Case Analysis

Introduction

The program for change at Acme Minerals has seen mixed success thus far. The Wichita plant changes have proven fairly successful in easing social tensions and increasing productivity. However, the Lubbock plant is not currently achieving the same level of success that was reached during the Wichita project. To fix this problem, it must be recognized that the solutions that were effective locally in Wichita do not necessarily comprise a perfect formula that can be applied to all plants throughout the company. Rather, more attention needs to be paid to the differences between the Wichita and Lubbock plants so that more appropriate measures can be used to solve problems. Furthermore, strategies for the future need to take into account differences between plants, promote unity and commitment among plant workers, and make better use of technology and knowledge available if more success is to be expected.

The Wichita Project

Before attempting to address Lubbock and other plants with different backgrounds and situations, it is important to review past success and understand the reasons behind it. The successful result achieved at the Wichita plant can be attributed too many factors, including the historical context of the plant and the local culture and social situation in place before implementation.

The Wichita project benefited from having been implemented in a plant experiencing an urgent situation. Because the plant had been underperforming, the company was considering eliminating it. Workers at the Wichita plant were therefore more likely to accept any plans for improvement as they represented a measure of job security. This set the stage for the eventual success of the monthly problem chats and the SPITS program implementation. These programs were successful in encouraging cooperation, identifying maintenance problems, and developing solutions. It was important that everyone in the plant was on the same page and willing to embrace the new ideas, or the project might not have been as successful. It was therefore helpful that the plant and its workers were in a condition of poor morale and felt as if they had nothing left to lose short of their jobs. The historical context as well as the threat of the plant closing provided such a feeling.

While the historical context of the Wichita plant found it in a desperate situation, it also helped set the stage for another key problem at the Wichita plant: the tension between the management and the labor. Recall that social differences made if difficult for the "brains" workers (engineers) and "brawn" workers (operations personnel) to get along in the plant. Because social tension was one of the main concerns, team-building exercises were a perfect prescription for improvement. Therefore, as communication and cooperation increased, positive results were obtained in terms of production.

The social changes in Wichita might not have happened without the help of one of the oldest and most respected workers in the plant, David Keller. Keller was responsible for mediating when problems were discussed. He assisted in the implementation of the problem chats and SPITS program, and acted as the catalyst that allowed relations between the different workers to improve. In projects like this, it is important to recognize the importance of leaders such as Keller who can share knowledge, command loyalty, and bring unity to all involved groups. Individuals such as Keller are often the key factor in helping successfully introduce and implement such management initiated programs.

The Lubbock Project

Recall that the Lubbock plant began in slightly "better" condition than the Wichita plant in terms of moral and labor, but had difficulties meeting its production goals and needed to lower operating costs. The "second phase" of the project, taking place in Lubbock, has not progressed as smoothly as its predecessor. While there are undoubtedly many reasons for this, the larger ones include beginning with an incorrect mindset, failing to assess Lubbock's situation well, and trying to force project pieces that are not appropriate for the plant.

The mindset with which the Lubbock plant was addressed has been incorrect from the beginning. It was assumed that the original techniques in Wichita were a foolproof plan that could be modified and used in all future "phases" of the project. This mindset assumed that all plants and workers in the company are identical, with the same problems and potential solutions. The struggle to achieve cooperation at Lubbock has shown many things were overlooked. The beginning mindset has failed to see that Lubbock workers are not the same as Wichita workers and therefore needed to use their own personalized plan.

Because the original mindset was incorrect, little effort has been taken to assess the situation and the differences of the Lubbock plant. It should have been noted that the problems in Lubbock centered around business difficulties, and the strategies that dealt with the social situation in Wichita are not as relevant. Also, the Lubbock workers have not been in a crisis like the Wichita worker, and therefore have not felt the sense of urgency to participate. The leash on the Lubbock plant seems longer, so they likely have felt that they can afford to reject participation in the new projects.

The poor assessment of the Lubbock situation has resulted in another problem; the projects placed upon the Lubbock workers have felt fake and forced. One of the strengths of the Wichita phase was how many of the ideas originated from the workers. For example, cooperation and socialization increased alongside the SPITS teams they formed and the social gatherings like the softball game. Lubbock was not given the opportunity to develop