.How does the internal market for innovation at Nypro function?

The internal market for innovation at Nypro can best be

explained as separate distinct
sectors which work independently to establish themselves as the companys best manufacturing
plant. Each independent plant, motivated by company offered stock options, seeks to improveproductivity, efficiency and
innovation in the work area on a continual basis. By constantlyimproving their systems, the plants better improve the
company as a whole. Through thecreation of an internal competition between plants, Nypro management helped to
eliminatecomplacenc
y and stagnation. As Brian Jones exclaims, referring to one the companys top plants, Theres a sort of
competitive marketplace in the company for good process ideas, as the
plants compete against each other for the top ranking. Good ideas get snapped up fast and
nobody buys into mediocre ideas (Christensen & Voorheis, 1995).
Essentially, Nypro wanted to instill a desire for its workers to harness their innovative
spirits and improve the companys overall production. Creating an internal competition,
whichis driven by money, is good way to both spawn innovation and encourage employee loyalty. As
Michael Porter exclaims, The strength of rivalry reflects not just the intensity of competition but
also the basis of competition. The dimensions on which competition takes place, and whetherrivals converge to compete on the
same dimensions, have a major influence on profitability
(Porter, 2006). The continued profitability of Nypro was furthered out of a competitive attitude
and desire to be the best. The employees of each plant wanted to be the best so they couldreceive the offered stock options. By
encouraging employees to be successful, the company inturn was rewarded with a happy staff that was continually looking for
ways to better improve thecompany.Christensen, C.M., & Voorheis, R. (1995).
Managing innovation at Nypro, Inc. (A).
HarvardBusiness School Press. HBS 9-696-061
Porter, Michael E., The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy: In HBRs 10 Must Reads
on Strategy
2. How does Lankton manage the process?

Lanktons managing process at Nypro followed five specific guidelines/strategies:

developing superior technology, standardizing of processes and offerings, creating a proactiveand innovative environment,
rewarding employee performance, and customer-oriented
operations. Lanktons strategy of developing superior technology focused on large
-scale molding jobs with demanding, technologically progressive customers (Christensen and Voorheis,
1995, p.1). Nypro was able to become the fifth largest plastic molder in the United States under thisapproach. The
standardizing of processes and offerings was the idea that any potential customer,
regardless of Nypros location in the world, would have the same opportunities and of
ferings toproduct creation that another customer might in a different location. This process was achievedby the individual
organizations reporting their successes and failures in the production process,so other organizations around the world would
know how to handle a similar situation if it arises.

Clearly Nypros different locations around the world would have customers that want
different products. So while differentiation is difficult to achieve, the different Nypro locationswere able to share their thoughts,
processes, and innovative applications, which helped the
organization to overcome this challenge. Lanktons ability to create an environment where
proactive and innovative people would be encouraged to stay at Nypro, allowed the organizationto maintain those
components/employees which made them successful (Christensen andVoorheis, 1995, p. 2). This process was accomplished
by installing an incentive-based rewardsystem, which provided employees with stock options based on years of service, pay
level, andperformance ratings (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 2). These employees (who becamestockholders) would be
responsible for selecting the board of directors (Christensen andVoorheis, 1995, p. 2). In addition, Lankton implemented a
system based on customer servicethrough focusing on managing their customer relationships by establishing teams that
focused onthe product development and process improvement issues for each customer-specific project(Christensen and
Voorheis, 1995, p. 4).These teams were comprised of individuals from various disciplines, as well as differentorganizations
made-
up of the customers organization and Nypro personnel (Christensen and
Voorheis, 1995, p. 4). Teams were then created to focus on different aspects of the developmentand production processes. The
first team, the Development Team, focused on the development of the new product idea and process innovations (Christensen
and Voorheis, 1995, p. 4). Thesecond team, the Continuous Improvement Team, focused on manufacturing, quality
control,material procurement, and marketing processes (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 4). Theseteams allowed for
innovative steps and processes to be continually developed during all aspectsof the product/process creation and production,
while focusing on improving each step. If teamsbecame stagnant in their innovative process, Nypro management would
change some of theirpeople to offer a different perspective and possibly stimulate advances in the processes(Christensen and
Voorheis, 1995, p. 4).Ultimately, Lankton would judge performance results of all divisions throughout thecompany by making
comparisons of the teams/units and not the individuals (Christensen andVoorheis, 1995, p. 5). This process strengthened the
compa
nys position of developing superior
technology, standardizing of processes and offerings, creating a proactive and innovativeenvironment, rewarding employee
performance, and customer-oriented operations.ReferenceChristensen, C. M., & Voorheis, R. (1995). Managing innovation at
nypro, inc.
Harvard Business School Press. HBS 9-696-061.
p. 1-14. Retrieved November 22, 2010, fromAMBA670 Course Content Pack.
3.
THIS IS A RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION #3 YOU ANSWERED. PLS COMMENT
ON THE RESPONSE.

Don't you think that by Nypro implementing the use of option 1, the organization might belimiting the potential the NovaPlast
machinery could add to the the company's current/standardequipment? The reason I bring this up is because the article talks
about how the smaller injection

molds might be able to work along with the larger injection molds, by downsizing some of theproduction parts/processes
(Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 9). If you moved all theNovaPlast injection molds to one location, wouldn't you make it
difficult to further develop uponthis idea?
Reference
Christensen, C. M., & Voorheis, R. (1995). Managing innovation at nypro, inc.
Harvard Business School Press. HBS 9-696-061.
p. 1-14. Retrieved November 22, 2010, fromAMBA670 Course Content Pack.

Recommended Documents