Three Cases - Assignment Example

THREE CASES Name Institutional Affiliation Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Abstract 3 Case 1: Call a Truck 4 Case 2: The Project Hand-off Method 6 Case 3: Masters of collaboration 8 11 References: 11 Three Cases Abstract This paper addresses three cases namely Call A Truck (CAT) Inc, The Project Hand-off Method, and Masters of Collaboration. The analysis of the cases provides an understanding of approaches undertaken by named companies and the lessons that can be learnt through such approaches. The information is put together in a question-answer format. Case 1: Call a Truck 1. What were other operative and strategic actions, not mentioned in the case, which might have been executed to accomplish James’ vision? Other operative actions that might have been included to accomplish the CEO’s vision include using the computer not only for customer-request communications but other business operations including advertising sales plans and promotion, scheduling freights, record-keeping, and public relations among others. Another consideration in operations involves the physical location of the business. It is possible that CAT Inc will expand with changes and a projected growth of its customers’ base. The most important part is to ensure that they are in a location that allows or support technological advancement in order to tap in the commercial part of the business that is, contacting and communicating with customers (Belman, 2005). CAT Inc., should leverage its knowledge, and invest in both people and technology in order to succeed in all its business operations. Other strategic actions that might have been included to accomplish the CEO’s vision include building a client database to ensure long-term relationships with customers. The new strategies should help the company identify and choose a well defined niche as this will help to tailor the product/service package and marketing efforts to the specific needs of the market segment (Belman, 2005). The niche can be designed based not only on customer behaviours as was the case, but in geographical terms, types of cargo, size loads, and specific industries, among other niches. The company should also consider a management team capable of implementing the new changes and leading the company to the new direction. Management should be involved at all stages including carrier screening process which should be of quality. This entails putting in the management experienced, responsive professionals that are challenged, empowered and rewarded to approve smart decisions that are resourceful for the business (Belman, 2005). 2. How do the changes affect the strategy of CAT, Inc.? The changes will lead to adoption of a new organizational structure in which management teams involved in Information Technology software will be added to the organizational hierarchy. On the other hand, some employees who cannot fit in the new structure will face the lay-off to pave way for those who can align their knowledge and skills with CAT’s new vision. The organizational culture may also change with the changes in the communication process and adoption of advanced technology. The changes may also result in conflicts considering that people are generally resistant to changes. It therefore requires that change management be held in a strategic way that includes training of employees about the new infrastructure and business processes to be able to increase their confidence in the new environment. The changes will also lead to efficiency in running the business and increase in performance if conducted well. With the new infrastructure, CAT Inc will be able to keep track of their customers, identify new market segments easily, conduct quicker communication and service delivery hence reducing waiting time, and attract more customers in the larger digital platforms, these being just few of the benefits. 3. What role did project management play? The project management played the role of organizing teams into groups that will align to customer needs. These included guiding the project teams to relate the products and services that CAT Inc offers through its call centre, to the customers. The project managers thus involved in motivating and guiding their teams in cross-functioning matrix that will make it easier to respond to the needs of the customers. The management was also involved in planning for future activities for the company (Milosevic, Patanakul, & Srivannaboon, 2011). Case 2: The Project Hand-off Method 1. Why, by implementing the hand-off method, are there multiple project managers in control of the project as it progresses through the development lifecycle? In a hands-off method, there are multiple project managers in the product’s development lifecycle because of the notion that a project manager is most skilled and inherently motivated at his/her production stage and thus able to make most decisions without the direct involvement of management (Boyle, 2003). The hands-off managers always hire team members that he/she believes are qualified and skilled to do the job well. There is a certain amount of trust laid in this concept. The architectural team manager involves team members who are qualified to develop the needed architectural concepts, but when it comes to putting the hardware requirements to the products, or the marketing the derived concept, the project manager leaves it to the hardware project managers and product marketing manager respectively who are believed to master their specific jobs at their best (Boyle, 2003). 2. Do you agree with the judgment that the hand-off method is popular in companies where true project management value is usually not well understood? Why or why not? I agree that the hand-off method is popular in companies where true project management value is usually not well understood. Or it could be understood but not held to the same significance as hands-on method users do. Companies that employ hands-off method in the management of their projects are usually focused on the technical quality aspect but ignore the important benefits of project management that can lead to an all-round success (Milosevic, Martinelli, Waddell, 2009). These include the management’s awareness of all the events taking place in each step of the product life-cycle in order to add input, or spot inadequacies and solve them early enough. Companies that understand the value of project management also know its value in steering the quick yet quality completion of projects at all stages simultaneously. The project manager shows the need to be heavily involved in all aspects of the teams’ tasks and thus the project succeeds or fails as an entire team rather than sub-teams (Boyle, 2003). 