Draper Engineering: Bang IT - Book Report/Review Example

Draper Engineering: Bang IT Introduction Businesses, in today’s marketplace, are required to be competitive and profitably at a constant rate with the business’ failure or success being dependent on the quality of strategic management and thinking that the business undertakes (Thamhain, 2010: p9). For a business to take part in strategic thinking and strategically evaluate their business operations, they must understand the five P’s of strategy that are; a plan, a ploy, a behavior pattern, position in respect to competitors, and perspective. None of these P’s can be viewed isolated from the others. A more detailed view of strategy is that strategy is the scope and direction that a firm takes in the long term that achieves advantages for it via configuring its resources in relation to a changing environment in order to fulfill market needs and satisfy the expectations of stake holders (Thamhain, 2010: p11). Therefore, a strategy entails making a decision on the best tactics and methods to employ in order in achieving the goals of the firm. This paper seeks to perform a strategic management evaluation of Draper Engineering Ltd. Perform a SWOT analysis on Draper Engineering using the case study provided. Explain in detail how Draper can improve five of the issues identified from the SWOT analysis SWOT Analysis Strengths loyal management and staff technical grades workforce Client base that includes four major European automotive manufacturers Foothold in the American trucking industry Weaknesses Late deliveries Significant amount of damaged stock lack of coordination and planning between project and developmental engineering Lack of planned maintenance Allocating a considerable amount of time refining their products and handling customer complaints Outsourcing of IT functions Opportunities Possession of cutting edge technology Collaboration with Hardy’s and its possession of international contacts Threats High staff turnover in the last five years Friction between various staff members Slow pace of operations From the SWOT analysis, the fundamental issue that is raised has to do with Draper Engineering’s ageing workforce. An ageing workforce has a direct correlation with job performance (Sage & Rouse, 2009: p55). These implications on Draper Engineering are serious since most of its employees require job experience. The fact that the organization’s workforce shows loyalty benefits the company because they are socially skilled, knowledgeable, and reliable. However, this particular employee base is more resistant to change that may explain the reason why most of the organization’s new initiatives have ended in failure. The high rate of turnover could also be connected to the younger employees, even if the case study is not specific about this issue. In order to improve the structure of the organization’s personnel, Drapers possess some options. One option involves a change in management. While it is not simple to comprehend how Draper is going to administer this change, it is essential that its employees understand the reason that the change is taking place in order for them to engage the organization in the solution, as well as the change. Draper, as part of the management change, need to give training and support in order to encourage its employees in buying into the plan and dealing with any resistance from the top (Pang, 2011: p101). Draper can also carry out andragogical training for the older employees. Older employees are slower in their duties and find it more difficult to remember, although the organization can adapt the training for the older employees to factor in expertise and limitations (Pang, 2011: p102). Andragogy is the way that adults learn. Should Draper come up with a training schedule that that seeks to implement an andragogical approach when training its employees, then they could reap positive results from employees through motivation and learning. Another option for Draper would be the provision, of incentives for its younger employees, to cause a reduction in absenteeism, as well as retain them at work (Martin & Grover, 2008: p72). While they need to take care of their loyal staff members, it is vital for Draper to encourage the younger members of staff actively in order to cause a reduction of turnover. For example, they could introduce incentives that encourage staff to aim for longevity. Incentives could include annual scales of pay increment, yearly leave rewards for lack of absenteeism, flexi-time, gift vouchers, team building exercises, and schemes for purchase of personal IT tools at corporate reduced prices. The fact that the organization allocates a significant amount of time on improvement of products and customer problem solution is a major weakness. They should concentrate more on the future, including the development of new products. To solve this, they can form a small group that consists, of the company’s most technically competent and motivated members, to generate new ideas that they can make into new offerings (Eisner, 2008: p44). This also increases the feeling of employee ownership and participation. Outsourcing of core duties is another fundamental error that weakens the company internally and externally, especially from Hardy’s whom they outsourced to. They, thus, need to diversify, in-source, and