Reference no: EM132759226

Question

CASE

Wild Wear makes clothing, rain gear, and sleeping bags for hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. The company began when Myrtle Kelly began sewing pile jackets that her husband Ray sold on college campuses. It now employs almost five hundred people organized into traditional divisions such as marketing, manufacturing, and research and development. 

Recently it became apparent that although Wild Wear's balance sheet appeared healthy, the company was stagnant. Everyone seemed to work hard, and the company's products seldom flopped. Yet Wild Wear seemed to have developed a "me too" posture, bringing new products to market a season or a full year after competitors. 

The Kellys, who still run the company, pored over performance appraisals looking for the weak points that might be holding the company back. But it seemed that the human resources department had been doing its work. R&D was coming up with a respectable number of new products, the manufacturing facility was modern and efficient, and the marketing tactics often won praise from customers. 

Baffled, the Kellys called a meeting of middle-level managers, hoping they could provide some answers they had missed. They were shocked when they noticed that the managers were introducing themselves as they came in and sat down. People who had been working in the same company for years had never even met! The meeting began with this observation, and for ninety minutes the Kellys sat back and listened to the problems their managers raised. 

It became clear that in the attempt to grow from a family operation into a larger company, the Kellys had assumed the two needed to be very different. When they started out, the two of them handled all aspects of the business. Ray would hear from a customer that backpackers really needed a certain product. He would pass the idea on to Myrtle and order the materials she needed, and within a few weeks he would offer the product to the delighted customer. As the company grew, the Kellys began to worry about their lack of formal business training and hired professionals to run each division and set up appropriate rules and procedures. 

What they had created, the middle managers informed them, was a number of very efficient, productive divisions that might as well have been separate companies. The R&D people might come up with a new breathable fabric for rain gear, only to find that production had just begun making a new rainwear line out of the old fabric and that marketing was turning all its attention to selling the big inventory of sleeping bags. Each division did the best it could with the information it had, but that information was very incomplete. Products progressed linearly from one division to the next, but it always seemed as though an idea that had been ahead of its time did not yield a product until the time had passed. 

To remedy the problem, the Kellys decided to call in a management consultant to review and assess the organization and make a recommendation for moving forward. You are that consultant.

Please provide the following:

1. Situation

In this section of the case analysis, you will focus on identifying situational aspects that have led to the situation being reported in the case. These aspects should include relevant context, people-related, and organizational factors that have contributed to the current situation. 

2. Problem

The situational profile leads to identification of the major problem in the case. For example, the case may frame the problem as personality and attitude, but the underlying OB problem may relate to organizational structure. Thus, you must analyze the situation deeper to uncover the foundational OB problem. In a case, there may be several problems; however, there is likely only one MAIN problem.

3. Case Question(s)

Identify the specific question(s) that must be addressed in order to solve the central problem identified. There may be one or multiple. Think of what you would need to know in order to make a decision. Consider internal and external factors that may have influenced the current situation, whether mentioned in the case or not.

 4. Alternative "Solutions" (3)

Present three separate and independent courses of actions to solve this problem. Be sure to explain the course of action, the organizational actors and/or resources required to complete, benefits and risks of said action, and how/why the action could potentially solve the problem.

 5. Recommend

Identify and recommend the solution that is most tenable. Provide evidence to argue in favor of the chosen solution, explaining why this solution is the most tenable and/or appropriate for this situation.

6. Prediction

Briefly predict and paint a picture of what the situation looks like AFTER implementation of your recommended solution. How would the situation change? How does the organizational experience change for the actors involved?