3. What are the pros and cons of the hand-off method? The pros of the hands-off method include giving the employed project manager a sense of empowerment and fulfilment, because authority is shared and there is less control (Boyle, 2003). Consequently, this becomes a drive to be responsible and perform one’s part to satisfactory levels. There is minimal control in team and everyone is resourceful and motivated. This method also enhances creativity and innovation in the group. The hands-off approach allows one to come up with ideas of which he is free to use in ways that seem perfect. Many innovative companies always employ the hands-off approach in the business processes (Boyle, 2003). On the other hand, the cons of a hands-off approach is that in situations where one is not inherently responsible or committed to work, it can lead to adverse project outcomes such as misuse of resources or even a compromise in quality expectations (Boyle, 2003). This method is also risky in that serious problems may go undetected for a long time, since there is no involvement of an overall manager in each step of the production. Tracing the problem to the cycle from which it was generated can also become very complicated. Also, the lack of direction and control can sometimes leave the team members feeling lost and unsupported which drains the motivational energy to work well (Boyle, 2003). Case 3: Masters of collaboration 1. ‘Individualism’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance’ are the two dimensions proposed by Hofstede which are mentioned in the text as influential factors in international collaboration. The text gives the ‘scores’ of the UK, USA, Germany and Japan on these dimensions to illustrate the differences. a) Look up the score of these same countries on the remaining cultural dimensions on www.geert-hofstede.com In addition to individualism and uncertainty avoidance (Lester 2007) other cultural dimensions according to Hofstede are power distance, masculinity, and the recently added long term orientation. The scores for UK, USA, Germany, and Japan are as follows: Power distance Masculinity/Femininity Long term orientation UK 35% 66% 25% USA 40% 62% 29% Germany 35% 66% 31% Japan 54% 95% 80% Source: www.geert-hofstede.com b. How could score differences on these other dimensions also influence collaboration between the four cultures mentioned? Give concrete examples, if possible. Japan has the highest power distance score among the four countries. The power distance dimension depicts the cultural attitude that there is no equality among individuals in the society. At a score of 54%, Japan is moderately a hierarchical society which affects the length of time taken for decision-making as the decision has to be approved by the hierarchical layers. In contrast, Germany and UK have the lowest power distance ranking in this chart, indicating minimized attitudes of inequality among these societies, and the belief that people should be treated equally. These different cultural values between UK/Germany/USA and Japan can affect how business is conducted and performance achieved in collaboration. For example, it might only take the Logistics and Operations manager to approve of shipping of automobile parts in either of the Western countries, and this is a decision that can take only a few minutes. On the other hand, a similar need for approval on the Japan side will have to pass through to the top management including the CEO before a concrete decision is made. Masculinity/Femininity can also influence collaboration between these countries. US, UK, and Germany have fairly equal scores on the masculinity index. This shows that in collaboration between two or among the countries, there will be no problem relating with people of opposite genders in their various positions. However, the problem sets in when Japan collaborates with either of the Western countries. For example, males from the Japan groups may find it difficult to report to female leaders or managers. On the other hand, females from Japan may also face restriction discussions with males from the Western side. Such restrictions, if not dealt with are bad for collaborations as they can lead to inadequate communication breakdown and inadequate decision-making. Long-term orientation refers to future-oriented perspective that a society can be willing to let itself in a deal. Japan has by far the highest long-term commitment score among the four countries compared, while western countries like the UK, scores the lowest. This can affect collaboration in a negative way if not dealt with. For example, a company from Japan may avoid collaborating with a country from the UK in the realization that the latter is only up for a short-time contract. 2. The text mentions that within the same organization wider cultural gaps exist between, say, R&D and finance as between the R&D teams of two partners. To what extent can Hofstede’s cultural dimensions be used to explain such cultural gaps? Such gaps are determined by differences in the level of practices according to Hofstede. Various departments or groups in an organization can have varying organizational culture which may lead to different way of approaching processes hence affecting collaboration. Organizational or group culture is the collective mindset of one group or individual that differs from another who does not share in the same thought. Understanding such cultural gaps is important in assisting collaboration among departments, groups, teams, or individuals in the society. References: Belman, D. (2005). Trucking in the age of information. England: Ashgate Boyle, G. (2003). Designing project management. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Lester, T. (2007, June, 6th). Masters of collaboration Financial Times. Hofstede. National cultural dimensions www.geert-hofstede.com Milosevic, D., Patanakul, P., & Srivannaboon, S. (2011). “Call a Truck” In Case Studies in project, program, and organizational project management. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Milosevic, D., Martinelli, R., Waddell, J. (2009). “The project hand-off method” In Project management for improved business results. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Read More