Introduction
Operations management are existed in every organization. The four cases given have some
similarities and differences in operations management. Understanding the transformation
process model of each case is the first step to analyse cases. It shows that all operations are
input-transformation-output processes. It means that operations would input the
transformed and transforming resources at first. After the transformation process, the
transformed resources will be transformed as products or service to satisfy customers
needs. The following table will show the input resources of each case.
Table 1: Input Resources of each case
Company Transformed Resources Transforming Resources
Executive Holloware Raw Materials (Such as Pewter and Stainless Steel) Buildings,
Machines, Staff, and Technology
Oilpartz Ltd Raw Materials (Such as Tubes, Forgings, and Rings) Buildings, Machines,
Staff, and Technology
London Zoo Visitors and Tourists Staff, Animals, and Facilities
Cadbury World Visitors and Tourists Staff, and Facilities
It could be seen clearly that Executive Holloware and Oilpartz Ltd are materials
processing, whose most significant products are tangible goods, while London Zoo and
Cadbury World are customer processing, whose most significant products are intangible
service. This basic similarities and differences lead to further similarities and differences of
operating features among these companies.
This essay aims to analyse the operations management problems of Executive Holloware,
Cadbury World, London Zoo and Oilpartz Ltd, compare and contrast their problems and
take some solutions to improve their operations. This assay includes four parts. The first
part analyse the quality problem of Executive Holloware and London Zoo. The second
examines the layout problem of London Zoo and Cadbury World. The capacity problems
of Cadbury World, London Zoo and Oilpartz Ltd are discussed in the third part. Human
resource management problem of Executive Holloware, Cadbury World and London Zoo
will be mentioned at the last part. Some solutions, which could be taken to solve those
problems, will be suggested in each part. Limitations of the data and a small conclusion
will be given at the end of the essay.
Quality problem
Quality, which is one of five basic operations performance objectives, can be defined as
the degree of fit between customers expectations and customer perception of the product or
service.”“ [Operations Management (Fourth Edition), Slack, Chambers and Johnston,
2004: pp.596] A product with good quality means that it not only has the fine and useful
features, but also meets the customer satisfaction, which is “doing the right things right.”“
(Managing Six Sigma, Breyfogle*ƒ²¦*ƒ‘*…¾, Cupello and Meadows, 2001: pp.50)
Nowadays, more and more companies realize that it is very important to improve the
product quality, which actually could save the cost of producing and improve the profits
for the company by increasing the number of the loyal customers.
Breyfogle*ƒ²¦*ƒ‘*…¾, Cupello and Meadows (2001) have claimed that there are two
definitions related to the quality: Efficiency and Effectiveness. Efficiency is “doing things
right”“, which means the process of the manufacture could reduce the cost of the product
and increase the volume of manufacture. Besides, the features of the product are useful and
fine. Effectiveness is “doing right things”“, which means the products could meet
customers expectations (Slack, Chambers and Johnston, 2004). Both Executive Holloware
and London Zoo have the quality problems. But the types of quality problems are quite
different between them. The problem of Executive Holloware is about efficiency, while the
problem of London Zoo is about effectiveness.
The quality problem of Executive Holloware is obvious. According to the case, in the
quality survey, there are 32% of the teapots being scratched or bruised at the third stage of
the production process. After the last stage of the production process, 20% of the products
are still substandard. It is clear why Executive Holloware should spent lots of money
reworking the substandard teapots. As a result, the biggest issue of Executive Holloware is
lack of efficiency, id est. “doing things right”“.
The quality problem of London Zoo is quite different from Executive Holloware.
According to the results of the questionnaires, it could be found that in some fields which
customers do not consider important, London Zoo performs well and gets high scores. On
the other hand, in some aspects that customers think should be pay more attention to,
London Zoo does not perform well. For example, most customers care about the visibility
of animals, the happiness of animals, and the care of animals. Unfortunately, London Zoo
is given very low marks in those aspects. As a consequence, although the staffs in London
Zoo want to provide good service, they make efforts on unimportant aspects. Hence, they
still can not offer high quality of service to customers. Those evidences prove that the type
of the quality problem in London Zoo is lack of effectiveness. The staffs do not “do the
right thing”“.
Although the quality problems of the Executive Holloware and London Zoo are different,
the solution could be the same. Six Sigma is a good method which could be introduced to
Executive Holloware and London Zoo. The definition of Six Sigma is clearly given by
Breyfogle*ƒ²¦*ƒ‘*…¾, Cupello and Meadows (2001):
“Six Sigma provides companies with a series of interventions and statistical tools that can
lead to breakthrough profitability and quantum gains in quality, whether the products of a
company are durable goods or services.”“ (Managing Six Sigma, Breyfogle*ƒ²¦*ƒ‘*…¾,
Cupello and Meadows, 2001: pp.25)
Breyfogle*ƒ²¦*ƒ‘*…¾, Cupello and Meadows (2001) emphasize that there are five phases
in the Smart Six Sigma Solution (S4) business strategy, which are “Deployment Phase”“,
“Measure Phase”“, “Analysis Phase”“, “Improve Phase”“ and “Control Phase”“
(D-M-A-I-C). According to their statement, the process of the S4 business strategy is as
