Order ID 6463784949 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Sources/References 6 Number of Pages 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions ***You should review your colleagues’ submissions and provide feedback to at least two colleagues that have yet to receive feedback from at least two students. In your response, include whether you think the diagram effectively captures root causes and offers potential solutions. Provide an example to support your position. If for some reason your submission has not been reviewed, please either seek out a colleague to review your work or utilize peer reviews of other posts to help enhance your final submission of your Systems Analysis Portfolio, due in Week 5.
Note that an exemplary Peer Review post demonstrates all of the following:
- Provides constructive, substantial, and meaningful input that is specific and directly related to the work-product of the colleague as it pertains to the assignment and weekly outcomes that will further assist your peer in developing his or her treatise
- Provides comments on organization, grammar, and proper APA formatting
- Remains professional in tone at all times
Note: Comments such as “Good Job” or “Interesting Project” may be made as encouragement but will not count for credit toward your peer review(s).
General Guidance on Peer Feedback Length: Feedback to a peer will typically be 1–2 paragraphs, and may also include revisions to the diagram itself
1st Colleague to respond to:
Analysis of Bayonne’s Organizational Performance
An organization can be analyzed by use of different means such as the System diagramming approach where one transforms a diagram in such a manner that it can meet a particular need.
As per the diagram the company was having issues in the poor quality of products being produced, there were not meeting the sales targets due to low production cost. On that note the company had to put in new measures that are represented as options for meeting the company
Variables in achieving the desired goals. After implementing the new variables one has to have a point of comparison that checks that the options put in place will meet the need and they have direct link to the evaluation point that finally results in the final products being produced.
Ideally the company is face with several issues that are making it not to achieve its goals. On that note, one can develop a robust effect –cause –effect tree diagram that will incorporate the 5y to know the problems affecting the company
After developing the above rot cause analysis one can also present the problems facing the company in a casual loop diagram shown below.
Summary
On the onset, the company ought to know the problems that re facing it hence making it not to meet the targets or perform as expected within its market. The system diagram approach provides a wide picture of what the unmet needs are and some interventions that can be placed to ensure they are achieved. It is evident that the company is not able to deliver all the customer orders due to low productivity within the factory. The firm has explored the option of using shifts though they ineffective or not cost effective for the firm (Shapiro & Morrison,2012).
From the system diagram some of the processes do not meet the desired output. When a system is working properly one input ought to bring a result that is equivalent to the resources used Wherever there is a deviation it calls for the management to get a different loop that can be used for correcting the abnormally.
In this case, there is the evaluation section of the system loop that investigates each of the intervention put in place evaluates them before they are finally taken as the policies of the company. After getting the issue from the system one moves to the root cause analysis that in this case uses the five why. Ideally the five why approach is to ask you possible questions for phenomena in a five-step approach. For most issues one may move to the fifth elements and there are instances where the solution can be obtained by the time one goes to the second why. Once the solution is obtained one moves to the next stage of correcting the same. For the company under study there was an issue of quality, low production volumes, sales department running on high campaigns, among others. On the element of quality, the five Why analyses revealed that at times the glue was missing, or the operators used excess of it. After identifying the problem, it was vital to get the correction or rectify the same so as the company can over to profitability. On that note the option of changing the machine and having more quality personnel to man the process was seen to be most viable.
Other issues identified in the process include the element of the production line not having an optimal design. On those issues, there are some processes that could be done at the same place to avoid instances of repeat transportation that normally lead to unnecessary high cost of production. To rectify the above it was appropriate to redesign the entire production line to have better efficiency. At times, the production unit was producing excess of a particular product that was not required at instances. Under such circumstances one notices issues of communication breakdown between the factory and the sales team. To mitigate that there is need for regular meetings between the production department and the sales team to have a common approach towards production After identifying the issues in the root cause analysis, the implementing phase requires a strategy for the same. On that part, of implementing.
Recommendation:
the robust causal loop diagram provides clear links that will guide the management on the strategy to use. For instance, if they decide to change the production line then its man’s resources must be allocated for the same. After allocating the resources the results will be increased production and quality department should get new strategies of checking the same. By so doing, the company will have products of high quality to sale and the management ought to look at options of having low cist sales campaign. In conclusion the system diagram, root cause analysis and the Robust casual loops are important tools for making analysis of most production lines. One ought to select the most appropriate and use the current software’s to make such diagram. The interpretation and implementation of recommendation from such analysis should be adhered to gain better results. They enable one to easily explain the company strategy to all employees and concerned parties in a visual way. In other words, they can guide every employee of the company on the changes that the firm intends to take to stay in the market.
References
Shapiro, R., & Morrison, P. (2012). Bayonne Packaging, Inc. [Case study]. HBS Case 4420.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
2nd Colleague to Respond to:
Bayonne Packaging Inc. ran a loss in 2011 (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). Their new VP of Operations, John Milliken investigated why by looking at cost, quality, and delivery (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). In this assignment, I explore quality and delivery.
In October 2011, 6% of products were defective and had to be scrapped (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). An additional 1% were rejected by customers (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). In both cases, the primary reason was that the glue job was poorly done (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). The staff doesn’t follow a regular maintenance schedule because they are typically behind schedule (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). They choose to use the less-reliable faster gluing machine instead of the slower, better quality machine because they are typically behind schedule (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). Why are they behind schedule? Let’s look at delivery.
In October 2011, BPI delivered more than 20% of their orders late (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). The sheeter holds up production for orders a week or two to gang orders: schedule orders together that share the same set up (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). This creates a cascade of lateness for the departments that follow in the workflow (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). The sheeter department doesn’t use the computerized scheduling system because it is not accurate (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). It is not accurate because staff don’t consistently input data, so it cannot give accurate output (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). The way staff operate, they depend upon individuals’ experience, resulting in a non-functioning computerized scheduling system and irreplaceable staff (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). In addition, different departments use different manual processes and the computer system is not coordinated with the Work Order Jackets. As a result, staff don’t feel committed to making the computerized scheduling system work, so they activate a reinforcing feedback loop to continue to fall behind on orders. Being behind schedule triggers reactive scheduling, fitting in expedited orders which results in lower quality output.
I see a self-limiting growth archetype playing out. The success of the sales team stresses production, causing lower production quality and missed deadlines (Senge, 2006). There is also a “shifting the burden” structure when the sheeter department tries to improve efficiency by ganging orders (Senge, 2006). The result of their “efficiency” is delays for all the subsequent steps in production (Shapiro & Morrison, 2012). It appears that BPI’s staff is operating on the assumption that individual expertise learned over time should be valued over a computerized scheduling system. While expertise is certainly vital to the company, they have to objectively analyze why there has been a drop in quality and many late deliveries. “This explains why, when we examine individual case studies, we so often find that those assumptions the team has held the longest or the most deeply are the likeliest to be its undoing. Some beliefs have come to appear so obvious that it is no longer politic to debate them” (Olson & van Bever & Verry, 2008). Hopefully Milliken can bring a fresh perspective to bring BPI’s production back on track.
References
Olson, M. S., van Bever, D., & Verry, S. (2008). When growth stalls. Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 50–61.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shapiro, R., & Morrison, P. (2012). Bayonne Packaging, Inc. [Case study]. HBS Case 4420. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Root Cause Tree Diagram (5 Whys)
Causal Loop Diagram: Self-limiting growth
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!