Need For Discussion Question To Answer The Presenter

Need For Discusion Question To Answer The Presenter Attached Below Pl

Problem - What “General Electric: Major Appliance Business Group” is faced with the problem of whether to incorporate modification changes into Project C, and if yes which modification changes should be accepted. Implementing these changes will require increased funding for Project C. Funding increase of over 10% of the original budget has to, once again be approved by the board.

Diagnosis - Why: To improve consumer perception about the quality of GE products, a new material “PermaTuf” was developed and patented by the company. Unfortunately, the first model with this technology had to be pulled from the market. Project C is the third model built using “PermaTuf”, and its launch is crucial for the product line’s success.

Diagnosis – How: The first product with “PermaTuf” was a Project A model GSD 1050. In order to meet market deadlines, some tests were omitted, leading to the product’s withdrawal and casting doubt on GE’s quality reputation. Factors contributing to these issues include the 1980 recession, which constrained sales and profits, prompting cost cuts and quality improvements; and a need for substantial investment in the Louisville dishwasher plant, which requires improving workforce relations and increasing production capacity amidst union challenges.

Paper For Above instruction

The decision faced by General Electric’s Major Appliance Business Group (MABG) regarding Project C encapsulates a complex interplay of innovation, quality assurance, fiscal management, and workforce relations. Deciding whether to incorporate modifications into Project C involves evaluating the potential benefits of improved product quality and market acceptance against the risks and costs associated with increased funding, especially during an economically challenging period such as the 1980 recession.

At the core of GE’s challenge is the introduction of “PermaTuf,” a material developed to enhance the durability and consumer perception of their appliances. Despite its potential, the initial deployment of this technology was marred by quality issues, resulting in the withdrawal of the first model, GSD 1050. This setback heightened scrutiny of GE’s product reliability and underscored the importance of rigorous testing and quality assurance before market release. The failure of the initial model exemplifies the critical need for comprehensive testing, particularly when pioneering new materials or technologies that promises to redefine product standards (Ellet, 2007).

Furthermore, the economic context of the 1980 recession exerted significant pressure on GE’s operations. Declining sales and profits obliged the company to pursue cost-cutting measures while simultaneously attempting to uphold quality standards. The decision to “redo major selections of the Louisville dishwasher plant” was driven by the necessity to reduce costs, improve productivity, and meet market demands—all while managing a unionized workforce resistant to significant investments. This situation illustrates the delicate balance between operational efficiency and employee relations, which is critical for successful project implementation (Ellet, 2007).

Addressing whether modifications should be incorporated into Project C hinges on multiple factors. First, the potential for these modifications to rectify quality issues and enhance consumer confidence must be weighed against the increased financial burden. The need for expenditure over the initial budget by more than 10% requires board approval, making it imperative that management convincingly demonstrates that the modifications will lead to a better market position and financial returns. Second, the technical feasibility and testing protocols for the new model must be robust enough to prevent recurrence of past failures, ensuring that the third iteration with “PermaTuf” truly meets the quality standards expected by consumers and regulators.

From a strategic perspective, investing in plant improvements and workforce relations can be viewed as essential for long-term success. By upgrading the Louisville plant and fostering better labor-management communication, GE can create a more flexible manufacturing environment capable of producing high-quality appliances efficiently. This aligns with contemporary quality management principles that emphasize continuous improvement, employee engagement, and investment in operational capacity to ensure product excellence (Deming, 1986; Juran, 1992).

In conclusion, the decision to incorporate modifications into Project C involves an evaluation of technical, financial, and human factors. While the immediate financial implications are significant, the potential benefits of enhanced product quality, restored consumer trust, and sustained market competitiveness justify a careful, strategic investment. GE’s management must adopt a holistic approach that integrates quality assurance, financial prudence, and workforce development to successfully navigate this pivotal project and reinforce its brand reputation in a competitive marketplace.

References

• Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Educational Services.
• Ellet, W. (2007). The case study handbook: How to read, discuss, and write persuasively about cases. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Juran, J. M. (1992). Juran on Quality by Design: The New Steps for Planning Quality into Goods and Services. Free Press.
• London, T., & Sorek, M. (2010). Building a Continuous Improvement Culture. Journal of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(2), 139-156.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency.
• Schonberger, R. J. (1986). Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity. Free Press.
• Tax, S. S., & Brown, S. W. (1998). Recovering Control in Customer Service. Journal of Business Strategy, 19(2), 46-55.
• Watts, G. (2017). Leadership and organizational change. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 122-129.
• Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Simon & Schuster.