Reference no: EM1380267 , Length: 600 Words

Question 1

Discussion & Background

Please read another attached file (the article I wrote) for reference to answer the question.
This question is asked by tutor, so please make some elaboration on the question.

Question

I found it interesting that you started your response by quickly specifying "manufacturing firms". One of your examples listed in your submission was indeed a manufacturing firm (TATA). However, the other example you included in your submission was China Central Television, which clearly falls into another category (media). In your analysis, were there any major differences noted regarding any of these approaches/techniques/theories from one industry to the other?

Question 2

Discussion & Background

Think of the use of graph techniques for detecting and preventing failure Davidson and Winkler (1987), according to them when you actually analysed the breakdown approache to maintanance and preventing problem , there is a significant potential in preventing failure. One is conservative in approach while the other one is optimistic. According Davidson and Winkler (1987)the detecting failure and repairing failure through the use of graph will enable you detect and at the same time resolve the problem meaning that failure is repairable. Preventing failure is afraid to spend money thereby, making the approach conservative. Conservative means ability to prevent potential problems, asumning problems ocures, the future cost of repairing in advance is higher than the cost when problem instantly occurs. This is a kind of minimizing missed opportunity and requires over head cost Davidson and Winkler (1987). The preventive approach to failure requires less over head and when you look at it there is actually no repaire since eveyrthing there is preventing Davidson and Winkler (1987). In this optimistic approach problems are allowed to occur while the conservative never allowed problems to occur it makes sure it corrects everything and guarantee asured. In this scenrio you will discover that one is optimistic while the other one is conservative, optimistic in the sense that it is busy detecting problems and resolving it as the failure is repaired, and the other one the conservative is performing potential conflict detection and aviodance when the failure occurs.

Question

The question now is how can this two be reconciled using missed opportunity metrics for their measurement?

Question 3

Discussion & Background

Slack et al (2010) described the invetability of failure as it can occur at any time. In my opinion, I would think that, in some cases management contribute to failure occurance knowing or without. Why I say this is because of a situation that I once encountered for a certain company in my country. Some managers are selfish such that they do not want to listen to advice from anyone be it their employees such that they end up making the wrong decisions that have no benefit to the organization thereby failing the organization. The manager of this firm went into an agreement with other parties which had benefit to them and his employees adviced him of the consequences but he did not listen and the result was that the organization was bankrupt thus forcing it to stop all its operations.

More so, because of lack of or poor planning there was nothing on standby to assist the organization so that it would not close. It is improper for management to underestimate failure because it lives the company at a disadvantage, as a result it will not enjoy economies of scale and competetive edge. Strategies should be in place in the event of detecting failure and management has to be on the forefront in putting these in place. This will be able to assist the company thereby reducing the chances of failure but instead correcting what will be on the verge of costing the company.

Question

How do you view the concept, do you think that management contribute to failure or failure just occurs at some point in time?
Question 4

Discussion & Background

Clearly, Wal-Mart has gone to great lengths to avoid supplier failure (Slack et al 2010, p. 574). Indeed, the failure to obtain adequate and appropriate suppliers can lead to embarrassment, customer dissatisfaction etc. as you have already stated. Your very good example just goes to show how important the quality value chain is and that indeed it is at the core of TQM i.e. the importance of internal and external customer - supplier relationships in ensuring that quality is achieved (Oakland 2003, p. 7).

Question

Whilst your analysis gives me a very good indication of how Wal-Mart has avoided supplier failure, I am very curious to find out; how does the collaboration between Wal-Mart and its suppliers result in proper forecasting of exactly what the customers need? What are the lessons that other organisations can learn from this?