Operation

s
Managem
ent

Submitted By:
Anupama Mishra
PGPM 16-17
PRN16020471022

Solution
Question1: What could have been done by Hank Kolb to solve the

problem?
He should have followed the saying Prevention is better than cure
He should make known and/or remind the plant personnel across the
organization, the value of quality and conformance, and make such a
philosophy on how they should do things here on.
Attitude across the organization need to be changed in order for this to work.
This should serve as the driving force, and he should make everyone
comprehend how important this philosophy is by making everyone aware
that poor quality would cost the company, and might eventually cost them
their jobs if there will be no one to buy their product in the long run.
He could also form different groups of people to perform fail saving through
quality tools and metrics, thus feedback can be regularly done and reported
in order to correct errors and defects immediately. This way, personnel

would be more mindful of how they do things, as they know that there will
be people to oversee those specifications are followed.
He shouldnt have left the job unsupervised. He should have been always
careful of Mark Hamler.
He should have asked for time to time report from his direct subordinate
Mark Hamler.
Boss informed lack of quality attitude, and then Hank should have focused
on improving the quality since first the very first day.
He should have ensured that employee attitudes are improved.
Since his inception in the company, he should have done some sort of
survey.
He was taking a lot of time in building employee relation with other
employees.
He should have been serious from the very first day. When he always knew
the importance of quality in an industry plant.

Question 2: What should be done now by Hank Kolb immediately to

solve the problem?

He should have considered customer complaints and should have
immediately withdrawn all products.
As a Director, Quality assurance, he should have ensured\ proper machine in
place (all the maintenance machines).
He should have ensured proper training for his employees and himself.
He should immediately set a meeting with the purchasing department about
the defects on the caps they purchased. He should communicate that in
order to prevent downtime, these caps should be without burrs. Once this is
done, he should be able to test or prove that the bottle design does not have
an effect on the proper filling of the cans, before he pushes through with
producing more of Greasex.
He should have immediately stopped taking the delivery of nozzle head with
burrs from the supplier. As Director Quality he should have asked the
purchasing department that why they were still accepting the order when
there was an issue in the nozzle head.

 He should have ensured that the pressure has to be according to design of

bottle, which was not taken care by him.
He should not have accepted unprofessional behavior of any colleagues.
From the beginning he was expected to focus on increasing production,
improving quality. He should have kept in mind the words from the General
Manager problems in the plant; We have to improve our quality, its
costing us a lot of money, Im sure of it, but I cant prove it! Hank, you have
my full support in this matter; youre in charge of these quality problems.
This downward quality productivity turnover spiral has to end!

Question 3: What should be done now by Hank Kolb in long run to

solve the problem?
He should focus on the implementing a quality system such as ISO 9000
where they develop policies and processes for purchasing, design, and
testing.
As far as the machineries are concerned in long run, he should look over the
performance of each by starting to collect data on the probable reasons and
causes of breakdowns.
Proper machine maintenance should also be conducted to prevent further
errors from occurring.
Mandatory formal training regarding operation of all factory machinery
Look into ordering equipment to produce the product properly, try and get
used equipment first and then purchase new equipment (Equipment not very
good at making the product).
Purchasing needs to hold suppliers accountable for delivering quality
products. Set up Supplier measure and set goals to be achieved to produce
the product efficiently
Design Engineer needs to look at can design to see if it could be causing
some of the problems with the pressure
He should not encourage such behavior and should give warning.
He should not take that serious action against workers
He shouldnt rely on information given by different department but should
confirm them

Overall Analysis
As per me, Quality improvement should be every Heads business. It can be
clearly seen in this case. The people working in the plant apparently know their
jobs, but can be considered reckless in going about them. The challenge presented
to Hank Kolb was that as the newly appointed Director for Quality Assurance was
a very difficult one. The people working there seemed to have lost focus on what
they were supposed to do whenever glitches happen. They seemed to tolerate
inconsistencies and have practiced a thats fine attitude, without regard for
urgency on improvements that should be immediately addressed. The pressure
from the market demand was no help as well. Since the product was prematurely
advertised in the market, without checking if product tests have been made,
unnecessary pressure was placed in the hands of production to meet these
demands.
The company that Hank Kolb was working in was one which had the makings of
failure if not immediately addressed or checked. They have a system thats true.
But the system itself will not work on its own without the people who will regard
the system as that which is of utmost importance. They seemed to have lost the
passion to do things and build in the quality in their product, more so in the manner
they produce it. Everything stems from the attitude of the people across the
organization. Apparently, the people were the root cause of the problem. They
themselves did not care nor felt the need to address deficiencies as it happens in
front of them. This is a bad case of having forgotten the philosophy that they
should be practicing and implementing companywide.

According to me, I can say that the I dont care attitude may come from the fact
that the company lacked the physical means to check and analyze if their processes
are working as required. They lacked the tools to monitor and check how each
area of the plant is doing. They also lacked a feedback system so that each person
can tell if he is doing the right thing, or if the whole process is still on the right
track.