Acuscan Critical Thinking Case Study - Essay Example

Acuscan Critical Thinking Case Study Number: Question Assumptions made by Kelly Some of the assumptions that Kellymade include: assuming that Pat (Director of Marketing) does not know about Quality Control; 2) assuming that the retinal scanner could not be developed by August of the same year; 3) assuming that there would not be enough staff to successfully carry out the assignment because the company had lost 500 employees in the previous year; 4) assuming that customers would be dissatisfied because AcuScan could not deliver a product that would meet consumer expectations; 5) assuming that Pat was going behind his back because he asked the programmer whether the project was feasible within the targeted time frame without consulting Kelly first. Finally Kelly assumed that the only thing they had do by August of the same year was to ‘Identify Incoming Customers through retinal scanning.’ Pat Pat’s assumptions included the presumptions that the retinal scanner could be done by August of the same year; 2) that Kelly was not respecting him because he lacked experience; 3) Pat felt that Kelly was undermining his knowledge and input; 4) assumed that increased cost would pay for itself and that 5) additional help through outside contractors was needed so as complete the project on time. Pat also assumed (6) that postponing and hosting a product launch would increase the company’s profit. Finally, Pat assumed that the increased cost would pay for itself in a ten-year period and that the company needed to expand its operations into new markets by improving the technology they were using on the retinal scanner. Cliff Cliff’s main presumptions included the claims that iScanner was the security scanner of choice for airports throughout the nation; 2) Pat’s history as a talented and creative marketing force within the cereal industry would prove to be a boon to AcuScan’s place in the market and lastly he presumed that (3) development of the iScanner into a retail environment would put Acuscan farther out in front of their competition. Chris Chris assumed that there was a need to cut the company’s costs by about 15% without retrenching the workers and that product development was pressured to produce more while cutting cost. 1 Arguments made by each of these people Cliff O’Connor Cliff O’Connor- the CEO was arguing that AcuScan’s profits had shifted from sales to service because the marketplace was mature and the economic crisis was at hand. He argued that only a new product would increase AcuScan’s revenues and profit. Cliff argues that the company had to develop a new product even though it had not developed a new product since its inception. In addition, he insisted that the production cost of the proposed new product had to be produced at a cost less than 2/3 of the total estimated costs and with no adjustments to the deadline. Pat Lambert Pat believed that the success of the company hinged upon the development of the new retinal scanner that he literally dreamt about. He argued that the new retinal scanner would satisfy an unmet need for retailers and offer the company earnings through specialized reporting obtained from “real-time” retinal scans and consumer behavior. Pat insisted that production of the new retinal scanner was worth the cost. Kelly Thomas Kelly Thomas who was the Head of engineering offered the most logical arguments about the development timeline, the costs and the associative processes therein. She asserted that Pat’s ideas about the new product were unrealistic even if the department had full staff. She suggested changes to the external design so as to make the retinal scan less obtrusive and effective in determining which feature was most desirable. Chris Martinas Chris largely agreed with Pat since he believed that the new product would increase the company’s profits though the budget allotted for the new product development was problematic. Question 3 a) Cliff O’Connor Cliff’s arguments were unsound because they focused mainly on one solution only. They examined past profits and growth in light of first to market entry, the markets’ initial need for the AcuScan and its placement within airports. Additionally, Cliff’s argument was unsound because the company had not developed another product there before. Given the financial constraints and human capital loss, Cliff should have explored alternative options. b) Pat Lambert Pat’s idea had some merit though it was extremely flawed, emotional in nature and illogical. Pat had failed to consider the ethical and legal merits of the technology, its uses, abuses and even the backend demands thereof. Pat’s argument was faulty because the latter would induce a need for a greater programming and support yet the company had already retrenched 500 of its workers. c) Kelly Thomas Kelly’s argument about the feasibility of the project was logical and it appears as if it had been rooted in her professional experience, those of the regulatory spheres and those of the product development itself. Kelly’s alternate solution held the most merit since she was able to showcase how the engineering department would actually engaged within the support of the existing product and streamline the external design as well as refine its features. In addition, Kelly was able to clearly explain that the envisaged budget and time was not adequate. d) Chris Martinas Chris was caught between Pat and Kelly since he believed that developing a new product would increase the company’s profits and enable it reach another industrial segment. Chris also used logic to demonstrate Kelly’s contentions about feasibility and how developing one feature could actually renew AcuScan’s place in the market. Question 4 Kelly – Kelly’s argument that her staffs could possibly not get the project done by the envisaged time claiming that the project was too large and she did not have adequate resources was completely fallacious. Pat- Pat’s argument was probably the most fallacious argument that was ever made in the whole case study. His idea was largely based on his dreams and waking thoughts which drove the dream-like ambition