Analyze the existing project stock portfolio and identify evidently which projects should Ms. Gagne finance & why? How many can she finance? How should she manage the executive getting together with?
What are we looking for with this research? Calculate if Le Petit Chef management technology and more exactly New product development policy is cope with in a success way and if they are placing themselves in the best keep tabs on to capture whenever you can value they can to their market. Will their process bring them to help make the most suitable choice in the task portfolio?
Thus, we have to asses and know very well what they are currently doing and what exactly are their options?
If we simply imagine and situate each job over a map to be able to see how their project collection is balanced (see exhibit 1) we can easily see that their complete project, except one is concentrated in the derivative area. Their tasks are not well balanced, especially in this type of market (maturity with brutal and growing competition).
From what I am aware regarding Le Petit Chef current position and Task, Mrs. Gagne should choose to fund immediately (urgently) the job A, the one which may lead to a new sensible line of Microwave cooking devices with multiple sensors, and handles with fuzzy logic intelligence (306 person-months) - 1. 5 years for completion.
Indeed, this task, even if as she remarks, will need virtually all the resources from the R&D office (about 67% for time 1), is the task that helps you to save le Petit Chef from individual bankruptcy (no less than that).
In simple fact, It solves a couple of serious troubles that they are facing in a single shot.
First as Mr. Franois Truc, mature R&D design engineer says: Le petit Chef must develop a high-end Microwave oven: Fuzzy reasoning intelligence which is or already is in a few market, another era product (the breakthrough area) of the industry.
It will solve the condition Le Petit Chef has with deviation in the quantity and combination of substances being positioned in the cavity. Recover, they will be able finally to lessen their ranges of product that are much too wide. They had puzzled quality and volume.
Like that, the Director of Making, Grard LefЁvre can increase unit quantities for each product picked, because the sales will be became aware on less models (after the range review for this reason improvement advancement) thus increasing level of each model remaining therefore leading to substantial economy of range. The proliferation of new models only on incremental basis has been one of the big blunders they made.
In lowering their portfolio, they will be in a position to redefine with the marketing and sales department a more compact and coherent profile based on advancement technology and in relationship with their market (upper-end market section). Overall is exactly what she must do.
How many can she account?
In fact she actually is not obliged to fund more than this job because, Le Petit Chef (LPC) don't need other new project that this one. First they can not afford a different one for their weak financial position and scarce resources in R&D today and second because no others are needed at this stage so far (quality before quantity). Later, they'll be able to work on platform tasks but today it is prematurily. regarding their situation.
In addition to that and to become in a position to run this task as quick as it can be, I would recommend Mrs. Gagn to cancel some (majority of them in reality) of the ongoing tasks (exhibit 15 of the circumstance) because she will not be able to run the Fuzzy one properly (insufficient resources). I suggest her to cancel the N1, N4, N5 and N 7. Relating to my computation (display 2) they must keep the N3 (change barbeque grill factor to make "Libert" longer-lasting ; delivery expectation March 00) because, first it is nearly finished and in addition provides some higher performance to the product.
Mrs. Gagne should keep also N2 and finally N6 if needed but this is discussed later for N6 inside a next assembly after having changing some guidelines in the organization and leadership of the procedure of New product development.
It is vital I think from what I've learned in Technology management and strategy for the business to secure their left over competitive edge (if any) for the time being between the release of these new discovery product let's call it "Fuzzy Chef" which will take 1. 5 years at least and now to maintain an enough activity to survive.
They must among strengthen the Brand Image on their high standard PERFORMANCE competency and on their image of EXPERT (French cook). Regain the close marriage with their person Performance-Oriented customers. Incidentally they'll need to examine their marketing circulation strategy. In fact they have to review their Marketing Combine strategy position, the 4p's regarding if you ask me.
And it is the reason why I think that the "longer-lasting" is an excellent feature to focus on for Company that would like to put itself in a higher end market (performance, reliability, etc). Also this addition won't alter deeply the processing efficiency as I could understand in the event explanation.
N2 it is the solution to start to help to decrease the range because also pushes the R&D people to focus on cavity issues. Indeed, in the case: too much cavity = too much range thus making cost issues.
For the main one I suggest to reject: N1, N4, N5 and 7, first for the reason that we are within an disaster situation and we need to make quick and decisive decision because we live working out of resources (people, time and money) therefore it is essential to squash ongoing jobs to free people and decongest the R&D of non appropriate projects.
