WCM 610 Final Project Case Study One
Phone Systems Inc., an international company that manufactures telephone accessories, has four locations in the United
States: Syracuse, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Antonio, Texas; and Tampa, Florida. It also has facilities in
Great Britain, Germany, and Mexico. Phone Systems Inc. values diversity in its workforce, innovation in its processes,
and profitability in its products. The president of the board has been overheard saying, “You can’t please all of the
people all of the time. Sometimes profits come before personnel.” Phone Systems Inc. is contemplating opening a new
facility in India and has initiated the formation of a virtual team to evaluate this decision. An outcome of this project, as
directed by the company’s board of directors, is one of the facilities in the United States would be closed to fund the
creation of the new facility in India.
Below is a summary of the four sites.
Location
Syracuse, NY
Minneapolis, MN
San Antonio, TX
Tampa, FL
Year Established
1955
1968
1995
2001
Number of Employees
450
250
650
500
Syracuse, NY: This site is also the company’s global headquarters—the site where the company started. It recently
celebrated 60 years of service in the United States, and received a presidential citation from President Obama for its
dedication to keeping jobs in the United States. This site has an average years of service of 25 years, and the average
employee age is 50.5 years old. While this site has the longest history and tradition, it also scores lowest in internal
employee satisfaction surveys.
Minneapolis, MN: This site has undergone three downsizings in the past decade, reducing from 775 employees in 2005
to 600 employees in 2008 and 500 employees in 2010. It most recently underwent a considerable restructuring in 2013
to its current head count of 250 employees. The jobs were transferred to the San Antonio, Texas, site and Tampa,
Florida, site due to lower labor costs and higher levels of efficiency at both of these sites. The site pursued a grant
through the State of Minnesota for skills retraining, and was awarded a state grant of $300,000 to fund retraining its
incumbent workforce from 2015 through 2020. The company would be required to repay the State if any employees
were laid off from this site prior to 2020.
San Antonio, TX: This site is the “cash cow” of the company, as it has the highest level of efficiency, is the company’s
lowest-cost facility, and has the best overall record of performance. Its cost of operations is the lowest of all sites in the
United States. However, the site is currently the target of a union-organizing drive by the Communication Workers of
America. Employees pushed for an increase in wages, which was denied by management as the result of an analysis of
wages in the area for employees in similar industries. This prompted some employees to pursue joining a union. Any
attempt to curtail operations at the site, such as a union-busting move by the company, could create a potential legal
challenge with the international union.
Tampa, FL: This is the company’s newest site, and is second to the San Antonio site in cost and efficiency. It has a very
low level of attrition, and has the highest scores in the employee satisfaction survey. The site has received awards for its
solid performance in minority hiring, and has also been positively recognized as a leader in the local area for its excellent
diversity hiring practices.
A cross-function team comprised of three senior managers—plant manager, plant controller, and plant human resources
manager—from each of the four sites in the United States has formed to develop the strategy for the creation of the
new facility in India. One outcome that is non-negotiable by the company’s board of directors is one of the four sites in
the United States would have to close to fund the asset-reconfiguration project.
The group has met twice but cannot reach consensus on their objective. However, they have discussed a shift in the
project objective, and requested that the board of directors instead close the facility in Mexico. The site leaders agree a
site needs to be closed, but all are adamant that their respective sites should not be closed due to economic, political,
technical, and loyalty issues. Conflict among the team members involves the following issues:
Representatives from the Syracuse, New York, site are adamant that the site cannot close, as it is the world
headquarters site and each member of the board of directors lives in the Syracuse area.
Several members of the committee appear to be ethnocentric, vocally disagreeing with the company’s decision
to open a site in India predicated on closing a site in the United States.
A fair degree of finger-pointing has occurred on the committee, with members focused on finding weaknesses at
each site other than their own, rather than focusing on the objectives the committee was challenged to resolve.
The facility in Mexico was established in 2008 and has a very low labor cost; its employees are very energetic and excited
to be part of Phone Systems Inc. Its leadership team is comprised of 90% Mexican nationals, and its plant manager
describes the environment at the site as “Change Disneyland.” Employees welcome change, and are highly passionate
about their company.
The board of directors was not pleased by the proposal from the project team to close the site in Mexico, and has
brought you in to take over leadership of the team. The board has requested you develop a strategy to bring this project
to a successful conclusion, with the following objectives:
Lead the team to the desired conclusion with the majority of the team reaching consensus on which of the four
existing sites in the United States would close.
Summarize the key challenges in moving forward with the recommendation.
Present the process by which you will lead the team to a successful outcome.
WCM 610 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: For this first milestone, due in Module Three, you will take what you have learned about Define and begin your work on your selected final project
case study, establishing the Define phase of the DMAIC process for your organization.
Prompt: First, select your case study from one of the two options provided: Final Project Case Study One or Final Project Case Study Two.
Next, summarize the desired resolution to the conflict in the case study based on your knowledge of the organization’s business goals, customer needs, and the
process that needs to improve. Then, provide a rationale and reflection on your work thus far.
Address the following critical elements in your milestone submission:
I.
•
•
Defining Goals
Construct a problem statement that clearly articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen. Be sure to consider the project scope and future-state goal
in contextualizing the conflict.
Complete a stakeholder analysis, identifying the key stakeholders that are involved in or affected by the current situation and future-state goal as
articulated in the problem statement.
Instructor feedback on this milestone should be used to inform your final project submission, the executive summary presentation with speaker notes.
Note: In Module Four, you will develop a high-level suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, and customers (SIPOC) process map, identifying the quantitative and
qualitative variables that are likely to contribute to the organizational conflict you are analyzing. For Milestone Two, due in Module Five, you will build on your
understanding of the Define and Measure phases of DMAIC by more fully exploring measurability and analyzing your organization’s conflict further.
Guidelines for Submission: Milestone One should be 1 to 2 pages in length (excluding title and reference pages) with double spacing, 12-point Times New
Roman font, one-inch margins, and citations in APA style. Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the reference page.
Rubric
Note that the grading rubric for this milestone submission is not identical to that of the final project. The Final Project Rubric will include an additional
“Exemplary” category that provides guidance as to how you can go above and beyond “Proficient” in your final submission.
Critical Elements
Problem Statement
Proficient (100%)
Constructs a problem statement that clearly
articulates the personnel conflict that has
arisen, considering the project scope and
future-state goal in contextualizing the
conflict
Stakeholder Analysis
Completes a stakeholder analysis, identifying
the key stakeholders who are involved in or
affected by the current situation and futurestate goal as articulated in the problem
statement
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors related to
citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or
organization
Needs Improvement (75%)
Constructs a problem statement that
articulates the personnel conflict that has
arisen, considering the project scope and
future-state goal in contextualizing the
conflict, but problem statement is cursory,
lacks clarity, or contains inaccuracies
Completes a stakeholder analysis, identifying
stakeholders who are involved or affected by
the current situation and future-state goal,
but analysis is cursory or contains
inaccuracies, or stakeholders identified are
not relevant given the problem statement
Submission has major errors related to
citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or
organization that negatively impact
readability and articulation of main ideas
Not Evident (0%)
Does not construct a problem statement that
articulates the personnel conflict that has
arisen
Value
40
Does not complete a stakeholder analysis,
identifying the stakeholders who are involved
or affected by the current situation and
future-state goal
40
Submission has critical errors related to
citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or
organization that prevent understanding of
ideas
Total
20
100%
Purchase answer to see full
attachment