Case study Response Case of the Rotary Compressor - Essay Example

Case study response “case of a rotary compressor” This paper seeks to respond to case study questions based on the case, ‘case of rotary compressor.’ The paper will answer the questions to the case study.Factors in the production process that caused the disasterThe product development process of the rotary compressor exhibits a number of factors that caused the eventual disaster. The first identified factor was failure by the organization to make explorative preliminary considerations over the product.

Having worked with rotary compressors, the company should have been able to identify possible threats to the process. Identification of threats like thermal factors and durability problems in high temperatures should have been considered. The organization therefore failed to evaluate possible setbacks to the project. Another factor that caused the disaster was lack of expertise for successful design and implementation of the venture. While suggestions were made for outsourcing, and an experienced personnel offered services besides proposals for joint ventures with experienced organizations, General electric resorted to using its personnel that turned out to be inefficient.

Reducing the testing period for the product from the proposed two years to two months is another cause of the disaster as flaws could not be adequately detected (Evans, 2007).Responsible individualsResponsibility over these failures lies with both the line supervisor and the company’s top management. The line supervisor failed to recognize the potential threats to the project’s success and to enlighten the top management for informed decision making. The management is also responsible for its decision to use internal human resource for the project instead of the proposed outsourcing (Evans, 2007).

How the disaster might have been preventedThe disaster might have been prevented by the management implementation of suggestions and recommendations at lower level of the organization’s structure. These included the expressed opinions of the company’s engineering technicians as well as a consultant’s opinion that called for extra measures in undertaking the project. Respecting the proposals would have designed an efficient product, free from the later identified faults. Another possible initiative that could have prevented the disaster is competence in decision making among the organization’s top management.

Similarly, adherence to the originally stipulated ‘two-year’ testing period would have identified the project’s problems for either corrective measures or alternative projects (Evans, 2007). Learnt lessonsThe major learnt lesson from the case is the fact that operational efficiency is a very important aspect in a production process. Such efficiencies require focus from a project’s first step, which is preliminary research on feasibility, up to evaluation of a project’s success for necessary and immediate corrective measures.

This is because inefficiencies lead to wastes that might be uneconomical (Evans, 2007). Achieving competitive advantageThe GE attempted to achieve competitive advantage through efficiency in utilizing time resource. This was pursued by designing the rotary compressor that produced a unit in less than six seconds from the company’s previous capacity of 65 minutes per unit. The company however failed by sacrificing quality of the proposed products through compromised design and test procedures (Evans, 2007).

ReferenceEvans, J. (2007). Quality and Performance Excellence: Management, Organization, and Strategy. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.