Example Of Electrolux Cleans Upinstitution Case Study

Electrolux Cleans Up

The future of this Swedish company depended on the research conducted by the company to a group of consumers. Further, the groups were divided into four, and then given feminine names, namely: Catherine, Monica, Ana, and Maria. Their ideas are what shaped the future inventions of Electrolux Cleans Up Company. For example, ‘Catherine’ did not fancy carrying her laundry from the basket and into the washer; rather she preferred sliding them. The idea became a critical consideration when it came to upgrading their washers. The four group suggestions were representation of 160,000 company consumers all over the world who were interviewed on issues pertaining to better the company (Ivancevich, John, Konopaske, Robert & Matteson, Michael, 2014). The exercise took place in Stockholm and it, 53 employees of the company (Electrolux Cleans Up) who included individuals from different departments attended.
The weeklong exercise’s main agenda was to brainstorm over the way forward that was customer satisfying, profitable and a plan that strived to better the company (Ivancevich et al., 2014). In 2002, after the Chief Executive Officer Hans Straberg, took office, it was noted that Electrolux Company, which makes home appliances was losing market to cheaper products from Asia and part of Eastern Europe. Further, in the West (United States), where the company bragged of 40% market stake, the market there was becoming ferocious (Ivancevich et al, 2014).
Therefore, the C.E.O came up with a number of ideas to save the company from complete shutdown from its inability to compete thus lack of muscle to sustain itself as well as its employees. The first thing that the C.E.O did was to shutter the Western Europe plants as well as in the United States then shifting the work to lower cost locales in Eastern Europe and Asia. Secondly, he decided to spin off outdoor products division something that is not an ordinary makeover for any corporate (Ivancevich et al., 2014). Further, he decided to break down the departmental barriers that were hindering the corporation and willingness of people working together as a unit and a team. As a result, Straberg forced machine designers who comprise of artists, engineers (builders) and the marketers to work together, thus influence product market acceptability and sale by bringing in new products (Ivancevich et al., 2014).
In his quest to speed up the transition, he knew that he, indeed, needed people with the experience in records of accomplishment in innovation. For that reason, he decided to lure away executives who would execute his ideas in the shortest time possible from companies, such as Volvo, PepsiCo, as well as Procter & Gamble. For example, Kim Scott, who was the group leader at the Stockholm, was a P&G defector (Ivancevich et al., 2014).
In her motivational speech at the event, Kim urged individuals to think themselves as Catherine something that rejuvenated the people in the meeting. These individuals held discussions, refined ideas, and the designer sketched the products from their suggestions and finally, the group settled on three concepts. The three concepts born here were, Breeze, which is a steamer and a stain remover, an Ironing Center for pressing shirts, and the Ease, which is a laundry machine with a basket in its drum. The group then divided into two one group shifted to a room upstairs to brainstorm on the marketing strategy. Then the second one rushed to the machine shop where they presented Breeze prototype (Ivancevich et al., 2014).
The whole idea of individuals from different department coming together to work as a team in the same room excited many. One of the many individuals includes Frucco, who works in the company’s fabric care research and development center in Italy. He said, “We never used to create new products together,” (Ivancevich et al., 2014). In reference to the past working environment, he stated that the designers used to come up with things that they at the research center were supposed to build. For that reason, he believes that the new system saved time and money. For that reason, the system brought all the different departments in the same roof. As a result, avoiding technical glitches that arise from the movement of an idea on the table to the point of it being built (Ivancevich et al., 2014).
In support of the whole idea, Strasberg increased the spending of R&D from 0.8%-1.2percentage of sales. However, he intended to take it to 2% increase in the total amount (Ivancevich et al., 2014). The C.E.O’s main aim was for the company to produce smart and good-looking products that the consumers were to be proud to pay for regardless of the price. Other companies such as Whirlpool Corp employ the same strategy, however; the company’s method slightly differs from Electrolux in that its sixty-eight thousand employees contribute to the designs (Ivancevich et al., 2014).

Question 1

A company’s structure has a potential to create ‘Organizational silos’ that might stop the effective ability of a company to work together as a single unit. In Electrolux Cleans Up case, what the C.E.O did to break these barriers was planting departmental partnership by creating the weeklong brainstorming session in Stockholm (Kiritharan, 2013). As a result, a Cross- functional team was created that brought different departments together under the same roof. The group discussed ideas, refined them, sketched, and designed concepts, thus breaking communication barriers. For that reason, departments understand that they have a responsibility not only to the management but also to the other departments as well. The Further, the company’s growth depends on the good relationship between departments that attains development and customer satisfaction in the end (Kiritharan, 2013).

Question 2

Electrolux C.E.O understood very well that departmental barriers and restrictions lead to less than optimal results. Therefore, he sought out to break these barriers. In doing so, the chances of anticipating specific quality problems are solved thereby attaining high-quality products that equate to excellent customer satisfaction (Tayler & Francis, 2006).. Whenever different departments are left to work on their own, the focus of optimization changes to departmental rather than consumer level (Stadtler, Kilger, & Meyr, (2015). By bringing different department teams together for one common goal, the C.E.O used different methods of problem solving such as:
1. Team problem-solving (TPS)
2. Design review (DR)
3. Failure Mode and Effort Analysis (FMEA)
4. Quality function deployment (QFD)

Question 3

Competition is higher in this era than it was in the past. With the low cost of goods from different companies, the importance of using teamwork and groups to fend off competition is highly utilized. Electrolux has the competitive advantage that places them in a better place to compete in a business environment (Hansen, M. T. (2009)). Teamwork can give to a company a major advantage of quality production and service delivery. With a dedicated team that works together, a company can choose to beat the competition by giving and introducing superior quality brands to the market by the use of teamwork. Additionally, services can increase customer loyalty. Thus, an unforgettable service provided by a group that is dedicated to that specific task has a potential to increase clientele to any company (Hansen, M. T. 2009).

Reference

Tayler & Francis. (2006). Break down barriers between departments (Deming's point 9). Total Quality Management. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09544129400000011?journalCode=ctqm19#.VOBICC6U87w
Hansen, M. T. (2009). Collaboration: How leaders avoid the traps, create unity, and reap big results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press
In Stadtler, H., In Kilger, C., & In Meyr, H. (2015). Supply chain management and advanced planning: Concepts, models, software and case studies. Berlin: Springer
Ivancevich, John M., Konopaske, Robert & Matteson, Michael T. (2014). Organizational Behavior and Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kiritharan, G. (2013). Total quality management - a system to implement. S.l.: Gana Kiritharan.