to one enterprise’s sales revenues in China market in special sub-field of medical devices industry. For example: the revenues in the list of the radiology field are the sales revenues of
enterprises' radiation products in China market.
Note 2: (About net profit) The indicator refers to the net profit of one enterprise’s related products in a special sub-field. If the annual report didn’t show the related data, we will calculate it from the total profit rate and products contribution proportion of the enterprise.
Note 3: The other six indicators (net assets, return on total assets, return on net assets, revenues per employee, the average growth rate of revenues for the last three years, and the average growth rate of net profit for the last three years) refer to the related indicators data of overall performance published
by the enterprise.
Note 4: The return on net assets has different definitions. In order to avoid the problem of the incomparable value of net income caused by the different income tax rate between listed companies and non-listed companies, we will definite the numerator as the total profit rather than the net profit, the formula
for calculating The return on net assets is: The return on net assets = Total profit / Net assets
Note 5: The monitoring data shows that if the competitiveness of enterprises comes mainly from the growth indicators (that is, the average growth rate of revenues for the last three years & the average growth rate of net profit for the last three years), the index of enterprises competitiveness is often unstable. The main
reason for this instability is that some enterprises with small original revenues base have rapidly increasing in sales revenues during the past 2 years, which makes the average growth rate of the past 3 years much higher than the industry average level. An extremely high index may cause the enterprises’ overall
competitiveness standard value of fundamental data improved significantly. But in the future 2 or 3 years, with the growth rate of sales revenues remaining average and other index without rapid increase, the monitoring data will fall. To avoid unfair competition due to this problem, we make some viable improvement
by setting the indicator of growth index (the average growth rate of revenues and net profits for the last 3 years)into the limitation of [1,-1]. With the consistency of statistical test, the overdone impact on overall standard value of fundamental data by the abnormal data of growth index can be eliminated.