and proposals despite the obvious constraints and risks. Pat- Pat’s assertions about factions and opposition were also fallacious. They were largely based upon the difference between Pat’s perceptions of reality and the gap between feasibility. Nevertheless, Pat refused to reconcile the differences between the two. Pat- Pat’s email on February 18, 2003 also highlighted a number of fallacious arguments. Pat expressed disbelief when he was confronted with a 60% reduction in the budget, insisting that the programmers were the best. He insisted that the features could be refined a little and shifted the argument to the lack of cooperation upon the programmers and engineering department (UOP, 2003). Kelly- Kelly’s argument in the February 19, 2003 email also demonstrated some fallacious assumptions as pointed out by her statement; “We are totally putting ourselves on the line with this project”. She expressed the need for pity and recognition of the sacrifice she and her department was making. Even though the latter was true due to budget cuts and staff reductions, the appeals were can be termed to be somewhat emotionally informed (UOP, 2003). Chris- Chris’ argument that the future of the company depended upon them finding a way to get a new product in the market was completely fallacious (UOP, 2003). The company was still profitable and there were plenty of alternatives that existed though Chris refused to consider them. Pat- Pat’s email to Kelly arguing that he was not trying to her life difficult and that she could put together some prototype by August in the same year was fallacious. Even though pat recognized shortcomings and the probability of manufacturer defect, Pat still dreamt was still dreaming about market and the rewards thereof (UOP, 2003). He did not consider the fact that there was still a probability that faulty products could destroy the brand. Kelly – another fallacious argument by Kelly was her claim that Pat had undercut her authority by talking directly to Kelly’s juniors in attempt to see whether the work she needed done was feasible. Pat – another fallacious argument by Pat was hi suggestion that the development of the proposed new prototype for a niche test market had to be completed with nominal effort and time preferably before August of the same year. Conclusion Question 5 (Description of the problems) An unrealistic vision of the new product, its scope and capabilities. Pat’s insistence on the features and scope of the product even when the budget and staff constraints risked the viability of the company. Failure to consider Kelly’s external redesign suggestions and the improvement of one feature. Others include: The company was losing market share and profits were falling. The company resources were tied up working to maintain the business since the company had to maintain its business while still determining how it would break into the market with new business ventures. The Director of Development and the new marketing executive could not see eye to eye thus jeopardizing any possibility of coming up with a viable solution to the hitches that the company was experiencing New Marketing Executive wanted it all and was unwilling to compromise at any cost. The Director of Development was not willing to compromise on the work getting done though he thought he could work with one. Question 6 ➢The vision of the new product, its scope and capabilities was tied to the belief that AcuScan could realize profits like the ones it used to get after its inception. Using the initial product profits and sales patterns, Pat and Cliff harnessed these figures to bolster the argument for the retail version development. ➢Using the Wilson Marketing data as the basis for the product development and its features, Pat and Cliff insisted that the product had to be delivered. ➢Using the company profit reports, Pat and Cliff insisted that the prevailed opportunity for the company to launch a new product was the only chance. ➢Pat and Cliff use the profit reports to focus on potential new product development rewards even when the budget for the new product demanded an additional 15% cut across the board. ➢ Kelly’s external redesign had merits to the company and the customers since it offered them a less obtrusive design. Data suggested that such a move would satisfy the unmet customer needs. AcuScan 11 could be made by improving only one feature of the existing product thus mirroring Pat’s argument about the iScanner 1.1 (UOP, 2003). However, the AcuScan 1.1 could have been improved and build upon the existing reputation and quality recognition. Question 7 ➢ Competitors have entered the marketplace (Paul & Elder, 2006) ➢Dissimilar expectations about profits, brand, quality and competition coexist within numerous departments. ➢ Kelly’s department now earns the most money for the company because of its role in service. ➢ Kelly’s department would be responsible for the new product development. ➢Pat, Cliff and Chris needed to consider that Kelly’s department had suffered budget cuts and staff reductions. Question 8 Despite the numerous challenges that the company was going through, there was still a room for improvement. In order for the company to remain competitive, AcuScan’s management should refine the company’s current iris scanner and make it less obtrusive externally. The company should also improve the scanning capabilities and offer current consumers a chance to buy the software upgrade. These two options may improve its sales and service. However, this can be profitable to the business if only it is executed within the timeline and budget allotted. These two options provide sales and marketing with choices for new and current customers if they are well considered. After all, customers could purchase the new and improved AcuScan with its sleek design and new improved software. If old customers did not want to upgrade equipment, they could purchase the software upgrade. Question 9 The main strength of the above options is the fact that the improved AcuScan with the sleeker design would provide retailers and other businesses a quality product that has a less obtrusive look. The proposed