Case Study on Information Systems: Brown

and Gordon Auto parts

Brown and Gordon Auto parts (B&G) is the

third largest auto parts manufacturer in the
world. It is an autonomously run division of
a large conglomerate, RST, Inc. Their head
quarters and principal manufacturing
facilities are in Cleveland, Ohio, but they
operate plant in East Chicago, Illinois,
Indianapolis, Indiana, Columbus and
Cincinnati, Ohio, and South Bend, Indiana.
Total annual revenues are close to $2 billion,
but profits were reduced dramatically in
1989 and 1990 because of the recession and
particularly because of the decline in
automobile sales. Plant capacity has dropped
to 60%, with a slight pickup in the fourth

quarter of this year. (RST, Inc. has turned in

record profits in the same two years, with all
divisions save B&G performing beyond
plan)
Most of B&Gs management teams are online managers who have proven themselves
in operational jobs and have worked their
way up in hierarchy. They dont believe in
frills or fancy procedures; rather it is to get
the job done as quickly and simple as
possible. Its a tough, no-nonsense
management style. Because of the highly
competitive nature of the business,
accentuated by the recent business
downturn, management has adopted a costcutting mode. Almost all investments or
expenditures must be justified by tangible
cost savings, and this usually means people

savings. This is particularly true within IS,

where expenditures are not approved until
the number of job eliminations is verified.
IS Organization
The IS division is headed by R.L. Buck
Steubens, MIS vice President, who reports
to W.W. Johnson, V.P. of Finance, who
reports to the president of B&G, T.J. Baker.
It is generally accepted that Johnson
delegates the IS responsibility totally to
Steubens and is not himself a factor in
decision-making on IS matters. The two key
IS directors are Tom Mansfield and Harry
Crowley. Mansfield is in charge of the
application development for these plants but
report to Mansfield. Operations reports to
Harry Crowley. The outlying plants have
their own operators, who report to local line

management. IS operations are highly

centralized, however, such that processing is
done
not
locally,
but
via
a
telecommunications network to Clevelands
central systems. Buck Steubens was
concerned about the way his IS group was
organized and was reviewing the following
report, which was sent to him by a
consulting firm he had asked to look into the
matter.
Consultant review of Brown and Gordon
Information systems Function
B &G has a rather unique organization with
two directors managing the entire
information systems function. Mis is a third
or coordinating element found in most
organizations. The third element is
responsible for integrating services that span

the IS division-services such as standards,

planning, education, project management,
and often data base administration. While
where is nothing that says the B&G
organization cannot work, interviews
suggest that major application developments
have been implemented without complete
awareness of their fit with existing or future
subsystems. Also there is a lack of emphasis
on planning and education, two functions
that are vital to future progress.
To make this dual directorship concept
work, standards and protocols must be better
established
to
facilitate
proper
communications and integration at the
working levels. It is conceivable that the
CFO can be the integrating force, but this is
too high a level in the organization,

particularly in light of the expanding duties

of the office. The integration must occur at
lower levels.
The stated management organizational style
at B&G is heavily people oriented. Thus, the
primary criterion for assigning a job is the
track record of the individual in getting jobs
accomplished rather than as assessment of
where the function best fits into the
organization or where there is the necessary
expertise. The design of complex integrated
applications is a difficult task, and while the
ability to get a job done is probably the
number one attribute, it is not the only one.
Another expressed organizational style is
adversary management; the theory being
that pitting two competent managers against
each other will result in a competitive drive

to get the work accomplished. The question

raised here is does this approach work in a
functional area of the business that needs
integration
and
communication
so
desperately?
Questions:
1. Comment on the company culture at
B&G. Explain the pros and cons of this
culture and whether the existing information
system is suitable for such kind of culture?
2. Do you think the cost cutting mode is a
given for IS? Is it wise to justify IS
expenditures on the number of job
eliminations?
3. Organization structure and controlling
has a very big impact on the success or
failure of MIS in any organization Explain

the organization structure and comment on

the controlling implemented in the
organization for information system.
4. Explain whether in B&G there are group
decision making environment of the
individual decision making and the role of
CIO(Chief Information Officer) in the
success of Information system in B&G.