Managing Human Behaviour at Work

(MHBG22-2)
Case Assignment – II

The Paradoxical Twins: Acme and Omega

Electronics

Secondary Group-6
Prateek Raj (G22031)
Radha Rani (G22032)
Rinjal Banerjee (G22033)
Sabyasachi Dey (G22034)
Sakthivel L (G22035)
Sanjeevani (G22036)
Q1. Compare the structure and process followed in both organizations (based on STAR model
discussion)

ACME

Structure- The company retained the structure of the previous company Technological Products.
They promoted the General Manager to the President.
Most of the decisions at the company were made by the President of the company.
Processes- The President, John Tyler ran a “tight ship” and ensured that the information flow was
properly managed to all the departments through memos.

The roles were clearly defined for each and every department. Few of the managers at ACME even
complained about the limited scope of work. People did not have a fair idea as to what was
happening in other departments since they were only aware about what was happening in their
departments.

Omega

Structure- The company hired a new President and made changes to the organisational structure.
Though the work was hectic and unorganised.
Most of the decisions at the company were made by the management team.
Processes- There were cases where people worked with different departments in the first few days.
However, this structure allowed employees to completely understand the work of the other
departments in the organisation.

The President of the company believed that the company was small enough for the employees to
directly to each other. Hence, the company did not follow the procedure of communicating
important topics through written memos.

Q2. Are you able to find any relation between structure and performance of both organizations
during different stage of the case? Explain?

Stage 1:

ACME is better organized functionally in organization chart whereas Omega is not particular to the
organization chart.

ACME’s CEO is better organized in terms of structure and the employees were accessed to know less
information whereas Omega CEO’s is believed that the industry is small and all the specialist were
brought together directly to accomplish the project/task.

Stage 2:

When it comes to implementing the project at ACME, the process given by industrial engineers was
not well taken and manufacturing of the circuits is done by a completely different approach what is
assumed as efficient process by foreman. Also, the wrong method of assembly and improper
feasibility study of drawings resulted the poor performance and delay in the assembly despite the
organization has strong background in IC manufacturing and consistently achieved better growth
than Omega’s performance. At ACME, because the same drawing (blue print) was not studied, the
error was not identified by ACME and ultimately affected the performance.

At Omega’s plant, the problem was approached with direct approach of bringing the specialist
together and the critical non-availability part got substitute and the design change (error)
concurrence was received before to take further action. However, as the structure is not specialized,

Page 2 of 6
the organization (Omega) couldn’t reduce the cost despite initially units were successfully cleared
the necessary test.

At the last, the ACME’s used his specialist skills and knowledge (Structure) and achieved the better
performance of the customer orders.

Q3. Are you able to find any relation between structure and performance of both organizations
during different stage of the case? Explain?

Acme promoted one of its employees to president, whereas Omega hired a long-serving engineer as
president. The case study examines their management styles, organisational structures, and
employee motivation methods. It also focuses on operations and supply chain relationships, among
other things. Both organizations alignment with the five elements of the STAR model is discussed
below along with their implications:

Strategy

Acme comes out as the clear winner when it comes to understanding the customer needs and
devising a strategy to achieve them. The client established two goals. That is, lowering the overall
cost of production while maintaining zero defects and Acme came out as the clear winner in the end.
This was obvious from the start because Acme refused to risk incurring additional costs. Instead, the
company risked being late. Omega, on the other hand, risked incurring additional costs at the
expense of time. Omega lacked understanding of the needs of the end user when designing its
products.

Structure

Acme has a simple but effective structure. Jim Rawls, of Omega on the other hand, does not believe
in organisational structure. In terms of specialization, distribution of power and departmentalization,
Acme turned out to be the clear winner in terms of decision making, and differentiation by reducing
cost through specialization. This was made possible by the structure.

Process

Omega outperforms Acme in terms of operations by meeting the prototype production deadline.
This was made possible by the interweaving nature of the processes. All departments were able to
harmoniously work together and develop a high quality product within the time frame. Acme on the
other hand, had issues with interdepartmental collaboration.

Rewards

On the rewards front even though not much is spoken, in the case, regarding tangible rewards. Some
of the intangible rewards was noted when employees at Acme would complain about a lack of
latitude. In comparison to John Tyler, Jim Rawls appears to have an intrinsic ability to motivate
employees. In comparison to Jim Rawls, who would constantly call brainstorming meetings to make
a decision, John Tyler was more hands on. Omega comes out as a winner here as it rewards
recognition to its employees by involving them in the decision making process.

People

Omega comes out on top on the this front due to its people centric approach. New members are
initially inducted by providing them with training in all departments so that they get a feel for the
organizations values. On the other hand it is noted from the case that, even though most people are

Page 3 of 6
satisfied with their work, few managers of Acme do resent that they are not made a part of decision
making processes.

Q4. Plot both organizations into competing value framework

Omega

Flexibility
Ends
Moderate Means
Value of Human High
Resources Flexibility Readiness

Ends
Use of intellectual
Means Resource
High Cohesion Acquisition Growth
Morale

Internal External

Ends
Means Moderate
Less focus on Productivity
Information Management Efficiency
communication

Ends Means
Less focus on Moderate
Stability Control Planning
Goal setting
Control
Evaluation

Collective stage

Page 4 of 6
 Acme

Flexibility
Ends
Low Means
Value of Human Low
Resources Flexibility Readiness

Ends
Means Moderate
Low Resource Acquisition
Cohesion Morale Growth

Internal External

Means
Highly structured Ends
Information Moderate
Management Productivity
communication Efficiency

Ends Means
High focus on Moderate
control Planning
Stability Control Control Goal setting
Evaluation

Formalization and control stage

Q5. Do you think Omega has got a fair deal as per the fact of the case (was the customer behaved
ethically in their approach)? Give reasons for your answer.

As per reading from the customer’s point of view, it was not a condition that timely delivery will
ensure the agreement but reduction of final cost was customer's expectation while considering for
final agreement.

From Omega's persepective the agreement was not fair because they had discovered the connector
cable's flaw in the blueprint provided by customer. They worked to fix it and create the proper
design. This action saved the customer & Acme's expense and time of subsequent R&D & increased
some production cost for Omega. Before simply awarding the entire contract to Acme for cost
savings, the client need to have taken into account Omega's efforts to provide them with on-time
delivery and zero defects, which Acme failed to do.

Page 5 of 6
If Acme hadn't learned about this problem from Omega, would they be able to cut the cost by 20
percent? Acme might not have been able to finish a functioning prototype and then concentrate on
lowering the price.

Customer should have considered the time and money that Omega invested to made the fix which
could be a reason why they were unable to reduce the production cost.

According to our best understanding, Omega wasn't treated fairly on ethical terms.

Q6. Assume yourself as the VP (procurement) of the customer organization, that has placed orders
in both Acme and Omega. What are your take aways from the case (How the concepts involved in
the case will define your relationship with a supplier)?

As VP (procurement) of the customer organization, that placed orders in both Acme and Omega the
takeaways are:

• Acme is too restrictive in terms of communication as an organization, with most of the

information and communication channels held by few, resulting in a lack of proper coordination. This
also results in a decline in the quality and efficiency of the product. But at the same time, following
deadlines is something on which Acme focuses a lot. But lack of coordination and reduced efficiency
causes them to lose more time and cross the deadline.

• Omega on the other hand has very good coordination and cooperation among the team. The
quality of the product is the main focus area for Omega. The efficiency in the products of Omega is
higher than that of Acme. Omega is not very strict on deadlines and is flexible in nature and open to
ideas, e.g., replacing delayed parts with substitutes available.

--- End of Report ---

Page 6 of 6