A Question About The Case Study
Student K asked us:
i was reading the case study of apple inc. and was trying to figure out where to fit this situation in the rosenhead matrix. i am between changing minds or influencing strategies. can u please answer this question. i dont believe it would be inappropriate given i ask it before the exams.
I'm very sorry - but it would be highly inappropriate for me or Gillian to enter into any discussion about the exam case study. We could potentially be giving away answers to the questions. Sorry - can't help! I suggest contact a course colleague and discuss with them. It's perfectly ok for you all to discuss the issues amongst yourselves (although not in the exam room once the exam has started, of course!)
posted by SuperJane @ 12:54 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
if anyone has any ideas about this topic please do share them. i would be really helpfull ^^
if anyone has any ideas about this topic please share it.
where would you put the case study on the rosenhead matrix?
I think the answer depends on who is the proposer (i.e. what is the proposal).
If you suppose that the proposer is Dubinsky, I think the situation is in 'Inspiration', because there are conflicts over objectives between Jobs's and Dubinsky's team, and uncertainties over outcomes. She believed that JIT resulted in worse outcomes but she was not able to prove that the current system was superior to JIT rationally.
Of course, further investigation by Dubinsky might clarify the problems of JIT and change the situation 'Inspiration' to 'Negotiation' quadrant.
On the other hand, in case that the proposer is Coleman (or Jobs), I think the situation is in 'Negotiation' rather than 'Inspiration' quadrant. It is because she had already proved various benefits of JIT rationally, and insisted that the outcomes were apparent.
Shingo
thank u shingo that was really helpful and clarifying.
however the objectives/goals, to jobs at least were also clear as far as i'm concerned. this is a faster distributions channel which would be achieved by his 'just-in-time'method. so to him i think it was just a matter of computation, for him at least.
do u not agree?
From Donna's perspective it is Inspiration, as Shingo explained. In fact she cannot prove the argument with actual, statistical data. All she can do is try to influence, inspire and convince decision makers to keep up with the current strategy.
From Steve's prespective it is definitely about judgement. Steve bases his judgmenet on what is good for the company. It is not a self-interested behaviour, he does not care about bonuses or pay rises. He cares about the perfomance of the company. Nevertheless, he lacks the accuracy in the selection of precise outcomes and methods. Donna knows distribution channels because she is working on them day and night. Steve heard about them during an informal meeting. He is trying to 'guess', he is being creative and experimental: skills needed to succeed in 'judgment'.
anonymous> however the objectives/goals, to jobs at least were also clear as far as i'm concerned.
franken> From Steve's prespective it is definitely about judgement. Steve bases his judgmenet on what is good for the company.
It's true, but it is not important when analysing the vertical axis. The point is wheter there were conflicts among stakeholders or not, or whether there are uncertainties over goals for 'the decision maker' not for 'the proposer'.
That is, Jobs had a goal A, but Dubinsky had a goal B. And, A and B are different and difficult to judge which is better. I think this situation is 'uncertain over goals'.
just my opinion...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't think so... i think it's the same quadrant for both parties, looking at it from their own points of view, which is why they can't come up with an answer - they both think their goals and methods have low uncertainty (are certain).
i think it's the Computation quadrant, because the Dubinsky crew and Jobs crew both have the same goal, what is good for the organization, and they both certain that the methods (JIT, and 6 distribution channels) have definite consequences.
I don't think Rosenhead will be the case question, but it might be linked to big question. I think they're trying to make us look at NPD from the flipside, not the influencer, but the ones resistant to change. I think the main question will be linked to the rare characteristic of Apple being so easily influenced by a new strategy. Some large organizations are resistant to change, but Apple is the opposite, in this case, they are too easily influenced. We have to look at the proposed new process from Dubinsky's side, and we can use Rosenhead to show the clash of opinions.
Interesting... everyone has different opinions.
arush> .. Dubinsky crew and Jobs crew both have the same goal, what is good for the organization,
I agree that 'What is good for the Apple' is the shared goal, but too general. We can analyse more specific goal. Jobs's goal could be to reduce the costs(or might be another, i.e. defend own team..), and Dubinsly's goal could be to prioritise not the cost but others, e.g., stabilities to support innovative activities (or might be protect own system).
I think Costs and Stabilities(feasibilities?) are different objectives.
For example, even if a marketing team and a R&D team have the same goal, i.e. what is good for the company, but the marketing team might set earlier release as its goal, but the R&D team might set higher performance as its goal as we learned in the MODV case.
In order to judge which is more important for the company, it is a key to have and share clear corporate strategies or goals. I think Apple also should have had clear corporate vision that Scully failed to show.
you're right, my goals are too general, and also good point about aligning strategies, i think that might come up
All answers are possible. Your answer is also insightful. Anyway, there is no single correct answer. No one can prove which strategy is the best. What we can do is only to avoid evident mistakes and to seek better based on theories and experiences.
By the way, the sample answer of Question 3 (b) in the revision session paper (downloaded version) is corrent?
The question memtioned "give an example of a market research PROBLEM in new product...". I think the sample answer just said an example of qualitative market research itself...Or do I misunderstand?
You'r right Shingo. The question is quite confusing.. But I don't think you should look at it too much.. no way we getting the same question.
I'm not going to comment on your comments - nor disrupt the excellent dialogue you have all got going together on exam Qs - keep it going - it's excellent!
Can I just say - I am truly delighted that you all are using this resource I set up for you in a productive way for your exams.
Good luck everyone!
Jane
We should have began these discussions a little bit earlier...
Can I share one more my opinion: mutual trust could be important but was a missing factor for Apple, as well as corporate strategy (or leadership of Scully). Dubinsky did not trust anyone, even Weaver. If there is such distrust, any sophisticated mechanism, such as task forces, might be useless...
Good luck, eveyone.
Post a Comment
<< Home