You are on page 1of 13

M107/13 M111/13 M117/13 M104/13 M109/13 M124/13 M127/13 M135/13

Hansraj Basumatary Kharote Aditya Suhas Manoj N Deepak Meena Katta Chakravarthy Noel Prabhat Kachhap Prashant Singh Rupoj Kemprai

1.Comparison of management styles Acme Vs Omega Electronics

Omega Electronics (Organic Structure)


Low in formalization, and decentralized.
Dynamic and uncertain environment Omega basically applies the judgmental approach in problem solving. In an organic organization, control depends less on formal job position and more on expertise relevant to the particular problem being considered. They believe in mutual adjustment and they use informal way of communication rather than using standardization and written rules. Communication is both vertical (up and down the hierarchy) and horizontal (across different departments of the organization) depending on where the needed information resides. Low differentiation of tasks Decentralized decision-making

A high integration of functional areas


Suitable for small-batch technology because this technology demands freedom to the people/employees to make their decisions so that they can respond quickly and flexibly to the customers request and produce the exact product the customer wants.

Acme (Mechanistic Structure)


Mechanistic structure is characterized by highly specialized tasks that tend to be rigidly

defined, have hierarchical authority and control, and communications that primarily take the form of instructions and decisions issued by superiors to subordinates. Standardization and formalization : In the words of John Tyler the firm is a Tight ship. All communication flows from the top to bottom and there is clearly defined job description Centralized decision-making : As one manager pointed that the president ran a one man band Low integration : Due to the stability of tasks, there is low integration between departments and functional areas hence the functional areas are not heavily dependent on each other. Vertical Communication : Departments dont interact or talk with each other. All the information flows from top management down to lower management and employees. Allowed greater control over firms operation. . Stable environment suitable for large-batch and mass production technology.

2.Which company did better in manufacturing memory unit prototypes ?

Management styles co-ordination


Because of its mechanistic structure, Acmes different functions contributed separately to the planning needed to produce the memory unit, and activities were coordinated sequentially through Tyler. When unexpected problems arose during planning, each functions planning was interrupted and sent each back to figure out how to assemble the memory unit. In Omega the functions all planned for the new product from the beginning. There was a longer start-up time, but problems encountered later were solved quickly because of a high level of coordination.

The case relates that when functional managers finalized assembly plans, they discovered an error in blueprints, an error that required major design changes.
The changes they recommended not only improved quality but also prevented a bottleneck in production (a problem Acme experienced) and a delay.

Omega fared well


When Acme learned of the changes Omega had discovered, they went back to the drawing board;however, in Omega, functions adjusted smoothly to the changes because of the high level of mutual adjustment in coordinating.
Omegas decentralized, organic approach allowed for the building of prototypes 10 days faster than Acme, correction of errors, and a highly reliable prototypemuch more reliable than Acmes, which had a 10 percent failure rate. Omega was more effective when evaluated by these criteria, although Acmes prices were lower than Omegas.

3.Why Omega lost the final contract?

Reasons for Omega losing contract


Job Allocation was not clear.
Not well defined organisational structure. Interference in each others domain of expertise which is not beneficial in the long run as it creates hindrances. Acme achieved a reduced final cost by 20 % through extensive cost cutting approaches. Omega may have won the battle, but Acme has won the war because its mechanistic structure fosters a concern for technical efficiency and cost reduction in what is a routine manufacturing environment. Rules changed when once the product is developed as the issue becomes cost of the product. Acmes mechanistic structure provided it with the management system and incentives needed to improve and reduce its manufacturing process, so that Acme won the final race over Omega. Control over a complex and repetitive process could be effectively exerted by rules and regulations. When a continuous process technology was used an organic structure was more effective.

4.Suggestions for Acme and Omega

Omega
Omega should have mix organization structure. There should be Formal communication channel to make sure that information is passing down or up whenever necessary. Jim Rawls should have a clear cut idea about delegation of work and course of action and should not waste time on meetings everytime. Too much integration slows decision making and raises costs . Omega electronics should have some kind of hierarchy where employees feel themselves in the chain of command and there should be clear authority and responsibility for each employee. Standardize activities and develop better monitoring and evaluation systems : TQM to reduce costs. Each department should be allowed to take independent decisions. Timely flow of information between departments to enable decisions.

Proper job delegation.

Acme
They should ensure they dont panic in haste situations and stick to the rules and procedures as designed.
Information must be communicated under all circumstances Vertical communication. Role clarity strictly adhered to even in rush times. Acme must also adopt mix organisation structure. Co-ordinate between its functions better functional teams.

and increase integration by establishing cross

Both companies need to be mix of organic and mechanistic so that flexibility and innovation balance technical efficiency.

Thank You