N1 is this type of project that will not bring any serious competitive edge to the LCP. This incremental improvement is to be stored in the category that LCP must manage with a great deal of care. It is not their interest to attempt to struggle on the challenge field with their strongest rivals. Indeed, in doing that they just help their competition to obtain additional near to them.
As it is identified in the case, their rivals, whit their ability (huge, strong and worldwide companies) are very good for the reason that site, therefore LPC should always try to find a trade-off between aiming to respond in a way of the style needs of these customers but differentiated them from your competition and give attention to be Unique and steer clear of to follow the cost leadership model. If they land in this trap as they have done they'll lost the game.
Again they should focus on what they were recognized, what was their starting position in 1989: the cooking food performance, the experience position ("take the fine art of French microwave cooking to new levels". But what we see on the truth is that (display 11) over time they almost lost almost all their competitive benefits. Why, because they concentrate on incorrect concerns and goals.
The first very good most problem they have got for my viewpoint is the clear vision of these Strategy.
It is not yet determined at all that they have a conscious and clear knowledge of what they are supposed to do. Even if they try difficult to do positive thing, for example, put into practice "nice" taking care of tools, they don't understand the Skill from it. They missed the Big Picture. This company misses a highly effective top management team. They are more driven with a technical management.
To end, N4, 5 and 7 it is nearly the same subject as N1.
How should she cope with the executive assembly?
Keep and sit "momentarily" her command. Explain simply and quickly why LCP have been in a wrong way and say logical how she manages to save the business (Clear and short plan with all the current benefits explain to each office)
I think in those days, she must avoid to ask acceptance of everyone because everyone is in a big stress and the atmosphere is not appropriate to ask everyone expressing their point of view. They are really lacking of time.
I suggest her to make use of the real system (Strong recognize leadership of the R&D to impose the saving plan) and later, when thing will be on track and people less "emotionally included" to ask for a reorganization of the entire process. It is roughly what I will make an effort to do, I believe.
What factors describe Le Petit Chef's performance?
What will be the symptoms of the weaknesses of the existing process? Examine the current project stock portfolio to assess what is wrong with it. What actions might you recommend to solution the situation?
Indeed, once we already learnt (book, courses, activities), some "factors" are shaping (adding) the performance of business (Internal as Exterior). We are able to quote briefly the two 2 main popular works upon this theme: Porter' model using its 5 to 9 pushes and Mintzberg' model. As I explained in my own attempt to response to the first question: what Mrs. Gagne should do? is there definitely some reasons (factors) that forced or conducted LCP to this poor performance. In the event study we can see more at length that something is incorrect in the portfolio management with their products.
Organization need to focus and take great care of their new product development (NPD). More than that, they need a specific one, complex for their tactical target. A lot more than a credit card applicatoin of a set of tools you will need an appropriate group to support innovation and an explicit process to management development.
Most of the time, as it is identified, organizations are not originally created for that goal (NPD). They aren't structured for that. They are usually structured to fulfill functional needs as in this case. Therefore we can see right now how it is problematic for an organization and much more for SME's which have not all the inner capabilities to conquer this kind of management complications.
To intricate and put into action properly an innovation process this wants an understanding of the dynamics of forecasting portfolio management and also, the capability to assess the risk and resources included. Then the firm can control and effectively deploy a suitable and sustainable innovation plan.
But overall, as I already said, the main factor for me is the lack of initial clear perspective of their objective: No formal portrayed goal, no full understanding and contract by everyone into the organization. The rest is the result of it: poor implementation even if indeed they have tried hard and it appears with a great deal of care to create and implement an activity that they are proud of.
What are the symptoms of the weaknesses of the current process? While following a process that seems well thought out, it appears that it has weaknesses, like the whole leadership given to R&D director Mr. Brazeau to start out the list of weaknesses.
First a brief explanation of the existing process: At the beginning there was no process as it is well explain in the event(informal discourse) then, in 1994 execution of the formal process that was the consequence of demands put on R&D. At this occasion, Brazeau needed the authority of its development. It appears that here he has imposed his management. Regarding the procedure developed it is composed on a 3 level process: 1) Opportunity development: R&D led conferences with marketing, sales and production managers, 2) Opportunity refinement: verification of the ideas, selection and development proposal by the R&D only and 3) opportunity selection: Only the director of R&D chooses the assignments to be funded taking into consideration only is perspective and his calculation (project go back NPV).
