Case 5: The Incident at Waco Manufacturing

Transcription

1 Case 5: The Incident at Waco Manufacturing Christopher Jones CIS /2/2017

2 Waco Manufacturing s Mission: Provide high quality custom-machined parts to the automotive industry. Background of Waco Manufacturing: Waco Manufacturing was a leading supplier of automotive parts. They specialized in custom made goods and were successful at what they did. In 1986, a security and information system was implemented into one of their manufacturing facilities. Waco installed transceivers in the plant corridors every 25 feet. They also installed transceivers in the badges that their employees wore on their person. The system supported the nearly continuous tracking of each employee s location. Managers hoped that this new system would make many interesting capabilities possible. An example of these capabilities was a feature that rang the nearest telephone relative to an employee s location whenever their phone office numbers were dialed. Waco Manufacturing s Strategy: Waco Manufacturing became a leading supplier of custom-machined parts to the automotive industry through a focused differentiation operating strategy. They focus on a narrow target market that requires custom machined parts. These parts may cost more to custom make, but the added value from the customization allows Waco to charge a premium. Page 2 of 11

3 This strategy creates barriers of entry for competitors, as well as brand loyalty from the customers (Tanwar). The Case: In September 1987, a year or so after the implementation of the new system, area manager Monique Saltz expressed discontent about a project that was required by the end of the year. Saltz expressed this unhappiness to Monk Barber, who was the plant engineering manager. Specifically, Saltz was unhappy that a set of designs for composite-based products was running behind schedule. Barber defended himself insisting that he had repeatedly met with the three engineers tasked with the project and had stressed the importance of this set of designs to them. Barber went on to say that the three engineers: Sherman McCoy, Telly Frank, and Wanda Gogan, had simply not responded to him about the project. Barber claimed to be at his wits end. Saltz then took it upon herself to address the three engineers. Saltz was met with surprised confusion. The three engineers claimed to have no idea that the project was so important. They also could not recall meeting with Barber about the composite design project. Saltz later described the situation to the plant manager, Shelly Tomaso. Tomaso suggested that they utilize the transceiver system and see what information they could glean. The system indicated that Barber, McCoy, Frank, and Gogan had never all been in the same room that year. Saltz now has a problem, Barber might not be telling the truth about the project. The transceiver system is working as a management control system. Saltz is using the system to Page 3 of 11

4 measure the performance of her employees (Cash). Specifically, she is using it to see if Barber and the three engineers have even met together face to face. According to the system, they have not, which would make it pretty hard to believe that Barber had actually met with the three engineers like he stated. Should Saltz take the output of the system as an absolute truth? Could the system have made an error? Perhaps the system is not 100% reliable and accurate, some radio interference could have obstructed the tracking signal. Perhaps they had a teleconference, or met outside of work. Dr. Barker gave a cautionary story about the Chicago Police Department, and how they used neural networks to try to find patterns that would identify at-risk cops/cadets. Specifically, they tried to find cops/cadets who were at risk for substance abuse. In this lecture, the point was that just because a system produces an output, it does not necessarily make the output true (Barker). We as a society, have been engrained to believe anything that a computer says, which can be harmful. We should always take all factors into consideration before accepting results as an absolute, especially from a possibly erroneous algorithm that could do harm to innocent people. Stakeholders: Employees: Those employed by Waco Manufacturing. Customers: Customers of Waco Manufacturing. Shareholders: Shareholders of Waco Manufacturing. Page 4 of 11

5 Monique Saltz: Area manager of Waco Manufacturing. Monk Barber: Engineering manager at this Waco Manufacturing plant. Porter s Five Forces: Competitive Rivalry: Medium. Even though Waco uses a focus-differentiation strategy that makes threat of new entrants low, they are still targeting a broad market, the automobile industry. Therefore, medium level of competitive rivalry. Threat of New Entrants: Low. New entrants would need significant capital to be able to produce custom machined automobile parts to compete with Waco Manufacturing. Threat of Substitutes: Low. Waco provides differentiated products that have an increased value due to the custom nature of the products. Porter tells us that substitutes are defined as those products or services that meet a particular consumer need but are available in another market. (Team FME). Automobile manufacturers are not likely to find custom-machined parts from another market or industry. Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Low. If Waco s suppliers threatened to not supply the raw materials, Waco could easily find another supplier. Their raw materials are pretty basic: metal, tools, and machines which can be bought from a number of suppliers. Bargaining Power of Customers: Medium. If Waco angered their customers, their customers have a handful of larger firms with similar capabilities that could provide the Page 5 of 11

6 same service. Unless Waco had contracts that bound customers to Waco, they must keep their customers happy. There are only so many automobile companies to sell to. Courses of Action: 1. Do Nothing. Do not take punitive action against Barber, or his engineering team. Do not ensure system is 100% accurate. Do not create any policies or procedures to increase accountability. Employees: The engineering team would not be punished for missing the deadline. They still have to worry that the tracking system may not be 100% accurate. The employees in general suffer from lack of documented policies and procedures that may increase accountability. Customers: Customers would suffer from the lack of procedures and policies to increase accountability. Customers can only benefit from such a system that would ensure productivity of the company producing products for them. Shareholders: Shareholders would suffer from lack of procedures and policies to increase accountability. Monique Saltz: Saltz may be perceived as too lenient if she doesn t hold Barber accountable for running behind schedule. If she doesn t ensure the accuracy of her control system, she might make errors in future decision making. Saltz may be seen as unorganized and ineffective if her employees are missing deadlines. Page 6 of 11

