Over the last several years, Forstar Aircraft Engines has renewed its overall commitment to quality, speed, and cost-eff
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 8:44 am
Over the last several years, Forstar Aircraft Engines has
renewed its overall commitment to quality, speed, and
cost-effectiveness in order to maintain its status as a financial
and technological leader in the industry. As the industry has
become more competitive, and the advantage enjoyed by Forstar has
decreased, there has been an emphasis from management on three
quality improvement goals:
Improving product quality
Improving design and manufacturing speed
Reducing losses from the shop floors
The losses -- associated with the scrap, rework, and repair of
poorly designed or poorly machined parts -- have cost Forstar too
much over the years, both financially and in strained relations
between Design and Manufacturing. All too often, these two
departments at Forstar argue over the blame for losses in front of
the MRB (Materials Review Board). Such encounters have not helped
to improve relations.
Recently, however, there have been signs that change may be
coming. For one thing, Forstar's President proclaimed in a speech
last month that many American companies "will no doubt soon move to
parallel operations." Forstar still develops and improves parts "in
series." This means that each part passes from Design to
Manufacturing, and then to various finishing operations.
Changing over to parallel operations would mean that Design and
Manufacturing would have to work together more to interactively
evaluate the performance and design of a part as it is developed.
Such a change would be no small matter for Forstar to undertake,
especially in light of the strained relations between Design and
Manufacturing. Nonetheless, many managers at Forstar took the
president's speech, which was published internally in Forstar's
monthly newsletter, as a sign that Forstar might be preparing for a
major leap to parallel operations in some of its new plants.
Another signal came last month when the Vice President of Design
Engineering approached the Vice President of Manufacturing
Production, suggesting that they convene a team of managers to
develop a plan for how the two departments might work together to
meet the three quality improvement goals. They asked managers from
Design, Manufacturing, Sourcing, and Quality to choose one section
manager each to attend a meeting to discuss implementing a
cooperative "Common
Measures" program.
The four section managers that were chosen are:
L.
Wilkins Design
Engineering
H.
Ansel Manufacturing
Production
L.
Berenson Continuous
Quality Improvement
T.
Donahue - Sourcing
These four have been asked to meet with D. Holloway, a special
consultant from Manufacturing (with previous experience in both
Quality and Design). The group of five has been tasked with
agreeing on a plan that will move Forstar toward its three quality
improvement goals, and improve relations between departments.
The four issues that the group must resolve are the
following:
How will the Common Measures team be managed?
Where will the money come from to fund Common Measures?
How will the results of the program be measured?
What time commitment will the managers make to the Common Measures
project?
If they can reach general agreement on these four issues, then
Common Measures teams will be set up for each Forstar division
(e.g. - airfoils) using today's team as a model.
General agreement means that only four out of five people
present need to agree on all four issues, though unanimous
agreement would send a more powerful message to management.
If general agreement is not reached, the VP's will likely go
ahead themselves and make a declsion on how to implement Common
Measures, without the benefit of the team's recommendation. Today's
meeting may well represent the section managers' only chance to
affect senior management's thinking before it acts.
What advice would you give to five other people about to play
this game for the first time with regard to the process they might
use to generate agreement on all four issues on the table? What
other process steps could you have taken during the negotiations to
ensure a satisfactory outcome from the standpoint of the character
you were playing while maintaining relationships (and build trust)?
(250 words)
Did the participants in your group attempt to form either
winning or blocking coalitions, or both? How effective were these
attempts? Given that only four out of the five parties needed to be
included in an agreement, what strategy could a party about to be
left out of an agreement use to convince the others not to reach
agreement without them? (200 words)
renewed its overall commitment to quality, speed, and
cost-effectiveness in order to maintain its status as a financial
and technological leader in the industry. As the industry has
become more competitive, and the advantage enjoyed by Forstar has
decreased, there has been an emphasis from management on three
quality improvement goals:
Improving product quality
Improving design and manufacturing speed
Reducing losses from the shop floors
The losses -- associated with the scrap, rework, and repair of
poorly designed or poorly machined parts -- have cost Forstar too
much over the years, both financially and in strained relations
between Design and Manufacturing. All too often, these two
departments at Forstar argue over the blame for losses in front of
the MRB (Materials Review Board). Such encounters have not helped
to improve relations.
Recently, however, there have been signs that change may be
coming. For one thing, Forstar's President proclaimed in a speech
last month that many American companies "will no doubt soon move to
parallel operations." Forstar still develops and improves parts "in
series." This means that each part passes from Design to
Manufacturing, and then to various finishing operations.
Changing over to parallel operations would mean that Design and
Manufacturing would have to work together more to interactively
evaluate the performance and design of a part as it is developed.
Such a change would be no small matter for Forstar to undertake,
especially in light of the strained relations between Design and
Manufacturing. Nonetheless, many managers at Forstar took the
president's speech, which was published internally in Forstar's
monthly newsletter, as a sign that Forstar might be preparing for a
major leap to parallel operations in some of its new plants.
Another signal came last month when the Vice President of Design
Engineering approached the Vice President of Manufacturing
Production, suggesting that they convene a team of managers to
develop a plan for how the two departments might work together to
meet the three quality improvement goals. They asked managers from
Design, Manufacturing, Sourcing, and Quality to choose one section
manager each to attend a meeting to discuss implementing a
cooperative "Common
Measures" program.
The four section managers that were chosen are:
L.
Wilkins Design
Engineering
H.
Ansel Manufacturing
Production
L.
Berenson Continuous
Quality Improvement
T.
Donahue - Sourcing
These four have been asked to meet with D. Holloway, a special
consultant from Manufacturing (with previous experience in both
Quality and Design). The group of five has been tasked with
agreeing on a plan that will move Forstar toward its three quality
improvement goals, and improve relations between departments.
The four issues that the group must resolve are the
following:
How will the Common Measures team be managed?
Where will the money come from to fund Common Measures?
How will the results of the program be measured?
What time commitment will the managers make to the Common Measures
project?
If they can reach general agreement on these four issues, then
Common Measures teams will be set up for each Forstar division
(e.g. - airfoils) using today's team as a model.
General agreement means that only four out of five people
present need to agree on all four issues, though unanimous
agreement would send a more powerful message to management.
If general agreement is not reached, the VP's will likely go
ahead themselves and make a declsion on how to implement Common
Measures, without the benefit of the team's recommendation. Today's
meeting may well represent the section managers' only chance to
affect senior management's thinking before it acts.
What advice would you give to five other people about to play
this game for the first time with regard to the process they might
use to generate agreement on all four issues on the table? What
other process steps could you have taken during the negotiations to
ensure a satisfactory outcome from the standpoint of the character
you were playing while maintaining relationships (and build trust)?
(250 words)
Did the participants in your group attempt to form either
winning or blocking coalitions, or both? How effective were these
attempts? Given that only four out of the five parties needed to be
included in an agreement, what strategy could a party about to be
left out of an agreement use to convince the others not to reach
agreement without them? (200 words)