ACME & OMEGA: PARADOXICAL TWINS - CASE STUDY

1. Compare the structure and process followed in both organizations

(based on the Star model discussion)
Based on the Star Model, the Structure and Process of ACME and OMEGA is
as under:

ACME OMEGA
STRUCTUR Well-defined Organisational Hired a new President who
E structure. Retained original had been a Director of a large
management and upgraded electronics research laboratory
original GM to President and upgraded several of the
(Mr.Jhon). It has a clear existing personnel within the
hierarchy of authority. It had plant. Organizational Chart
Vice Presidents heading each seems like an artificial barrier
department and Plant Manager between specialists who
controlled the various should be working together.
departments like Production, It has a participative
Industrial Engineering, management style of
Mechanical, Drafting, leadership and doesn’t have
Purchasing, Shipping & Quality well-defined job
Control. Decisions are taken by specifications.
the top management without
consulting the manufacturing It’s Organic Structure.
department. Have well-defined
job responsibilities and
authority.
It’s a Mechanistic structure.
PROCESS 1. All communication 1. Information sharing was
flows from the top to high among all levels which
bottom and there is a sometimes caused a waste of
clearly defined job time.
description (i.e. 2. Innovative thinking and
authority and creativity were encouraged
responsibility associated 3. The work was highly
with each job). collaborative
2. Followed instructions 4. Joint specialisation in
only of the President Omega gives their employees
who was the head of the an opportunity to work in
organisational structure. teams and balance their

Page 1 of 7
 3. Little information was actions to find the most
communicated to the effective and efficient way of
organization as a whole and accomplishing an assignment.
between different departments. 5. Managers and employees
4. Coordination between share their knowledge and
divisions was not high enough skills to achieve optimal
that some important decisions performance.
were wrongly taken.

2. Are you able to find any relation between structure and performance
of both organizations during different stages of the case? Explain
Both companies are dependent on the external environment for the components.
Omega, which follows a decentralised decision-making process makes the
memory unit prototype faster but an error is found in the design. After
correction, all their components are tested and their quality is high. On the other
hand, ACME with its centralised decision making delivered the prototype late
and even they are found to be defective.
In ACME, the organisational structure is a Mechanistic structure and the
hierarchy is well-defined. From the President to Vice-President and then bottom
to departmental Managers. This is stipulated well in the organisational chart.
Each part in the hierarchy is entrusted with authority which defines their
responsibility It is seen from the case that as soon as the blueprints were given
to John, he immediately sent a memo to the purchasing department requesting
them to go ahead with the purchase of the raw materials. At the same time, he
sent blueprints to the drafting department for the preparation of manufacturing
prints and instructed the industrial engineering department. He also advised all
department heads and executives to follow time constraints and ensure that all
must perform efficiently. Taylor acts as an autocratic leader who takes a
decision and then communicates it to the lower management. It is seen that even
when the industrial engineering department notified that the missing component
would increase the assembly time if it was not available from the start of the
assembly, he didn’t listen to them. Instead instructed to go ahead. Tyler
regularly takes feedback and follows up on the progress of the work. If there is
any lacking in progress, he immediately gives suggestions. In this way, the
firm’s effectiveness used to get enhanced. All the employees followed blindly
whatever was being instructed by Tyler even without cooperating among the
departments. It is seen that the production foreman started assembling without
contacting the methods engineers. When the Method Engineers ordered the

Page 2 of 7
production foreman to stop the work until they could rearrange the assembly
process, it was completely ignored by them only to meet deadlines. The process
was getting delayed because of alterations and again for installing missing
components. If the process as suggested earlier by the method engineers would
have been heard, maybe the components would not have to be torn last. This
created anxiety and panic at the last moment.Also, the prototypes were shipped
without final testing. Only one unit could be tested which because of lack of
time.
Whereas on the other hand, we see that in OMEGA, the integration mechanism
is direct contact and the structure of the organisation is Organic Structure. Its
president Jim Rawl did not believe in the organisation chart. Here direct contact
is used to communicate with others and managers in the organisation.
Information sharing was high among all levels in this organisation. The
structure emphasized cooperation of employees within the organisation and this
worked for OMEGA when they were manufacturing the chips which made them
faster and more effective. The organisational structure followed innovation and
creativity. They were open and allowed suggestions to be given by employees.
When it was informed that the missing components could not be available in
time, the head of the electrical engineering department suggested for Japanese
substitutes. Even the industrial engineering department suggested giving time to
study whether missing components could be installed at last. As soon as it was
informed that it will take time, without any hesitation Purchasing department
was advised to place orders for the Japanese components which could act as a
substitute. The organisation valued decisions from all levels and also teamwork.
People from all departments jointly discovered an error in the connector cable
design. All agreed after checking and rechecking. They could produce the final
product duly checked by the quality control department before shipping.
As such the products of OMEGA passed the photocopier firm’s tests without
any defect or delay whereas ACME’s units were found defective with much
delivery delay. Thus we see that there is a relation between the structure and
performance of both organisations during different stages of the case.
3. How do you rate the alignment of all five elements of STAR model in
both organisations? Any implications/recommendations
The STAR model stands for Strategy, Structure, Processes, Rewards, and
People. The alignment of these elements in both Acme and Omega Electronics
based is below:

Page 3 of 7
Acme Electronics:
Strategy:
Acme's strategy - efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and maximizing profits.
Structure:
Acme's structure is more hierarchical, with a clear organizational chart.
Processes:
Acme's processes are well-defined and follow a systematic approach. However,
there are instances of process breakdown due to a lack of coordination between
departments.
Rewards:
The rewards could be tied to efficiency and profitability, considering their
strategy.
People:
Acme's approach seems to emphasize the role of individual managers, with John
Tyler as a central decision-maker. There are some instances where
communication breakdowns and lack of coordination occur between
departments.

