Corwin Corporation Case Analysis
Case Study: Project Selection and Change Management
In a Kerzner (2003) case study, Corwin Corporation is an internationally known rubber products manufacturer with a reputation for quality. Corwin’s management is conservative and favors expanding markets for existing product over new product development. The company receives frequent requests to manufacture specialty products. A strict management policy and a risk adverse culture results in a 90% no bid on specialty product inquiries. However, Corwin selected to respond to a bid from one of its customers. The project was a complete failure and cost Corwin its relationship with the customer. This case study examines the mistakes Corwin made during the initiation and execution of the failed project.
Case Overview
The Peter’s Company is one of Corwin’s good customers. Corwin received a request from Peter’s to manufacturer a new rubber product. Peter’s had established a $250,000 budget for the project. However, they did not have the internal resources available to take on the project themselves. As a result, they decided to outsource the project and they wanted Corwin to design and manufacture the product for them.
Corwin was initially resistant to accepting the new project. Peters needed a proposal and acceptance from Corwin within a few days or they would lose the $250,000 budget for the project. However, Corwin was not comfortable with the required turnaround time. Peters offered a 5-year profit sharing deal to incent Corwin. One of Corwin’s managers instructed his staff to create a proposal for $250,000 to align with the Peter’s budget. Peters accepted the proposal.
The project started poorly. The project manager was not present at the kickoff meeting. In addition, Corwin allowed the customer direct access to engineering and manufacturing staff, which created a considerable amount of confusion and frustration within the Corwin organization. Continuous change and unclear requirements resulted in
In a Kerzner (2003) case study, Corwin Corporation is an internationally known rubber products manufacturer with a reputation for quality. Corwin’s management is conservative and favors expanding markets for existing product over new product development. The company receives frequent requests to manufacture specialty products. A strict management policy and a risk adverse culture results in a 90% no bid on specialty product inquiries. However, Corwin selected to respond to a bid from one of its customers. The project was a complete failure and cost Corwin its relationship with the customer. This case study examines the mistakes Corwin made during the initiation and execution of the failed project.
Case Overview
The Peter’s Company is one of Corwin’s good customers. Corwin received a request from Peter’s to manufacturer a new rubber product. Peter’s had established a $250,000 budget for the project. However, they did not have the internal resources available to take on the project themselves. As a result, they decided to outsource the project and they wanted Corwin to design and manufacture the product for them.
Corwin was initially resistant to accepting the new project. Peters needed a proposal and acceptance from Corwin within a few days or they would lose the $250,000 budget for the project. However, Corwin was not comfortable with the required turnaround time. Peters offered a 5-year profit sharing deal to incent Corwin. One of Corwin’s managers instructed his staff to create a proposal for $250,000 to align with the Peter’s budget. Peters accepted the proposal.
The project started poorly. The project manager was not present at the kickoff meeting. In addition, Corwin allowed the customer direct access to engineering and manufacturing staff, which created a considerable amount of confusion and frustration within the Corwin organization. Continuous change and unclear requirements resulted in
References: Kerzner, H. (2003). Project Management Case Studies. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.