You are on page 1of 8

The Production Game –

Analysing the Organisational Structure, Strategy and Performance of


Company D.

4 December 2010.

Student Number: S1058512

Exam Number: 04458


Introduction:

The production game is an interactive simulation, designed to replicate an actual


manufacturing environment which is typically employed as an educational tool.

This particular simulation involved seven teams of between seven to eight members. These
teams replicated greeting card manufacturing companies, operating in a competitive
environment with certain controls and constraints on their activities.

This report sets out to analyse the performance, activities and processes of Company D (of
which I was a member) as well as comparing these to some of the practices employed by
competing companies operating in the same marketplace.

Company Formation and Structure

Membership of the company had been pre-determined and none of the eight members had
any influence on team selection. The members decided to meet a few weeks before the
actual day of trading to formulate a strategy and approach to be employed on the day of
trading.

The initial meeting helped to establish how much practice would be required before the
game and saw the early signs of the members emerging into different roles in the group.

Over the course of our preparations, and in subsequent meetings, we came to the view that
this was a conjunctive task1. The process would require a high level of interdependence
between the team members with everyone performing specific roles and success as a whole
being influenced to a great degree by each member’s contribution.

We then outlined the roles that we believed would need to be fulfilled and arrived at some
guidelines for allocating these roles on the basis of our strategy, competence, preference for
a particular role and logistics (such as the equipment available and restrictions imposed by
one of the team members having a shoulder injury).

Ultimately, we decided on a team structure with one person accepting and managing the
orders, four stencilers (two A5 and 2 A6), two writers for the verses and one quality
controller.

Strategic Planning:

As outlined above, the members decided to meet before the game to devise a strategy to be
employed on the day of trading.

Decision making at the early stages was generally based on a garbage can model 2. Goals,
strategy and required outcomes were somewhat unclear and there was a lot of uncertainty
about the manner in which to proceed. By the time of the second meeting, this had
developed into a more rational model within the limits of the information available to us (i.e.
bounded rationality).

A couple of the team members had prepared an assessment in the form of a spreadsheet3
(based on available information about typical orders), which guided our strategic decisions
(unfortunately, we were unable to employ this decision making model throughout the game
and very soon reverted to a garbage can model once the game had begun and flaws in our
strategy started to surface).
.
The assessment had ranked the typical orders in terms of perceived profitability which was
one of the main factors that was taken into account in deciding on our overall strategy.
We then considered the difficulty that would be involved in completing certain types of
orders. This discussion mostly centred on card sizes, number of verses required and the
number of cards in a particular order.

Our discussion then moved onto the materials available to us, and the ability of the team
members to actually undertake certain operational roles such as writing and stencilling.

Having considered these various issues, we developed an overall strategy determining how
we were to approach the task, which was to accept orders which we believed would be most
profitable and offer the least complexity. We also decided against accepting orders for white
cards, assessing these as being less profitable and preferring to use the white paper
available as templates for the other orders. This was the outline of our strategy which we
believed would help us to accomplish our objective of achieving a profit.

Essentially, this involved targeting orders with coloured cards of either A5 or A6 size as our
analysis showed them to be profitable, between 4 and 6 verses of text as these would be
easier to prepare, and with no more than ten cards in any particular order as these would be
less time consuming and allow us to complete the order within the lead time.

Overall, this strategy proved somewhat inadequate and this was reflected in our
performance compared to the competition. It became very clear that whilst we had been
right to try to identify the most suitable types of orders, our analysis was not comprehensive
enough.

In addition, we had effectively excluded our company from certain sections of the market be
refusing to entertain (and not being prepared for) other types of orders (such as A7 cards).
We had determined what service we were willing to provide rather than being prepared to
produce what the “market” may have required.

A more suitable strategic approach would have been to target orders with the smallest card
sizes, most number of cards and shortest lead times (as these were the most profitable), in
addition to being prepared to undertake orders that did not fulfil this criteria. We also
neglected to formally articulate the strategy, aims and objectives in such a manner as to
ensure that all team members were fully aware of what was required.

