Background

 Leading Maker of specialty glass

 EPD is one of eight lines divisions

 Was known for solid innovative capacities (development and assembling)

that gave it an edge over others

 Was in an advantageous position for growth.

 Patent and mechanical skill gave the firm an upper hand.

 Nonetheless, things began going down soon, as interior and additionally

outside clashes began to develop.
Problems
 Decline in sales
 Uncompleted targets
 Slow product development– insufficient new
products
 Logistics and supply chain was weak.
 Poor morale among employees
 Conflict among functional groups around
product development and service and this was the
main reason behind all the problems.
Bennett vs. Rogers
 Bennett
 Tyrant

 Joe Bennett was a man of mysteries

 Manipulative and Imaginative.

 Bennett's enthusiasm for the field of hierarchical conduct empowered

various endeavors to apply authoritative conduct to administration
inside of the division.

 Bennett's inopportune demise saw Rogers assuming control.

Bennett vs. Rogers
 Rogers
 Needed line experience

 in any case, his insight and foundation were important to EPD's business

 he had various qualities that demonstrated his potential, in any case,

numerous inadequacies
 Didn’t wanted to take risks.
 Did not listen too well, was not sufficiently included with issues inside
different depts.
 Apathetic
Changes made by Rogers
 Moved the home office from Barnett to Allentown.

 Before 1990, the division had been topographically decentralized, in 1992

depts. were solidified under Ted Moss in Allentown .

 Rogers additionally supplanted most of his key directors except for Ted Moss,
the product development chief.

 Wiped out business sector planning function that used to answer to Bennett
before 1990

 Under Rogers' course, EPD enhanced its administration and service. The
maufacturing manager considered plant chiefs in charge of meeting particular
objectives for conveyance responsibilities and shortening conveyance lead times
Manufacturing
 Resistors and capacitors were manufactured in high volume at three plants

 EPD's plant managers were extremely upset by the lack of growth in the
division's business. In the last two years their volume had shrunk and, because
of price cuts, their dollar volume had dropped substantially.

 Managers were thus under enormous pressure to reduce costs in order to

maintain their gross margins

 Feeling of mutual distrust between Sales and Manufacturing because

Manufacturing believes Sales is not putting enough of a price on the products.

 Typical problem that results when two groups have different goals.
Marketing
 Marketing guys thought that no one understood their problem.
 Marketing people were also critical of Product Development
and its responsiveness to divisions' needs.
 Marketing department felt offended about the lack of cooperation
and the continuous monitoring from Manufacturing dept. They
saw the plants as conservative and unwilling to take risks.
 This was particularly aggravating because many Marketing people
felt they were distracted from their primary responsibility by
having to spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with the plants
Sales
 EPD items were sold through an immediate selling force of
around 25 sales representatives, sorted out into four deals
regions
 Forecasting was very poor
 At lower levels of the associations and connections between
the sales and manufacturing appeared to be surprisingly more
terrible.
Strategy Going Forward
 Leverage capabilities in product development– technologies
relating to glass– and manufacturing
 Maturing industries means marketing now the critical
capability
 Niche with defense department
 Use capabilities in glass to get a foothold in consumer
electronics and telecommunication
 Initially manufacturing, shift to marketing competence
 Separate manager for each department (more focus)
 New products– small modifications
 Lack of clarity, consensus on division goals, should
implement relatively clear group goals.