Cross Functional

The document discusses differences between Rondell and Gore corporations. It analyzes Gore's decentralized management framework, including criteria for establishing new plants like optimal size. Gore fosters innovation through its supportive culture where associates can contribute across departments, unlike Rondell's restrictive structure.

Uploaded by

vik05345

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

58 views

Cross Functional

Uploaded by

vik05345

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 4

CROSS FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF FIRMS

Vikas Govind Ganjave

UM14081

Nihar Tushar Gosalia

UM14082

Tanaya Ksheerabdhi Samantaray

UM14086

Rakshit Mansukhbhai Mangaroliya

UM14088

Siddhi Prasad Lenka

UM14110

President Bill Hunt is clearly uncomfortable sacking Frank Forbus, that

too on Christmas-eve. He says, I cant understand why we have such
poor luck in the engineering directors job lately. If the present trend
at Rondell continues, future engineering directors too would, quite
likely, find their jobs on the line; even as yet other new products are
likely to overshoot schedules. Based on a comprehensive examination
of the case, what would you suggest to help Rondell with their present
problems?
As per our observation of the case, it is seen that there is little cooperation
existing between the different departments of Rondell Corporation and the
departments are engaging themselves in frequent blame game. This has lead to
innumerable conflicts in the past. There has been a gradual rise in the disputes
between the engineering, sales and production teams and the current fracas
revolves around the problem of new product introduction.
In the present time, the company intends to introduce the 802 modulator.
However, a new filtering technique added at the last moment has jeopardized
the plan. The product has been returned from the production due to severe
design flaws. Consequently, there will be a delay in the launch of the product
which has clearly infuriated the sales VP as he wont be able to meet the
customer deadlines.
What the company lacks is a quality consulting team; hence, we would suggest
that it should hire the services of a renowned consulting team to help the
management in taking the major decisions. Perhaps, the organizational structure
needs to undergo a massive facelift. In order to resolve the inter group conflicts,
it is highly recommended that it should constitute cross functional teams
involving members from the various departments. This would surely help in
giving realistic dates to the customers. The decisions could be entrusted upon
such teams who will take up the responsibility for delivering a timely, quality
product. The Engineering department should plan to set up a special project
management team which would aid the department in tracking and monitoring
the progress of the project. Finally, team building activities should be promoted
extensively at the organization and all efforts are to be made to break down the
communicational and functional barriers and ensure effective team participation
rather than the individualistic approach.

The disputes need to be resolved immediately else it will be disastrous for the
organization as it can easily erode away the profits.

Rondell and Gore appear very different companies at first glance; and
indeed there are serious differences. But they both are R&D centric, in
B-to-B marketing, and the typical business order for both would involve
first making a proto-type that fulfils the customers requirement, then
manufacturing a batch of the same as per the order size. Based on
comparisons and contrasts with Rondell, what new conjectures
beyond the case, that is could one make about Gores management
framework?
Here is a lead: Rondell functions from a single plant/facility. Gore has
chosen to go for many. One criterion towards creating a new plant, the
Gore case tells us, is around the number 200. What might be some of
the other criteria?

Organisational culture is the barrier to the innovation and process efficiency for
Rondell while in case of Gores culture is the success factor for innovation and
improved operation efficiency. Here individual work preferences and inclinations
are taken into consideration and hence overall functioning is better in case of
Gore perhaps may be because decentralised decision making and individual
initiative is more effective than push down authoritative structure of Rondell.

Main key differentiating factor of driving innovation in case of Gore is its style of
work culture where people can contribute regardless of hierarchy and structure
to any of the department and to any extent, and they are being provided
resources to work upon the research dependent on the associates appetite and
inclination of motivation to improve product. While in case of Rondell associates
are kind of restricted to workings of the department only rather than cross
functional knowhow and hence the innovations perhaps is not as effective as
potentially could have been had insights of cross functional know how been
applied.

As opposed to Rondell, Gore has multiple optimal sized plants than single large
plant, which helped Gore to preserve the unique culture which otherwise might
not have been possible in large sized single location that tend to be better
managed in hierarchical style of management.

Despite no forma R& D, Gore is churning out new products. This is due to its
belief that everyone has it in them to be creative.
While in Rondell, a formal R& D exists, but only one person is does all the
innovation. Moreover, the rest of the people in that department are acting on
short deadlines, which hamper their creative process and ultimately the design.

Another point of difference is the way new members are inducted and accepted
into the organisation. While in Rondell new members are not welcomed into the
organisation by the existing employees as they come from outside. While in
Gore, New members are assigned sponsors and allowed to choose their work.
This fosters a strong inter personal relationship and accountability. As the new
employees move around various departments before they settle into what would
like to do, this increases their knowledge about the workings of other
departments and consequently, helps them in their subsequent work.

Gores
innovative
and
supportive
culture
and
the
unconventional
unmanagement style fosters an enigmatic yet well-oiled corporate culture.

To summarize the strengths of Gores management style are direct line of

communication, lack of assigned authority, tasks and objectives organized
through commitments rather than pre-established work schedules. The most
important strength is encouragement of individual initiative.

Even with these strengths, there are some pitfalls which the organisation should
be mindful of.

Gores structure depends on highly motivated workforce and strong leadership.

Absence of these may jeopardise long term performance.

The conservative financial policy has some drawbacks. Unwillingness to finance

expansion through debts, limits its opportunities.
Another drawback is its laid back marketing strategy. It is informal. It may have
sustained till now, but with increasing failures in its products and increasing
competition. It needs to have a structured and coordinated marketing
department, to save and enhance its reputation.