Mcroy Aerospace Was A Highly Profitable Car Builder ✓ Solved

Mcroy Aerospace Was A Highly Profitable Company Building Cargo

McRoy Aerospace was a highly profitable company building cargo planes and refueling tankers for the armed forces. It had been doing this for more than fifty years and was highly successful. But because of a downturn in the government’s spending on these types of planes, McRoy decided to enter the commercial aviation aircraft business, specifically, wide-body planes that would seat up to 400 passengers, and compete head on with Boeing and Airbus Industries. During the design phase, McRoy found that the majority of the commercial airlines would consider purchasing its plane provided that the costs were lower than the other aircraft manufacturers. While the actual purchase price of the plane was a consideration for the buyers, the greater interest was in the life-cycle cost of maintaining the operational readiness of the aircraft, specifically the maintenance costs.

Operations and support costs were a considerable expense and maintenance requirements were regulated by the government for safety reasons. The airlines make money when the planes are in the air rather than sitting in a maintenance hangar. Each maintenance depot maintained an inventory of spare parts so that, if a part did not function properly, the part could be removed and replaced with a new part. The damaged part would be sent to the manufacturer for repairs or replacement. Inventory costs could be significant but were considered a necessary expense to keep the planes flying.

One of the issues facing McRoy was the mechanisms for the eight doors on the aircraft. Each pair of doors had their own mechanisms which appeared to be restricted by their location in the plane. If McRoy could come up with a single design mechanism for all four pairs of doors, it would significantly lower the inventory costs for the airlines as well as the necessity to train mechanics on one set of mechanisms rather than four. On the cargo planes and refueling tankers, each pair of doors had a unique mechanism. For commercial aircrafts, finding one design for all doors would be challenging.

Mark Wilson, one of the department managers at McRoy’s design center, assigned Jack, the best person he could think of to work on this extremely challenging project. If anyone could accomplish it, it was Jack. If Jack could not do it, Mark sincerely believed it could not be done. The successful completion of this project would be seen as a value-added opportunity for McRoy’s customers and could make a tremendous difference from a cost and efficiency standpoint. McRoy would be seen as an industry leader in life-cycle costing, and this could make the difference in getting buyers to purchase commercial planes from McRoy Aerospace.

The project was to design an opening/closing mechanism that was the same for all of the doors. Until now, each door could have a different set of open/close mechanisms, which made the design, manufacturing, maintenance, and installation processes more complex, cumbersome, and costly. Without a doubt, Jack was the best—and probably the only—person to make this happen even though the equipment engineers and designers all agreed that it could not be done. Mark put all of his cards on the table when he presented the challenge to Jack. He told him wholeheartedly that his only hope was for Jack to take on this project and explore it from every possible, out-of-the-box angle he could think of.

But Jack said right off the bat that this may not be possible. Mark was not happy hearing Jack say this right away, but he knew Jack would do his best. Jack spent two months looking at the problem and simply could not come up with the solution needed. Jack decided to inform Mark that a solution was not possible. Both Jack and Mark were disappointed that a solution could not be found.

“I know you’re the best, Jack,” stated Mark. “I can’t imagine anyone else even coming close to solving this critical problem. I know you put forth your best effort and the problem was just too much of a challenge. Thanks for trying. But if I had to choose one of your co-workers to take another look at this project, who might have even half a chance of making it happen?

Who would you suggest? I just want to make sure that we have left no stone unturned,” he said rather glumly. Mark’s words caught Jack by surprise. Jack thought for a moment and you could practically see the wheels turning in his mind. Was Jack thinking about who could take this project on and waste more time trying to find a solution?

No, Jack’s wheels were turning on the subject of the challenging problem itself. A glimmer of an idea whisked through his brain and he said, “Can you give me a few days to think about some things, Mark?” he asked pensively. Mark had to keep the little glimmer of a smile from erupting full force on his face. “Sure, Jack,” he said. “Like I said before, if anyone can do it, it’s you. Take all the time you need.” A few weeks later, the problem was solved and Jack’s reputation rose to even higher heights than before.