Company D Functioning in Practice – The Production Game

Before coming into the game, we had decided on an organisational structure with two
production teams i.e. two stencilers and one writer for each team. The other members of the
company would undertake the roles of quality controller and order co-coordinator/manager.

Whilst not formally articulated, it appeared to be generally accepted that the order co-
ordinator would serve as the main representative of the group and as a result assume a
leadership position. The leadership style which was employed could be described as
democratic and participative4.

Decision making within the group was very decentralised5 with most decisions being taken in
conjunction with the group; and all company members were able to contribute to the
discussions and decision making processes.

Whilst this allowed for good debate and inclusiveness within the group, a stronger style of
leadership would have been more appropriate and might have yielded better results. At
several points during the task, the group wasted valuable time being held up by deliberations
between members on such issues as whether to accept certain orders and which additional
materials to purchase.

These deliberations and the resulting loss of valuable time, although highlighting some flaws
in our strategy, could have been avoided with a stronger style of leadership. The order-
coordinator also acting as the group leader having received the relevant input (about
capacity and materials), should have made those decisions more quickly on the company’s
behalf and limited the amount of time spent deliberating.

This would have given the group the opportunity to complete more orders. A comparison
with Company B which had a more defined and stronger style of leadership reveals that they
were able to complete a lot more orders than Company D.

As the task progressed, the flaws in our strategy and operations became more apparent. We
were unable to complete the first order within the allotted time and our second order was
rejected due to issues with the quality. These two orders were both A5 orders and some
members lost motivation at this point with one of the stencilers dropping his pen and
remarking: “I keep smudging the cards, I am tired and no longer want to stencil”. This
seemed to spread to other members of the group very quickly.

We recognised as a team that our templates and technique for preparing the A5 cards (in
particular) were inadequate for the task at hand, especially when compared to the templates
being utilised by other Companies and Company G in particular.

They had prepared templates for all the card sizes that and unlike our templates that
required some tracing and marking before writing (which contributed to the smudges), theirs
allowed them to write directly on the cards in the right position.

In the midst of this “mini crisis”, we resolved to move forward by attempting an A6 order
which the order-coordinator was able to obtain at short notice. Once we began working on
this order, it became apparent that we were achieving better success and would be able to
complete the order within the lead time. Not only were our A6 stencilers less error prone, the
templates also worked better. We also worked out that our quality control requirements were
set at a level far higher that what would normally have been acceptable to the customer.

The company then decided to reposition our quality control standards and concentrate on A6
cards for the medium term in order to get some orders through. This turned out to be a very
productive period during the game, as we concentrated all our resources on A6 orders and
at one point were working on three separate orders at the same time. In total, four sets of A6
orders were completed.

The success of this altered strategy helped to re-energise the flagging members of the group
who got involved with the process once again. However, this success also led to some
conflict when it was suggested that we consider undertaking another A5 order. Some
members argued against this, suggesting that we had worked out what we were good at and
should stick to it. The counter argument was that we should maintain a degree of flexibility,
particularly as we had experienced earlier on in the process that there was no guarantee of
availability of our preferred type of order.

The conflict was resolved by a combination of initiative and the available required orders.
One of the team members in support of maintaining flexibility simply redrafted the A5
templates and eliminated the flaws. This was completed just as the A6 orders dried up and
some A5 orders became available. We were therefore able to undertake and complete two
sets of A5 orders before the conclusion of the task.
Group Performance and Comparison with Competitors

Overall, when compared with the competitors operating in the same market, it is clear to see
that Company D was not the most successful or effective. Whilst none of the companies
actually declared a profit, there were only two out of the seven companies that were less
profitable than Company D.

The company was required to function in a high pressure environment with constantly
changing circumstances. Operating in such environments requires goal clarity (i.e. what do
we want to achieve), role definition, competency and feedback/communication mechanisms
amongst other requirements6.

Unfortunately, none of these requirements were adequately catered for which contributed to
the ineffectiveness of the group. There was not enough discussion and clarification on the
objective of the game and how we intended to achieve the objectives. Whilst group
members were assigned roles, this sometimes clashed with their competencies or preferred
roles and feedback and communication was sometimes too sluggish.

