Acuscan Critical Case Study

AcuScan Critical Case Study

To: Cliff O'Connor Ð'- CEO

From: Pete xxxxx Ð'- V.P. of Organizational Development

As the new Vice President of Organizational Development, I look forward to the upcoming challenges concerning developing the Organizational Development department. I anticipate exciting times ahead as we pursue a new course with the development of a new product based on our current retinal scanning technology.

It is apparent from the recent Scanner's Weekly and a Memo I received, that this company is at a crossroads concerning its future in the retinal scanning security business. Per your request, I have solicited information from all parties involved to make an informed consensus as to what is really going on.

Assumptions:

I will begin by discussing the following assumptions made by Kelly Thomas, Pat Lambert, Chris Martinas, and some assumptions, I believe, made by you. Being new to the company, one can view this as an analysis from the outside, since I have had no prior relationships with any of the staff mentioned hereafter.

Kelly Thomas Ð'- Senior Engineer, Product Development

1. Foremost assumption is that Pat Lambert is not qualified to lead "Operation Optimize" due to Pat's previous experience being in the unrelated, non-technical cereal industry.

2. From Pat's lack of knowledge on the term "QC," Kelly assumes Pat knows nothing about quality control or the technical difficulties involved in producing new product.

3. Assumes the features proposed by Pat Lambert cannot be incorporated into current project by August.

4. Due to staff reductions last year, Kelly assumes no additional workload can be placed on current staff.

5. Kelly assumes Pat is trying to undermine his position with his staff by going behind his back by speaking to one of his programmers without consulting him first.

6. Kelly assumes projected product will be inferior to AcuScan's current product.

Pat Lambert Ð'- Director of Marketing

1. Assumes new "retail" product would restore AcuScan to its previous status.

2. Assumes AcuScan must announce and deploy first installs within six-eight months or competitors would have the advantage in the marketplace.

3. Assumes Secur-A Corporation would have "some kind" of retail application in a matter of months.

4. Assumes any disagreements with her equate to not being committed to new project.

5. Assumes it is a relatively easy task to produce a new product, by August, from AcuScan's existing iScanner.

6. Foresees minimal investment of existing staff's time and effort.

7. Being first on the retail market with a new product is more important than a quality or complete product.

8. Assumed customers would be thrilled with whatever product they developed.

9. Assumed I was "nit-picking" when soliciting her more information.

10. Assumed project could be accomplished in specified time by hiring outside contractors.

11. Views herself as a visionary therefore, she must sell her "dream" to everyone else.

Chris Martinas Ð'- Vice President of Product Development

1. Agrees on some of the same assumptions as Pat.

a. Secure-A Corporation would have a retail application in a matter of months.

b. Anticipates minimal investment of existing staff - new product requires simple modifications to the old product.

c. Must rush to market with new product.

d. This new product will be the savior of the company.

2. Assumes all the new product needs is a little repacking to get the scanner to retail.

3. AcuScan needs to expand its technology into new markets to restore our image as a "cutting edge" leader.

Cliff O'Connor Ð'- CEO

1. After reducing 25% of all employees last year resulting in cost savings of 15%; it is assumed same expense cutting can be duplicated, excluding sales and marketing departments and with no further reduction in employees.

2. Assumes Pat's prior success and experience in the cereal industry will prove equally effective for AcuScan.

3. Assumes it is relatively simple process to convert our current technology into new retail product therefore, they had enough money in the budget to develop and launch a new product.

4. Assumed staff would work together amidst the challenges for the good of the company.

Arguments:

Cliff O'Connor: Argument made by Cliff that a new product would "recapture our position as a market leader with our technology." Cliff further argues that Pat's creativity is what AcuScan needs right now. Sees "Operation Optimize" as not very different from the iScanner product and believes all managers realize the need for a new product to expand revenues.

Pat Lambert: Argues that iScanner should be modified and launched in a new, non-vertical market, only solution for long-term growth in revenue. Pat argues that Kelly initially stated it is simple to build on existing applications. Finally, Pat also argues for additional money, for an outside contractor to complete the product on time.

Kelly Thomas: Kelly argued that new product was more complicated to develop than the other managers could comprehend. Kelly believes company is rushing to develop new product, at the expense of quality; thus possibly damaging his teams and company's reputation.

Chris Martinas: Arguments were the company must expand into other vertical markets. He also believed they needed to act quickly or risk losing any advantage in the new market. Lastly, agrees with Pat that new product will save the company.

Analysis of Arguments:

Cliff's argument for an additional means of revenue