Consulted Magna with Recommendations Essay Example for Free

Consulted Magna with Recommendations EssayMagna International Inc. (Magna) is a Canadian car and lessen trucks split maker, who design, develop and manufacture automotive systems, assemblies, modules and components, as well as engineers and assembles complete vehicles, primarily for barter to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Magna operates in three geographical regions North America, Europe, and the rest of the world (mainly Asia, South America and Africa), making Magna an international accompany. We welcome investigated Magna and identified two key issues they be currently facing.Firstly, Magna is suffering prime(prenominal) entertain problems in their stratums, such as Magna Powertrain, Magna Steyr, Magna Closures, Magna Car Top Systems, etc. The current method of take aiming with problems is a weak hyaloplasm structure. However, we recommend two alternatives that will increase Magnas efficiency. Our first recommendation is to create a Dedicated Team. Our se cond recommendation is to enhance the existing Matrix Structure, by making it stronger. We illustrate many strengths and weaknesses for apiece recommendation.The second issue Magna is dealings with is the increased pressure to unionize their employees. To a degree, this matter seems unavoidable. We hardly recommend Magana create a Managements Rights Clause and/or Management Prerogatives Rights in order to protect their rights and explain various aspects of employment rights from the beginning. in that respectfore, Magna needs to assess these alternatives from their internal perspective. As a consulting agency, we ass only conjure alternatives that would suit the organization and improve their current drawbacks. Introduction Magna International Inc.(Magna) is a Canadian car parts maker and supplier to a wide variety of automakers throughout the world. The systems Magna provides be major components in the lowest conclave of cars, for GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, Toyo ta, Honda, Porsche, Volkswagen, along with others. We have identified two issues with Magna, for which we have derived some(prenominal) alternatives. One issue is Quality Control (QC) in Magnas systems, which is due to organizational structure when dealing with QC. Another issue that Magna is currently experiencing is the change magnitude pressures to unionize their employees.Magnas current QC procedure will be discussed, followed by an analysis of Magnas two key issues we have identified including alternatives that we propose. Current Quality Control Process In order to properly asses the current government agency with the QC processes an employee of Magna directly involved with such issues was interviewed. The company is organized in a number of independent divisions that are system/product oriented, for example Vision System, Powertrain System, Electronic System, etc. Each of these divisions is involved in a final system assembly stage and supplying systems to the car and ligh t truck manufacturers.Each division has its own chain of suppliers and sub-contractors to supply parts, to make adjustments or process them, and to get along primary assembly. The final assembly of the system is performed at one of the Magna division plants (Appendix A). The cross practicable team (CFT) is comprised of representatives from the percentageal departments. These representatives are gathered from departments, such as Logistics, QC, Materials, Production, Accounting and Purchasing (Appendix B). They are assigned to the team, as CFT members, in order to deal with a specific problem at hand.The CFT leader only has authority to gather information on the QC problems, workout possible solutions to execute with the respective cost associated with these solutions. The solutions are then conveyed to the Chief Operations incumbent (COO) for consideration, decision and implementation. Once the problem is resolved, CFT members resume to their respective positions and duties. Ot her factors with regards to QC include financial endangerment, performance risk as well as problems amongst business to business relationships.In terms of financial risk, if Magnas lineament is not up to par, their clients demand may diminish and will result in lower revenues. Currently, the galactic Three (Ford, GM, Chrysler) represent 60% of revenues, therefore it is in Magnas best interest to insure that demand does not diminish for these customers because a ripple affect will occur and Magna will also be modify by a decrease in demand and revenue. Along the same lines, if customers are not genial with the parts produced, they will find another supplier.In addition, if defective parts have to be shipped back, it poses a financial risk given that Magna is losing the potential to make a profit from those parts, representing an opportunity cost. Further much, there are performance risks associated with QC given that customers may purchase parts that do not function or perform as they are intended to. Moreover, if Magna is supplying dysfunctional parts it will jeopardize the relationship with their customers by diminishing the trust and loyalty that has been established over the many years of their relationship.This may result in an unfavourable image on Magnas part and will create a risk