This case involves a plant that manufactures quarter panels for a top three auto company. The plant superior in cohort with other three subordinates are brainstorming to discover why so many panels are having rough spots and burrs. According to them, the number one cause of this problem is sabotage by the operatives on the manufacturing lines, who are angered by the suspension of Joe Valenti by an impulsive supervisor. The shop agent intimidates to call a slowdown if the supervisor is not reproached for his act and if Valenti is not recalled. The plant superior obtains many facts in an assembly with his main subordinates and postpones the assembly to the following morning.
The manager ponders over two choices; to stand with the supervisor and take a risk of an imminent strike or recall Valenti and request the line workers to join forces in minimizing the unwarranted rejects. The manager and the key subordinates hold a meeting the next day and he decides to recall Valenti and reprimand the supervisor. One of the subordinates present in the meeting has undergone a problem analysis and decision-making training session. She helps the panel to identify the real problem in an attempt to establish the best solution for the problem. She does this by the use of specification worksheet decision-making method where the “Is” and “Is Not” parameters are used to identify a possible cause of the problem. She first takes the panel members through the process of defining the problem precisely, identifying the problem, specifying the problem and developing the most appropriate solution to the identified solution.
From the above case scenario, it is evident that the manager would have jumped to the conclusion of recalling Valenti and reprimanding the supervisor hastily. By so doing, the cause of the problem would not have been established. Other supervisors would have been aggrieved by the manager’s decision and would have resulted to low productivity on their side. Low productivity on the part of supervisors would mean the production of more panels with burrs. The production of more panels with burrs would translate to more losses which would eventually lead to the laying off of workers and closure of the manufacturing company, in the long run.
In case the supervisors would have continued to do their supervising job as usual after one of theme is reprimanded, there would be production of more panels with burrs since the cause of the problem would not have been established. This situation would have resulted in increased blame game among the supervisors, the workers, and the managers. At this point, the looming strike that would have occurred if Valenti was not called back to work to would have taken place even if he was reinstated because of the increased blame game. The problem circle of the situation would have widened with time instead of reducing. Such a speedy answer by the manager would have been a timely ticking boom that would go off any time affecting the company negatively to a greater magnitude.
Through the use of case-based decision analysis by the use of specification worksheet, the possible causes of the problem are easily outlined on the “Is” parameter side and the unlikely causes are outlined on the “Is Not” parameter side. This way, it becomes easier to highlight the most probable cause of the problem through a close scrutiny of the correlation between the “Is” parameters and “Is Not” parameters. It is through this analysis of the correlation between the two that the board is able to come up with the most probable cause of the problem as change in alloy formula. The solution is then left to the engineers to scrutinize the correlation between the change in alloy formula and the production of panel with burrs. At this point, if the correlation between the two is positive, then the problem of production of panels with burrs will be solved through embarking on the old alloy formula.
However, the board ought to have provided a solution to the case of the suspended worker by a furry supervisor so as to settle down the anger on the part of workers. Providing a simple explanation of the cause of the problem to the workers will not be enough to calm them down. Providing a solution to Valenti’s case will be vital in satisfying the workers and guaranteeing their full cooperation in production. Therefore, maybe it would help if the line supervisors are rotated within the production lines and Valenti be reinstated to his position. This way, the supervisor will not be reprimanded and hence, his supervision morale would be better. Similarly, Valenti will not be out of the job for the period he was suspended and thus, his morale would be boosted by the knowledge that the company management cares about employees.
Additionally, the looming strike situation will be held at bay since the grievances for authenticating it will have been eliminated. The rotation of the line supervisors will ensure that Valenti will not have an encounter with his previous supervisor. To cater for the supervisor’s morale, the manager ought to call the supervisor and notify him of the decision of the board meeting before reinstating Valenti to make him realize the recognition of his efforts by the management. In conclusion, if all of the above recommendations are implemented well, the company will realize tranquility in its operations and weighty profits, in the long run.
Davern, Michael J., Ravi Mantena, and Edward A. Stohr. “Diagnosing Decision Quality.” Decision Support Systems 45.1 (2008): 123-139. Web.
Harvard Business Review. “How to Analyze That Problem: A Part II of A Management Exercise.” N.p., 1965. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.
Loescher, Gil, and James Milner. “Defining the Problem.” The Adelphi Papers 45.375 (2005): 13-22. Web.
Schank, Roger C, Dimitris Lyras, and Elliot Soloway. The Future of Decision Making. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.