As it is discussed in the event all the process is on the responsibility of R&D team and additionally in the hands of Mr. Brazeau. This example is very dangerous and damageable for the business (danger pointed out in the chapter "creating project plan to focus development"t we had to read on the BCW book, pp 1053 "it isn't appropriate to give one department only responsibility "). this case is a specific demonstration than it.
Indeed, here the energy is on only in one hand and furthermore maybe not the most suitable person because even if Mr. Brazeau can be an excellent and savvy engineer he will not master all the subtlety of controlling technology and strategy management for a corporation alone.
Other weakness: what is amazing is that the figures aren't made, computed and predicted by or with the help of the CFO expert in house at least (financial simulation, business plan, NPV). It seems that the CFO intervene only for the control (afterward?). Here something is obviously wrong. Furthermore can we calculate that this method of estimation for new development task is the most likely? I question it sincerely like the results found from studies which may have been made to see what drives to success NPD (Burgelman and al, 2004).
Other weakness founded: Project execution: cross functional working group to provide project execution process based on a model (tools) connect with their organization without consuming profile the particularity of their organization (the active: the rule of reviewing). In fact, they success in a way of: how to use on a stubborn way a model They just apply theoretically, in a rigid way but do not size the top idea. They overlooked the essential, like define a straightforward and clear strategic to help them to do something in position with it. We can not see the objective to review your options in a collegial way.
Every level was choose validate the first decision and just to follow the advancement but to never refine, to re-frame the original decision from Brazeau. It is only a one way process.
Also I feel that they can be too much centered on details, expert skills from marketing, making, financial to technology. Even if indeed they provide data to R&D and get involved physically to conference it seems to be prepared too much in function (Silo Symptoms). The actual fact that R&D and developing department are in Lyon (Flower) and the Marketing, sales and financial at the head office in Paris is a weakness in my own perspective and shows again the problem confronted with their group management.
All the business members are convinced of the success and the efficiency of the system, nor even want to question themselves. This circumstance shows how it is difficult to determine your own company and why external perspective can bring other viewpoint to help to correct and adjust the process if required.
If we refer ourselves to what the literature (advancement and strategy) said the Le petit chef didn't understand well what it's advocated to do in order to correctly run a fresh development product or service process (BCW remarks). Like, avoid to behave after an event (external or internal) but be proactive (foresee the market and your environment). Do not land in the trap of micromanagement. Avoid short-term pressures which remove you from the strategic mission of project development. Work hard to manage the set in place and mixture of projects not just one by one.
This is a very strategic key in the look process: Choosing the mix of products. As numerous of studies show it, it is crucial to manage a combination product development (like in finance, the principle of the mixed collection) to become able to survive and keep growing. It's the issue regarding incorporating at the best the "cash cow" products, the "dogs", the "stars" and the "question marks" (BCG Matrix). Whether or not this concept is more ideal for big company the theory and the task is still the same even for the SME. The stake is dispersing the risk thus creating a stock portfolio to ensure a good balance over the dangers and potential rewards.
There are several models, techniques to help business to make it right. For example using map, matrix to imagine what your location is and where you desire to be to keep your competitive benefit (display 1). It can help the organization to re-view on regular basis their position. It pushes to often ask the question: what is the strategic sense of our task into our market?
Le Petit Chef only works on incremental products development they don't work on breakthrough projects that are crucial for their maintenance in their small niche market (which may be very profitable) they also do not focus on platform development that can be ways to reduce their making costs.
As we can see above Le Petit Chef made errors in the look and the execution of their innovation strategy management. If indeed they want to save lots of the company and if they are not too much less than time and money they need to apply the recommendation made in the first question and perfect the above directed remarks regarding the weaknesses and they will again success perfectly.
A last idea and advice regarding the remark and desire made by the sales division strongly suffered by Mr. Guillote, they will get for example a collaboration with a Microwave ovens producer in an inexpensive country with a fairly quality to sale their Fraternit range (licensing brand) to be able to quickly capture the overseas business regarding low-end market section if indeed they think it is absolutely worth-it and aligned with the central strategy examined.
They will never have the ability to compete alone in the Low-end market manufacturing battle or without delocalizing their service nevertheless they can want to manage a collaboration with a manufacturer (in Vietnam for example) to create or maybe and then license the Brand name to other manufacturers who need a much better awareness in the fierce low-end market battle. In fact several options are present and they may bring quick cash back to funding the main competencies (creativity technology for discovery) of the business in order for them to preserve their competitive advantage.