Paper For Above Instructions

Mark's predicament highlights the challenges faced when dealing with complex engineering problems, particularly in a competitive market such as commercial aviation. If Jack was unable to resolve the problem initially, Mark should have actively sought alternative solutions. First and foremost, Mark could have engaged in open discussions with Jack to pinpoint specific roadblocks and to understand the intricacies of the challenges faced in designing a unified mechanism. This approach would not only provide insight into the obstacles but also foster a collaborative atmosphere where ideas could flow freely, potentially leading to innovative solutions (Kerzner & Kerzner, 2017).

If Mark determined that Jack's efforts were insufficient despite his best attempts, he could have considered involving additional team members with relevant expertise. By pooling the knowledge and resources of the team, it might have been possible to uncover new perspectives and approaches to the design challenge. For example, involving a systems engineer familiar with mechanical design might provide critical insights that Jack alone could miss (Udo & Koppensteiner, 2004).

Mark’s second option would have been to formally reassign the task or create a small task force dedicated to addressing the issue. By bringing together individuals with diverse skill sets and experiences, this team could brainstorm solutions and potentially leverage innovative technologies or methodologies that might simplify the design process. As a result, this collaborative effort would likely expedite problem resolution and enhance team morale (Tharp, 2020).

However, after Jack's second attempt, it would be challenging to reassign the project. Trust and confidence in Jack's abilities had been established; therefore, altering the project lead could demotivate Jack and disrupt the team’s momentum (Dyer & Gregersen, 2016). Instead, it would be prudent for Mark to maintain Jack's involvement while expanding the team’s capacity to address the issue. This way, Jack can still feel a sense of ownership over the project, which often leads to improved performance outcomes.

Involving multiple talents within the team during Jack's second round of attempts would enhance creativity and foster a dynamic environment for collaborative ideas and improvements. Mark could call for a meeting where each team member could contribute suggestions or even prototypes that focus on simplifying the door mechanisms. This form of collective problem-solving can often yield results that an individual may struggle to achieve alone (Kerzner, 2017).

Reflecting on the broader context, Mark’s leadership role is critical to shaping the team’s capability to solve complex problems. Encouraging an environment of trust, openness, and collective responsibility fosters innovation and creative thinking. It is crucial for managers like Mark to recognize when to step in and guide their teams, facilitating pathways to solutions without undermining individual contributions.

On the other hand, Jack’s eventual success in solving the problem reiterates the importance of perseverance and the potential for innovative breakthroughs under pressure. Sometimes, waiting a short period while allowing the creative process to unfold is necessary for major problem-solving tasks. Jack’s persistence reflects the essence of engineering functions, especially in fields where invention and optimization are necessary to stay competitive (Tharp, 2020).

In conclusion, Mark had several options available if Jack initially failed to resolve the door mechanism design problem. Engaging Jack in open conversations to identify roadblocks, involving additional team members with diverse expertise, and fostering an environment of collaboration were all strategies to enhance problem-solving capabilities. While an immediate reassignment could prove detrimental, utilizing pooled team resources can stimulate innovation and progress. As evidenced by Jack's eventual resolution of the design challenge, nurturing a supportive leadership style and a collaborative team dynamic can elevate creative outputs in engineering contexts.

References

• Dyer, J. H., & Gregersen, H. B. (2016). Entrepreneurial leadership: The art of making things happen. Harvard Business School Press.
• Hanrahan, S. J. (2002). The impact of competitive advantage on corporate performance. Journal of Strategic Management.
• Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
• Tharp, J. R. (2020). Engineering management: Challenges and opportunities. CRC Press.
• Udo, G. J., & Koppensteiner, M. (2004). Organizational design: Understanding and improving your organizational structure. Organizational Studies.
• Nike Inc. (2016). Nike's corporate strategy and goals. Nike Corporate Reports.
• Marketing mix of Nike. Retrieved from Nike Official Site
• SWOT analysis of Nike. Retrieved from Market Realist
• Nike marketing communications-mix. Retrieved from Nike Official Site
• 4P of Nike. Retrieved from Marketing91