You are on page 1of 4

Anh Pham

BUSI 522 Case Analysis 2


1

1. Discuss the goals at Acme and Omega. Your discussion should also include what
impact do top managers have on these goals and can these goals be achieved with
different strategies?

Acme and Omega were once the same electronics division but parted after an acquisition
and selling of that division. From the case, the goals of both companies are to achieve
strong future growth and expansion by achieving performance efficiency and obtaining
high-profile contracts and high profit (Daft, p.177). However, managers of the two
companies apply different approaches to achieve those goals. Acmes president kept the
original structure of a mechanistic organizational system that provided detail
organizational charts and clear responsibilities and narrowly defined jobs (Daft,
p.177). Omegas president, on the other hand, embraced the organic organizational
structure with loose hierarchical of authority that encouraged employees to be familiar
with activities throughout the organization so that cooperation between departments
[could] be increased (Daft, p.177). Of course these goals can be achieved with different
strategies. Acmes mechanistic structure with clearly defined jobs and clear chain of
command can help employees understand their roles provide easier measurement
methods for efficiency. However, managers must stress the important of reducing waste
of scarce resources (in this case, time and raw materials) to achieve the highest level of
efficiency.

2. State which company you believe produces more efficiently and then discuss if
you believe their level of performance was due to the goals chosen by top
management. Defend your position.

In my opinion, I think the organic structure works better for most companies. By
encouraging employees to share cross-functional information and knowledge and to
cooperate with each other, organizations can obtain transparency, unity and better
2 [Type text]

workplace satisfaction. According to the Labour Department of Hong Kong, some
benefits of workplace cooperation include improvement in decision-making process, in
employees performance and commitment and increase job satisfaction (Hong Kong).
Especially in this case, the organic structure was proven to be a better choice as Omegas
employees worked together, and proposed ideas to help one another every step of the
way while keeping everyone on board with the progress of the project. Acmes
employees, on the other hand, worked separately at their own speeds and lost a chunk of
precious time in figuring out their own problems and the overall problem. The sense of
organizational unity is also stronger in Omega since the employees were encouraged to
cooperate closely, not only did they found an error in the design at the early stage, but
they also combined forces to find the optimal solutions that would work best for
everyone, instead of not finding a common ground on how to fix the error at Acme.
Ultimately, Omegas structure helped the company achieve higher performance
efficiency, in comparison to Acme. I do believe their level of performance was due to the
goals chosen by top management. The organic structure was implemented early on in
Omega when the president stressed the importance of free-flow knowledge and
information, encouraged employees to cooperate cross-departments and reduced and
artificial barriers between specialists who should be working together (Daft, p.177).
After four years of grooming such culture in the company, employees were better at
cooperation; departments heads were working together, helping each other on big
projects, which helped the company reduced unnecessary lost in time if each department
was working on its own and solving its problems without unexpected but helpful
knowledge from others.
Anh Pham
BUSI 522 Case Analysis 2
3


3. How can Omegas success be explained? Prepare an argument as to why you
believe Omega should be awarded the final contract. Your objective is to convince
the stakeholders that Omega is the most logical choice.

Omegas success can be credited to their close cooperation among key departments for
the project. Because they worked closely with each other and maintain knowledge and
information transparency throughout the organization, they understood the importance of
this project and reduced time waste (which was a key resource in this case) even when
problems arose. By communicating with each other, the electrical engineering department
helped the purchasing department obtain crucial materials for production. The error was
detected early on while all key departments were working together, and right away they
discussed and brainstormed new designs to fix it. I truly believe Omega should be
awarded the final contract. The photocopier firm would get the most benefits out of
contracting with Omega because it was fast and innovative when it comes to problem
solving but also respectful of the contractor by asking for approval before assembling the
new design. Omegas efficiency was proven by its success in delivering 100 quality units
by the initial deadline with zero defects. It would be in the stakeholders best interest to
pick Omega because the firm will not have to worry about late shipment or delays due to
unexpected problems, which in turns can affect negatively on the photocopier
manufacturing process and consequently reduce profits and decrease customer
satisfaction if the products are not delivered on time or defective.

4. Which organization was more effective at developing the prototype and meeting
the deadlines? Was its level of effectiveness due to the goals chosen by top
management?

Omega was more effective at developing prototype at meeting deadlines in comparison to
Acmes delivery delay and incurred further delays in repairing the defective Acme
4 [Type text]

units (Daft, p. 179). The level of effectiveness can be credited to the goals chosen by
Omegas top management by implementing and encouraging the knowledge, information
free-flow throughout the organization while pressing cooperation cross-departments to
cut unnecessary waste, as explained in questions above.

5. Predict which organization will get the final contract. Why?

I predicted Omega would get the final contract. Even when there were problems with the
initial designs and the lack of some important parts, they were very efficient in fixing the
problems and still delivered the prototypes on time with no defects.

6. How can Acmes success be explained? Did Acmes goals seem more
appropriate? Did stakeholder satisfaction play a role?

Acmes success can be explained by two reasons. Firstly, when the photocopier firm
divided the contract to both companies, Acme got their portion even when the firm was
disappointed with its performance. In my opinion, this was largely due to the stronger
relationship Acmes president had built with the firms head designer during the project
by calling twice a week. Establishing a strong relationship with a key person in the
clients firm can help improve an organizations chance of getting the contract over
competitors. Also, as stated at the beginning of the case, Acme regularly achieved
greater net profit, compare to Omega (Daft, p.177). Potential clients may take that as a
sign of more efficiency when looking for a supplier. Secondly, after getting half of the
contract, Acme was able to reduced its unit cost by 20 percent (Daft, p. 197). This was
definitely a clear sign for Acme to claim the whole contract as the 20 percent decrease in
unit cost can help the photocopier firm either increase its profits (if it keeps the same
price for each unit) or increase market share and competitive edge (if it introduces lower
prices than competitors). Either way the photocopier firm chooses to do with this new
development, its stakeholder will be more satisfied. However, it was unclear to how
Acme reduced the unit costs, which made it hard to credit the success to its mechanistic
system.



Daft, Richard. "The Paradoxical Twins: Acme and Omega Electronics." Organizational
Theory and Design. 11th ed. N.p.: Thompson Southwesterm, 2013. 177-79. Print.

Hong Kong. Department of Labour. Guide to Workplace Cooperation. N.p.: n.p., n.d.
Labour Department. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/wcp/guide_wc.pdf>.