Case study : Agile Electric Submitted to Prof.

Arun Paul PGCBM 22 , Submitted By group NO 33

1. Should the complete recall/field failure and associated costs be charged to the tiered suppliers? Automek has developed the supplier base in low cost country by increasing the efficiency and developing the competency of Agile and promoted the know-how Agile to go about it as a channel partner, Automek has enjoyed higher inducement then the contributions as being the external stakeholder, and Agile has demonstrated the fair governance inside the organization and with tire3 and 4 suppliers in order to maximize Autodesks incentive maximization. Root cause analysis done by Agile exhibits that the fault lies with north American supplier hence logically recall shall be borne by the same stakeholder, however the interfacing is also found a problem since the over stress on capacitor was reported. Since the problem has been detected, addressed and resolved and since Agile and Automek are ISO 9000 with TS 16949 accredited organizations , they shall continue improving at all associated ends and should not practice either of options (Ref page 7/16). However in case of 2nd failure ECPL is the root of problem but the ignorance of BIPL has arrived from conflict of interest with holistic chain of supply , hence the owner has to pre define the parameters of success in each tire and shall ensure the win-win scenario by increasing more strengthen Information system and better SCM coordination which shall motivate a best practices and fulfill the objectives all three options (Ref page 9/16). 2. Was Automeks decision to source the business from Agile a good one? Did Agile make the right call in accepting the contract? On surface it looks a great decision, where without any direct investment, with support of existing motivated supplier and within nominal profit Automek has developed a good and efficient supplier and then equipped the same with best specialists suiting to requirement of Automek but somehow the formula has not turned up as a success story as of now. Automek had to work on Interfacing or coordination with stronger supply chain, here local maxima has been achieved in each tire of supplier in its own territory however there are two types of groups in whole chain.

Not specialist (Agile) : Highly Motivated toward Automek. Specialists (ECPL and BIPL) : Not so motivated toward Automek`s success. Hence the global maxima is absconding t=in the chain , which is the linkage for passing the information and making the stronger chain of command and the global maxima of the supply chain. In order to bring the derailment on the track it is very prominent that the speed has to be controlled specially at BIPL end where record keeping , regular inspection is mission which shows they are not aware where they are going wrong , hence the remedy is not possible without assumption.

Submitted By : Ravi Pratap Singh Tomar (2224997) , Sachin Suri (2224214), Saurabh Singhal (2224364) , Meghna Govil (2224276) and Manoj Kumar (2224302)

Case study : Agile Electric Submitted to Prof. Arun Paul PGCBM 22 , Submitted By group NO 33
Though it is clarified that Supplier is sole responsible for the errors at sub-supplier level and coordination up to its level , ultimate cost bearer is still Automek hence Automek need to enhance the Facilitis to drive the chain, and need to probably continuously exploring the innovation to avoid such sources of problems. 3. Do you see internal quality practices as having a major role in the case, considering all the supply chain members? Are ISO 9000 and TS 16949 necessary and sufficient conditions for adequate process knowledge and diffusion of internal quality practices? Yes , the internal core competency is the first and foremost criteria for all associated supplier end since the ultimate product has to claim that credibility however they are not sufficient till they are followed religiously and continuously which is the case here. All the measures done at BIPL are on visual basis or weight loss basis, where until the error has occurred hence it needs to be improvised with immediate effect. Only Automek is assessing the supplier during qualification evaluations however the inner strengths and shortcomings for better mix and match are not being assessed with mutual coordinations hence transfer of information transfer is incomplete. 4A . Would Agile receive any benefits if it invested resources in developing its suppliers? As per QMS requirement agreed between Automek and Agile, Agile requires to take responsibility of operational correctness with its sub suppliers, however they are proposed and assed by hence it becomes thank less (reward less ) to Agile if everything is moving right however they are paying off on someone else`s short comings.

4B.Who is responsible for accelerating the implementation of quality practices to the lower tier suppliers? As the responsibility lies with Agile, it need to be ensured by Agile that agreed QMS (Exhibit 1) has been adhered throughout the operation cycle. At customer end it becomes Automek`s primary responsibility that the functions are maintained such that implementation of required process are followed in best fit to quality ,quantity and with in time frame. 4C Why were ECPL and BIPL not interested in improving their processes and manufacturing practices? This is an agency problem where the external stakeholders loses motive in where inducements are less than or equal to the contribution. In other words the greater success with Automek would not the greater to ECPL and BIPL hence the ownership has a conflict of interest.

Submitted By : Ravi Pratap Singh Tomar (2224997) , Sachin Suri (2224214), Saurabh Singhal (2224364) , Meghna Govil (2224276) and Manoj Kumar (2224302)