Case studies

The ABB (A) case describes the situation leading up to a decision that has to be made concerning closing a manufacturing subsidiary of ABB and moving its operations to Thailand. The Plant/subsidiary manager is placed in a conflict position regarding this decision due to the matrix form of management structure employed by the parent ABB. His direct line manager in charge of the global product line wants the move to take place. He has the support of his supervisor, who sits on the Executive Committee of the parent company. The ABB Country Manager for Denmark wants the plant to stay where it is. The subsidiary manager also reports to him, as part of the matrix structure. The subsidiary manager has recently been promoted to his new position, with the support of the Country Manager. The previous subsidiary manager had been promoted to head up a larger, Danish subsidiary of ABB. The previous year, the Country Manager and the previous subsidiary manager had managed to over rule the same request, in no small part, due to their connections within ABB as well as within Denmark. The new subsidiary manager needs to make a recommendation as to what should be done. The ABB Transformers (A) case can be used separately, or in conjunction with the (B) case.

The (B) case follows up on the (A) case. The decision was made to leave the plant in Denmark. It was revisited one year later, and the subsidiary manager is in even more of a quandary. The former Country Manager has been promoted to the Executive Committee of ABB. At a meeting of the new Country manager (not previously from within ABB), the Product Manager, his supervisor from the Executive Committee, the former Country Manager, and the subsidiary manager, the discussion is primarily between the new Country Manager and the Product Supervising Executive Committee Member, who has also been given added responsibility for all of Asia and the Pacific region. The former Country Manager, now responsible for European operations, remains quiet during the discussions. He later notes that this is a relatively small decision in the context of European operations. The subsidiary manager still needs to make a decision, but is now unsure of what has happened during the past year to allow this issue to be raised for the third time. The (B) case can be used to demonstrate how politics, promotions, and transfers can radically alter the environment within the context of a strategic decision. The focus is now on organization culture and power, and on the problems of operating within a matrix structure. The (B) case should be used in combination with the (A) case.

East Texas Oxygen (ETOX) delivered high-pressure cylinders of gases such as oxygen and nitrogen to twelve wholly-owned branches scattered throughout East Texas and Louisiana. Employees loaded and unloaded individual high-pressure cylinders off of and onto trailers manually and the firm had never had a related accident. Robert Jenkins had been challenged to decrease the cost of supplying the branches with cylinders and other supplies. He was considering recommending the palletization of delivery operations which required numerous changes within the organization. This case required students to determine the best routing for the delivery truck(s) and to determine whether or not the number of trucks and drivers could be reduced under palletization. Students were then required to do a capital budgeting analysis and make a recommendation of whether or not to palletize.