software package would also offer the current and new customers with diverse choices. For existing ones, new sales would be realized a factor that would inspire brand loyalty. The key weaknesses of the above recommendations are the fact that the new product might be more expensive compared to the previous model and the fact that some customers might be satisfied with their existing equipment and software and/or thus not willing to upgrade. Question 10 Instead of developing a new product, AcuScan should improve the current scanner. It should make the external design sleeker and the scanning capability improved. The software upgrade could also be marketed to the exiting customers thus increasing the company’s profit. If the existing customers purchased the new equipment upgrade and software upgrade, customer rewards would promote brand loyalty and inspire repeat sales. This would improve the company’s profits in a feasible manner. PART TWO Executive summary of the case for the CEO of AcuScan To: Cliff O’Connor, CEO From: Date: Subject: Revamping the iScanner AcuScan failed to meet its projected revenues for 2002 because of a number of changes that were introduced in the company such as the 2002 dramatic staff reductions of nearly 500 employees and subsequent supply chain budget cuts which were roughly 15%. The company’s poor performance occurred despite the fact that the company is said to have a 40% market share of the total market. The service sector dramatically improved to an extent that it contributed 70% the total company’s profit despite the economic challenges that the industry was facing. For these reasons, AcuScan must draw upon its creative team to revise its current iScanner and coauthor newer software. The iScanner is likely to be more appealing to the customers once it is made sleeker and its capabilities are enhanced. This will coauthor three packages for the sales and marketing department. The Situation Due to budgetary constraints and reduced staff, the previously proposed “Operation Optimize” new product development exceeds organizational capacity. While the retail scanner would have offered AcuScan an opportunity to develop a new product, its investment requirements lie beyond the company’s reach and the timeline for such a development is too lengthy. Given these realities, the iScanner 1.1 with its sleeker design and enhanced features builds upon AcuScan’s quality design and harnesses the AcuScan engineering department’s aggregate knowledge, experience and skill. Therefore, the iScanner 1.1 could reach the marketplace on August, deliver quality products and promote brand recognition and loyalty thus inspiring consumption and ultimately increasing revenues. Revamping the iScanner Given the staff reductions and the budgetary constraints, the development of the iScanner 1.1 would necessitate numerous sacrifices from the engineering department. However, the sacrifices required for new product development would mandate 15% reductions in each department except from the Sales and Marketing department as well as the Engineering department. AcuScan cannot jeopardize its reputation or brand recognition since the latter is charged with service for existing clients and the engineering department service now produces 70% of AcuScan’s revenues. If this is the case, current customers would end up purchasing devices made by the company’s competitors (UOP, 2003). After all, substitutes have entered the marketplace since AcuScan’s inception. Project Requirements The engineering department will develop a sleeker external design for the iScanner 1.1. Since customers including potential ones from the retail sector desire a less obtrusive design, this will inspire consumption. Additionally, the engineering department will enhance the scanning capacity and the current software. Drawing upon the service provided to existing customers and the unmet needs, the engineering department can do so rather easily. After all, the engineering department is familiar with the code, quality, regulatory requirements, and product support (UOP, 2003). Kelly Thomas, the head of engineering will meet with Pat Lambert as well as Chris Martinas and detail the project specifications and enhancements. This will allow the Sales and Marketing department to develop a customer rewards program for the existing customers. After all, these customers may choose to upgrade software, equipment and/or both. For the retail customers identified by Pat, an alternate sale and marketing campaign will be developed. Ultimately, both will yield increased sales and profits. Recommendations My recommendation is that Kelly should be made to realize that the proposed project is bigger and of much importance than any one employee in this organization. Every individual should also realize that the success of the company is highly dependent on efforts put by the staffs. Every employee of this company should feel committed and should be willing to work little bit harder in order to restore the incredible success that the company used to enjoy after its conception. Instead of Kelly keeping on complaining that she is being ignored, she needs to rise to the occasion and collaborate with the other employees as opposed to looking out for her ego. Though Kelly is important, there are still other experienced engineers who can take the challenge and prove themselves in the team. Conclusion Based on the internal and external conditions, AcuScan will revamp its existing iScanner. Improvements will include sleeker external design, improved scanning accuracy and software enhancements. With a target launch date of August 2003, AcuScan expects greater market penetration and market entry within the retail sphere that will be coupled with Customer Rewards for the existing customers. It is believed that brand recognition and brand loyalty will significantly promote repeat consumption of the company’s products. References Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. UNC Writing Center (2000). Fallacies. University of Phoenix [UOP] (2003). Critical Thinking GEN 480: Assessment Case Study. University of Phoenix Courseware. Retrieved June 22, 2014. Read More