Implication/Recommendation for Acme:

Acme's emphasis on efficiency and tight control might be hindering effective
communication and collaboration between departments. To improve alignment,
Acme could consider fostering a more collaborative and open environment,
encouraging better information sharing and cross-functional teamwork. This
might help prevent breakdowns in processes and improve overall decision-
making.
Omega Electronics:
Strategy:
Omega's strategy appears to be more informal and flexible facilitating a less
rigid structure.
Structure: Omega's structure is less hierarchical, and they seem to rely on
informal communication. While this might encourage flexibility, it also leads to
issues with coordination and lack of clarity.

Page 4 of 7
Processes:
Omega's approach seems to be more fluid and responsive, but this can lead to
confusion and lack of coordination, as evident from the instance of redesigning
the cable.
Rewards:
The team-based or collaborative rewards system.
People:
Omega's approach to people emphasizes communication and collaboration but
not enough problem-solving.
Implication/Recommendation for Omega:
Implementing some level of structure and clarity might help Omega avoid
instances of confusion and redesign like the cable error. Additionally, Omega
could benefit from a clearer rewards system that motivates employees while
maintaining its collaborative culture.
Overall Implication/Recommendation:
Both organizations could benefit from a balance between flexibility and
structure. Acme could consider encouraging more cross-functional collaboration
to avoid process breakdowns. Omega could focus on more structured processes
to avoid confusion and ensure effective decision-making.
In summary, balancing these elements can lead to improved overall performance
and alignment.

4. Plot both organizations into competing value frameworks.

Acme operates as a meticulously structured and formal organization,
characterized by a pronounced hierarchical structure and meticulously defined
protocols. Its core principles revolve around fostering stability, optimizing
efficiency and maximizing productivity. Acme positions itself in the market by
presenting competitively priced and dependable products, catering to a broader
audience. This orientation distinctly places Acme within the market and
hierarchy quadrants of the competing values framework. Hence it falls within
rationale goal model of the framework.
Conversely, Omega a more fluid and informal Organizational approach, placing
significant reliance on direct, in-person communication and collaborative
efforts. Nurturing innovation, kindling creativity and demonstrating adaptability
are ingrained values within Omega’s operations. The company’s competitive

Page 5 of 7
strategy centres around delivering top-tier, personalized products, setting itself
apart in the market. The distinctive approach positions Omega comfortably falls
within the open system model of the quadrant.

5. 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.
We believe that Omega faced an unjust situation due to the actions of the
customer, Photocopier Manufacturer. Several reasons contribute to our view:
Hidden Information: Photocopier Manufacturer failed to disclose the blueprint
error that Omega had identified and resolved. Though the Photocopier
Manufacturer has acknowledged the error and communicated the same to the
other competitor to correct the error; Omega didn’t get any advantage from the
customer.
Disregard for Efforts: Omega's initiative to locate a suitable substitute part from
Japan when the original wasn't available was not acknowledged by Photocopier
Manufacturer.
Biased Evaluation: Photocopier Manufacturer’s evaluation of Acme and
Omega's performance was skewed. While focusing solely on cost and reliability,
they ignored Omega's quality and customization.
Cultural and Organizational Disregard: Photocopier Manufacturer has nothing
to do with the cultural and organizational practices of the two vendors rather
they focused on cost optimization and Zero defect products. As Acme was able
to cut down the original cost of the product up to 20%, they got a future
contract.
In essence, Photocopier Manufacturers exhibited unfairness and ethical lapses in
their treatment of Omega. They failed to recognize Omega's innovative,
creative, and adaptable nature, opting instead to communicate dishonestly. Their
preference for Acme was influenced by subjective biases rather than an
objective assessment of product and service quality.

6. Assume yourself as the VP (procurement) of the customer organization,

that has placed orders in both Acme and Omega. What are your takeaways
from this case. (How the concepts involved in the case will define your
relationship with the supplier)?

Page 6 of 7
Recognizing the significance of assessing suppliers' organizational culture and
structure alongside their offerings. Acme and Omega demonstrated distinct
management styles, communication approaches, decision-making processes,
and innovation methods, impacting their overall performance and quality. It is
vital to comprehend their strengths and weaknesses and harmonize them with
the organizational objectives and principles.

• Emphasizing the necessity for transparent and clear communication with

suppliers, especially when alterations or discrepancies arise in specifications or
requisites. It's imperative to promptly inform both Acme and Omega about the
blueprint error uncovered and grant them the opportunity to rectify it.
• Diversifying suppliers who provide varied products and services is
advantageous. Acme and Omega had unique competitive edges in cost,
reliability, quality, and customization. Balancing these factors according to the
needs and preferences is crucial. In addition, both parties could learn, innovate,
and improve from each other.

Page 7 of 7