Exley Chemical Case Analysis

Exley Chemical Case Analysis

Introduction

The purpose of this analysis is to offer insight into difficulties experienced by Exley Chemical Company. Case analysis will provide an objective view of the identified problems (both macro and micro), the causes, affected systems, alternatives and recommendations. In a collaborative effort, this report reflects multiple observations and opinions regarding the case analysis.

Analysis

I. Problems

A. Macro

* Lack of coordination within the companies operations

* Decrease in sales and profits.

* Operational conflicts within the major departments

* This type of structure is inappropriate for this company

* There is no uniformity of command

B. Micro

* The coordination between marketing and the new product development department was insufficient.

* The Product development had problems with marketing.

* The Product manager quarrels with the marketing department

* Product manager was unsuccessful in coordinating the activities.

* The company was having difficulties in producing a team concept within the departments.

II. Causes:

* Implementation of separate division to handle product development has disrupted the previous cohesive interaction between prior existing divisions. New product development division has taken on a life of its own, opting to market its new developments instead of passing the new products to the other divisions to handle their usual responsibilities.

* In spite of its independence of other teams with regard to product development and marketing, the new division still needs those other divisions for reports they generate. Customer service is being handled in a different manner than the established customers are accustomed to. This inconsistency and redundancy (having two sales people from the same company visiting the same customers) may be partially responsible for the reduction in sales percentages of the chemical and plastics markets.

* Inconsistency in calculating sales estimates is causing misinformation to be produced since the norm within Exley is to use total market as opposed to their share of the market.

* The self-proclaimed independence of this new division is causing rivalry among the other divisions that previously collaborated effectively.

* The company realizes that there was a need to move a product development department closer to the production line but the modeling effect did not take place causing the conflicts to arise in command.

* Too many levels of the organizational chart developed too many department heads and not enough communication/coordination efforts between departments (i.e. Marketing, Production and Consumer Research)

* Deaf to Consumer thoughts/ideas.

III. Systems Affected

* Structural: The unity of the groups is affected. The interdependence leads to consistent conflicts. If the leadership is not getting the job done then we need to know why and how to fix the problems. They need to work together to get the job done so some team building needs to be done.

* Psychosocial: The presence of the product manager with the customer causes a psychosocial issue with marketing. In addition, the presence of marketing research by product manager causes strain. There is competition among the divisions for capital, labor, management, and so forth. The interdependence within this organization is causing problems but if it became boundaryless the departments would become more open, trusting, sharing of ideas (Brown et al, 2006).

* Technical: There is lack of communication via the current networking system between the marketing and product development. Databases are not updated on progress of pending projects for the benefit of marketing. Emails are not answered in a timely manner. This is a fast growing ever changing company. Employees need to feel like they are in the loop and get regular feedback as to how they are doing and what new changes are being made that will affect them.

* Managerial: A clear chain of command has not defined. Marketing should decide on the sales forecasts but the product department does that. The marketing department wants exclusive rights to interact with the customers. However, it is currently done by the product manager. Marketing should have information about all new product development. However, the development process is separate from the marketing. The division of work is unorganized. Managers have lost sight of its integration responsibilities.

* Goals: Each individual department has the goal of maximizing the potential of their department. For example: research & development has the goal of doing the most R&D and production has the goal of maximizing production. Due to lack of leadership and cooperation amongst themselves, the goals are not being met. -

IV. Alternatives

* Keep the organizational structure as status quo. Not an effective action as the company's sales is decreasing on a yearly basis and there is a major lack of communication and productivity within the departments. This action could be detrimental to the motivation levels of the employees and overall success of the organization.

* Dissolve the Product Development Division ramp up on additional staff in research, engineering and marketing to collectively coordinate projects; make them interdepartmental liaisons. Possibly not an effective decision due to the amount of money spent to build this department. The competition and conflict could remain if the employees from the dissolved group were integrated into the existing departments.

* Re-examine the organization's hierarchy and redevelop departments. This action will allow for the reduction of competitiveness while motivating the employees to work in an open and trusting environment sharing the goals and objectives of the company (Brown & Harvey, 2006). The company is constantly changing products and their methods of use, yet the functions of the departments have not changed. In effort to motivate the employees and encourage the departments to work together but not to be totally interdependent upon each