Over the course of the task, some of the flaws in the preparations (materials), operations
and strategy that had become apparent were resolved through direct action by the group or
by external factors. Some problems however remained unresolved throughout.

The problem with the A5 templates was resolved by observing the operations of Company G
and preparing templates which mirrored theirs. They had a more competitive approach
(focused on being the most profitable) and were better prepared than most other groups.
Tasks and roles within their Company were also very well defined whereas some roles in our
company overlapped.

Company B was also one of the more successful companies and we were able to improve
some of our procedures having observed their operations. They also had clearly defined
roles, and pertinently, a more hierarchical structure with a clearly identifiable leader who was
acknowledged by the group to be the leader. We were able to trade some of our production
materials with this group having gathered from them the importance of minimising waste and
optimising operational procedures.

Our interaction with Companies A, E and F was somewhat limited, but we understand from
the de-brief that Company A in particular faced similar problems to us, but were perhaps less
adaptable and flexible. This would explain their slightly worse results.

Summary and Conclusions

Overall, the production process did not run as smoothly as planned which is to be expected
when operating in a competitive business environment. Some of the reasons for this have
been explored above and a number of lessons can be learned from the manner in which
they arose and attempts made to resolve them.

Strategically, organisations should identify their customers and dedicate their efforts to
producing goods and services that their consumers require. As we found out in Company D,
there is no point in setting up shop to produce a certain type of product if there is no ready
consumer and market for such products to be traded. Doing so also affects the company’s
ability to be able to produce goods for which there is a market.

Organisations must also be well prepared to undertake the tasks which they presented with.
Not only must they expect the unexpected and retain their adaptability to deal with such
situations, they must also ensure that they have the right people, tools and materials in place
to achieve success. Stencilers who can’t stencil or templates that do not function
satisfactorily are not very useful to a company such as Company D and are essentially a
drain on its resources.

Leadership within an organisation is also a very important factor which could determine a
company’s success or failure. Different leadership styles are better suited to different
operational environments. In this case, it is clear that a stronger (perhaps more autocratic)
form of leadership would have improved the company’s chances of success. This could have
come about by making certain decisions on behalf of the company and motivating flagging
employees.

Following on from the above, a workable organisational structure with clearly identifiable
roles for all members of the organisation would also lend itself to the success of such an
organisation. A situation where members of the organisation simply refuse to carry out their
duties or decide that they would be better of undertaking alternate duties rather than their
allocated tasks is unlikely to lead to success.

An analysis of the Belbin Profiles of the group members suggests that most of the members
would have been better employed in roles, other than the ones which they eventually
occupied. For instance, the quality controller (on the day) may have been better suited to a
leadership role as his profile ranks him highest (of all the group members) in the Plant
category. The team member who eventually assumed the leadership role is likely to have
been more suited to a quality control or evaluating role as his profile suggests. This poor
allocation of labour and positions is also likely to have contributed to the ineffectiveness of
the group.

With better planning and preparation and re-allocation of the roles, the success of the
company would have been greatly improved. Nevertheless, Company D should be
commended for displaying some flexibility and adaptability (particularly in the latter stages)
to deal with some issues that were encountered and for improving aspects of their
operations.
References
1
Buchanan, A and Huczynski, A. (2010). Organisational Behaviour. 7th ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Ltd. 304.
2
Buchanan, A and Huczynski, A (2009). Organisational Behaviour. 7th ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Ltd. 653.
3
See Appendix 1.
4
Brooks, I (2009). Organisational Behaviour. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Ltd. 168.
5
Buchanan, A and Huczynski, A. (2010). Organisational Behaviour. 7th ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Ltd. 481.
6
Barnes, T. et.al. (2010). Formula 1 Pit Stops: There is no I in teamwork. Organisational Studies - FTMBA Lecture. 2 (1),
7.

Appendices

1. Group D - Production Game Strategic Spreadsheet


2. Production Game Accounts

You might also like