collaborate on key contracts with Hardy’s (Eisner, 2008: p48). Outsourcing has also harmed Draper’s reputation since, even though the complaints from customers are supposed to be directed at Hardy’s, they are made to Draper. To improve, Draper can act as a consultant on Draper products for Hardy’s and re-establish their own logistics division. Analyze how Draper’s could re-organize the maintenance department to improve efficiency. One way that they could reorganize the department is through the establishment of reporting and authority. Overall control of management normally resides with the department of maintenance, with the head reporting to management. Responsibility can be delegated in the department with the responsibility and relationship of every section clearly specified with reporting channels (Dhillon, 2008: p121). All job titles also need to have a description that prescribes experience and qualifications required, on top of the job’s reporting channels. Draper also needs to establish quality supervision and leadership. The practices and procedures of the organizations instituted for the regulation of maintenance demands and activities at Draper do not guarantee satisfactory results. It is essential that the senior executive, as well as his staff, influence the entire functional activity. Performance of maintenance can never be better than supervisory and leadership quality. Good leadership breeds teamwork that is essential for Draper’s success. The leaders and supervisors must recognize ability and talent, as well as expose carelessness and address it (Dhillon, 2008: p124). Another way to improve maintenance efficiency is through incentives. While the varied nature those tasks in maintenance take are not suited to incentives, there are some ways that application of incentives can be considered (Blanchard, 2008: p63). An example of this is repetitive work with forward planning being one of the avenues, which incentives can be arranged based on employees completing known tasks in a given period. Maintenance incentives can also include bonus schemes for output via arrangements that reward continuity in production and target attainment. Improved relations between labor and management can also improve the efficiency of maintenance. The success of maintenance is significantly dependent on the formation of a community that involves lively, keen, and well informed employees who work in harmony. It creates work satisfaction and team spirit. Another strategy is quality training and education through joint schemes by employers and local education authorities. The effectiveness of training programs can be evaluated by assessment of training needs, designing of training programs, evaluation of current performance, evaluation of the program’s implementation, and evaluation of its effectiveness (Blanchard, 2008: p70). Discuss how Draper’s should deal with Bang IT and Bend IT in order to improve the performance of this contractor Draper should place Bang IT and Bend IT on performance probation. Within this context, the probation period would be aimed at improving the performance of the two IT management companies as part of Draper’s performance management systems (Chang, 2010: p56). Of course, the company would have to insert a probation clause in the contract and offer incentives if the set goals during the probation period are fulfilled. The plan on performance improvement would be only focused on the areas where there is an absolute need for improvement since the contractors are not employees. The plan would also only be for a finite period. Independent contractors like Bang IT and Bend IT have no employer-employee relationship with Draper Engineering Ltd. In the relationship between them and the contractors, Draper has varied control in three areas; relationship type, financial, and behavior (Chang, 2010: p60). Probation is relevant to the relationship between the independent contractors and Draper when it is negotiated again in a sub-contract. In that case, the organization would possess some sort of control on the behavioral aspects of the relationship with some ability to determine what it deems as satisfactory performance standards. Draper should also come up with a framework that identifies the contractor-employer relationship’s best practices using measurement tools, the planning and execution of the strategy of measurement, and demonstration of links between business and learning outcomes. References Blanchard, S., 2008. System Engineering Management. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons. Chang, C., 2010. Engineering management : challenges in the new millennium. Upper Saddle River : Pearson Prentice Hall. Dhillon, B., 2012. Engineering and technology management tools and applications. Boston: Artech House. Eisner, H., 2008. Essentials of project and systems engineering management. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons. Martin, S. & Grover, F., 2008. Managing people. Telford: ThomasTelford. Pang, P., 2011. Essentials of manufacturing engineering management. New York : IUniverse. Sage, A. & Rouse, B., (2009). Handbook of systems engineering and management. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons. Thamhain, J., 2010. Engineering management : managing effectively in technology-based organizations. New York : J. Wiley. Read More