Homework answers / question archive / Case Study 1: “General Motors: Packard Electric Division” 1 Case Study 1:Case Study 1: “General Motors: Packard Electric Division” sh Th is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o

Case Study 1: “General Motors: Packard Electric Division” 1 Case Study 1:Case Study 1: “General Motors: Packard Electric Division” sh Th is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o

Business

Share With

Case Study 1: “General Motors: Packard Electric Division” 1 Case Study 1:Case Study 1: “General Motors: Packard Electric Division” sh Th is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o. co m Saint Leo University This study source was downloaded by 100000773360911 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 07:04:56 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/32449480/MGT-492-Case-Study-1-HWdocx/ CASE STUDY 1: “GENERAL MOTORS: PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION” 2 Case Study 1: “General Motors: Packard Electric Division” Packard has been ingrained in the automotive supply industry for decades. They are a major supplier of wiring solutions for General Motors as well as other auto manufacturers. They have long standing relationships and pride themselves on providing great product solutions for their customers which is an advantage. Packard goes above and beyond to ensure customer satisfaction. They set up a special engineering department to ensure customer satisfaction. "Cooperative Involvement Engineering (CIE) reported to the director of reliability and was is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o. co m designed to provide a direct avenue for customer feedback into manufacturing operations, engineering, and Packard Electric upper management. Its role was that of a customer advocate and it examined any Packard Electric decision involving a customer" (Ellet, 2007, p.219). After carefully reviewing the case for Packard Electric Division, I believe the best viable solution for the organization would be to produce the RIM grommet and the IHG grommet parallel for the 1992 models for General Motors. This seem to be a less risky maneuver than to go strictly with the RIM and risk the total failure of the production. It also supports moving the organization into the future as the RIM grommet is a better solution not only for the customer but for Packard Electric Division as the RIM wire harness is smaller in size and more versatile and can be used for multiple automobile solutions. By choosing to go live with both options it will be a win-win with the Packard engineering teams and the customer. The engineering teams were Th split on wanting to go live with the RIM grommet or to stay with the IHG grommet. The performance. sh customer desires the new solution of the RIM grommet due to the superior water leak This study source was downloaded by 100000773360911 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 07:04:56 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/32449480/MGT-492-Case-Study-1-HWdocx/ CASE STUDY 1: “GENERAL MOTORS: PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION” 3 Necessary Actions. By choosing this option to go live with both solution parallel this will required additional planning and work from the Packard team. You would likely need to breakdown this project into three phases, IHG design and development, RIM process development and plant go live setup. Logistically the organization would need to design the new IHG that would parallel the production of the RIM. The team would need to work on completing the design of the IHG in a compressed schedule so they can have the solution ready for the go live of the 1992 GM is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o. co m automobiles. The engineering team would need to also complete develop of the processes to ensure the RIM grommet processes are developed and perfected prior to go live in a compressed schedule. Compression can be done by moving underutilized resources to work on different parts of the project and by working on more than one part of the project simultaneously. The team would need to provide the logistics plan for both lines of product to go live with the GM manufacturing plants. They would need to plan the equipment moves and ensure all the material needed for both units arrive to support the plant’s production. They would need the EPA approvals to operate the RIM machine due to the toxicity of the chemicals used in the production process. They would also need to develop the go live plans for both solutions. This would involve extensive planning with the customer as well with the project design teams. Why my hypothesis is better than the other alternatives. Th The reason my hypothesis to produce both the IHG and the RIM grommets is the best solution then to produce one of the others is because of the balanced need of the customer and sh for the greater good of the organization to move forward with a new solution that will move them into the future for this product solution. The issue with just going for the new RIM solution is that it is the riskiest solution that could be potentially disastrous because of the danger of shutting This study source was downloaded by 100000773360911 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 07:04:56 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/32449480/MGT-492-Case-Study-1-HWdocx/ CASE STUDY 1: “GENERAL MOTORS: PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION” 4 down production. The reason you don’t just convenience the customer to stay with the IHG grommet solution is that the product is inferior because of bulkiness and the water leakage issues the customer dislikes. The RIM solution is also more cost effective in the long run because the ease of adaptability for additional solutions for other product lines and customers and the smaller size that makes it easier to integrate into the customer product designs of their automobiles. This is the future of the electrical system solutions for the organization. The potential advantages of the RIM grommet itself are that the RIM has a better seal against water leaks, the potential of is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o. co m cost savings, wiring harness assembly process will be easier and the improved reliability. You also have the potential to use the same system for multiple vehicles and reduce the engineering and retooling cost for the organization. The disadvantages of the RIM grommet to Packard and its customers were that they are unsure if the will meet the customer’s deadline for the product of 1992 automobiles with the current standing of the RIM project solution. The logistical challenge to provide both parts will be a disadvantage, but the need for a backup plan in case something goes wrong with the RIM process is a necessary to protect the customer from shutting down production. The machine purchased to produce the RIM grommet needs EPA approval to use due to toxicity of the materials used in production. The RIM grommet manufacturing process was more intense so the cost to manufacture was much higher that when they produced the IHG. Another disadvantage was if a wire goes bad you are not able to remove and replace just the one Th wire because it was injected into the parts molding. You also have the potential danger of mixing the A and B chemicals which would cause the materials to go solid and shit down the equipment. sh You would either need a fail proof safeguard to prevent this catastrophic event or a backup system which would be very costly for the organization. The most critical risk is working on the relationship and culture of the team between the product development engineers and This study source was downloaded by 100000773360911 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 07:04:56 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/32449480/MGT-492-Case-Study-1-HWdocx/ CASE STUDY 1: “GENERAL MOTORS: PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION” 5 manufacturing. The two groups are split on whether to go for the new technology of the RIM grommet or to stay with the IHG grommet. “Many of the product development people were very excited by the RIM grommet’s possibilities, many of the manufacturing people were dead set against it”. (Ellet, 2007, pg.215). These issues support not just going for one solution over the other. The happy medium would be to supply both parts for the 1992 GM automobiles production as the customer desires the RIM grommet for their solution but the organization needs a backup plan if the RIM is not successful. So, to provide both the RIM and IHG grommet is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o. co m solutions would be the best for the team, organization and the customer. Follow-on actions. The follow up actions would be to secure the necessary approvals for this project solution. You would need the organization to provide their approval to work both solutions for the customer. You would also need to get agreement from General Motors to provide both solutions. You would also need the engineering teams to come together to pull off the design solutions and provide the necessary planning and resources to execute both solutions for the customer. You would need to follow up to ensure the IHG design solution is fast tracked so it’s ready for the execution for go live with production. You would need to follow up on the RIM grommet solution to make sure the processes are developed and designed in a way to prevent the chemical chambers from getting filled with the wrong chemical. If all of these actions are Th properly followed up on and pushed from completion then the solution provided will be ready sh for the customer for the production of the 1992 production lines of automobiles. This study source was downloaded by 100000773360911 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 07:04:56 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/32449480/MGT-492-Case-Study-1-HWdocx/ CASE STUDY 1: “GENERAL MOTORS: PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION” 6 References Ellet, W. (2007). The case study handbook: How to read, discuss, and write persuasively about sh Th is ar stu ed d vi y re aC s o ou urc rs e eH w er as o. co m cases. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN: 978-1-4221-0158-2 This study source was downloaded by 100000773360911 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 07:04:56 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/32449480/MGT-492-Case-Study-1-HWdocx/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)