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
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, 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’s satisfaction, which is “doing the right things right.” (Managing Six Sigma, BreyfogleⅢ, 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. BreyfogleⅢ, 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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document