7 Monk Barber: Barber will benefit by not being punished by Saltz. Barber will also benefit from Saltz ensuring the control system is not accurately working. If Saltz can find a fault in the system, then Barber would probably take less blame for the project running behind. The blame would bleed over to the engineers, but ultimately it is Barber s responsibility to keep his team on task. Barber stands to benefit from procedures and policies to increase accountability. These policies could include things like documentation of important meetings, this would ensure that everyone who says they were present are actually present. This way there would be less incidents like this where the team had no idea about the urgency of a project, and there would be less he said, she said occurring, because there is documentation. 2. Saltz fires Monk Barber on grounds that the system produced an output that says the engineering team never met collectively. Employees: The engineering team would not be punished for missing the deadline. What If Barber were in fact guilty of lying to Saltz, and had never even mentioned the importance of this project to the engineers. Apparently this can sometimes be an issue, where the manager in charge is the greatest obstacle. the biggest obstacle to the success of any project is management itself. (Adams). They still have to worry that the tracking system may not be 100% accurate. The employees in general suffer from lack of documented policies and procedures that may increase accountability. Customers: Customers may see no changes. Page 7 of 11

8 Shareholders: Shareholders would suffer from lack of procedures and policies to increase accountability. Shareholders could face lawsuit from Barber, if Barber could somehow prove in court that Saltz fired him based on output from a faulty system. Monique Saltz: Saltz may be perceived as too harsh if she does fire Barber for the output of the system. If she doesn t ensure the accuracy of her control system, she might have a hard time defending herself against Barber if he tries to fight the allegation. Monk Barber: If the system s output was accurate, and Barber could not prove that he did in fact meet with his engineering team to stress the importance of the project, Barber must accept his fate. If the system s output was faulty, and he had in fact met with the engineers, and somehow the system made a mistake, he could fight the termination, and defend his honor. In this case the three engineers would face termination because they would be lying about not knowing the urgency of the project. Barber could also complain about a lack of privacy, but Barber should understand that he is on company time and that there is not privacy. 3. Create controls that will increase likelihood of a positive outcome, including privacy policy. Also verify that the security system works 100% of the time, accuracy policy. Create formal procedures that employees must follow when they are working on projects. Document expectations for project, clearly communicate deadlines, and create meeting logs to track attendance and verify understanding of project, an accuracy policy. Create privacy policy so that employees understand that they are being tracked. Page 8 of 11

9 Employees: The employees in general benefit from increased action controls which align with the interests of Waco Manufacturing shareholders. Their interests are to increase the value of their stock. By implementing action controls, they will increase accountability for employee behavior and increase the likelihood of positive outcomes. Employees will have accuracy and privacy policies to guide their behaviors. Customers: Customers would benefit from the controls that will increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for all shareholders. Shareholders: Shareholders would benefit from creation of accuracy and privacy policies. Monique Saltz: Saltz will benefit from the creation of action controls. Her subordinates will know the rules that govern them. She will see less incidents like this case. Monk Barber: Barber will benefit from the creation of action controls. His team members will all be on the same page concerning the projects, as well as how they should behave at work. Recommendation: My recommendation is creating controls that will increase the likelihood of a positive outcome, including privacy policy. Also verify that the security system works 100% of the time, accuracy policy. The creation of formal procedures will give the needed structure that this engineering team lacks. The engineering manager and his engineering team were not on the same page concerning the urgency of this project. The security system needs to be tested to ensure accuracy as well. Page 9 of 11

10 By creating a privacy policy, everyone understands that while at work they have no expected privacy. This should increase productivity as people might goof off less because they know that they can be held accountable by the control system. Lawsuits concerning privacy may also be avoided by the creation and dissemination of this privacy policy. The action controls are meant to bring the Waco employee s up to the standards set by top management who have the interests of the stakeholders in mind. Most often, organizational structure, rules, regulations, and procedures are viewed as rational instruments intended to aid task performance. (Morgan). The standards that are meant to increase the value of the company will drive the policies that are put into place. This is to increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for the firm. Page 10 of 11

11 Works Cited Tanwar, Ritika. Porter s Generic Competitive Strategies. IOSR Journal of Business and Management 15.1 (2013): Web. Cash, James. Corporate Information Systems Management: The Challenges of Managing in an Information Age. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education, Print. Pg 97. Barker, Robert. CIS 410 Lecture. February 23 rd, Adams, Scott. The Dilbert Principle: A Cubicle s-eye View of Bosses, Meetings, Management Fads & Other Workplace Afflictions. London: Boxtree, Book. Team FME. Porter s Five Forces - Strategy Skills PDF. Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organization: International Version. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Print. Pg Page 11 of 11