of being replaced by another supplier. As a result Magna may choose to find other companies with higher standards to outsource to and form a strategic partnership with them. To re-establish trust with their customers, they will have to provide superior performance, loving ties and specific investments such as training new supplier personnel on how to produce original parts and establish contractual agreements specifying for example the limit conditions on products and also who will be obligated for losses incurred as a result of faulty products.Thus, with this background knowledge of Magnas QC problem, we suggest two alternatives for Magna, a Dedicated Team Approach a nd Strong Matrix Team Approach. Alternatives Dedicated Team Magnas current CFT (weak matrix structure) is ineffective because the CFT leader does not possess enough authority to resolve the issue in a timely manner, hence cost effective. In order to achieve successful project completion, one of our recommendations is to implement a Dedicated Team (Appendix C). This structure is preferred when considered solely from the project managing directors point of view.People and assets are allocated completely to the project for as long as they are needed to complete the project. Furthermore, in a Dedicated Team, the project manager has full line authority over all the resources. This efficaciously sets up a separate goal-oriented department of the company, which is its own functional department. The project manager still has the problem of managing and desegregation other companies and external organizations contributing to the project, but has full mastery over all the people and groups on the job(p) on the project at bottom his/her company.This goal-oriented structure makes planning, control and general project management simpler and easier than with other forms of organization. There tummy be much better integration of everyone who is involved in the project and communication between them (formal and informal) is faster, direct and frequent. Teamwork is much easier to develop and therefore creates a higher degree of commitment to the project objectives, specially when the team is permanent. Conflict is likely to be less than other project organization forms and if complications arise it can be solved more easily.Consequently, project teams tend to maximize the probability of completing projects on time, within budget and to specification. Unfortunately, teams are not the most flexible way in which to use company resources. If more than one team exists in the same company, it becomes necessary to increase the numbers of specialists on the payroll because eac h specialist (or group of specialists) must be allocated fully to each project team for the projects life. It is usually voiceless to switch specialists from one project to another to take account of day-to-day fluctuations in workload.Division of promote within functions is therefore more difficult so that a dedicated project team capability have to make do with a generalist in a function where a specialist would be preferred. Therefore, although the Dedicated project team (separate divisional form of project organization) enables projects to be managed more effectively than the functional organization and it avoids some of the problems of more complex organizational forms, it can generally be employ on larger projects capable of sustaining bigger functionalist groups within the team.The team structure is appropriate, therefore when a company is handling a single grand project, or where one project is much more important than the others, it justifies setting up a completely se parate company division. In that case, the size of the project and the muckle of the work should be great enough to provide full time activity for each of the functional specialists or groups assigned to the project.Dedicated project teams cannot be used when a company is handling several relatively small projects simultaneously on a continuous basis because they would splinter up the function resources. This splintering inhibits the transfer of personnel between projects according to demand and reduces the number of projects that a company can handle for a given number of staff. Strong Matrix Team One of the reasons that Magna is experiencing problems with effectively dealing with its QC problems has to do with its organizational structure.Magna currently has in place a weak matrix system which creates problems with its report dimensions. The current belief is that in order to get things done in the organization there has to be a dual-reporting structure, in which one person is a ssigned to two bosses. With regard to the QC procedure Magna currently has in place, the CFT leader that has no real authority or decision making power over the problems that arise. The CFT leadership duty is simply to gather information, analyze the problem, provide solutions, and report all this to the COO.The COO discusses this information with the plug-in of directors who decide as a whole which option to choose and then vertically pass pop the information to the CFT leader. This process exerts a lot of time and every hour of idle production be the company millions of dollars. Another issue with the current matrix structure is that employees that are part of this CFT are having a difficult time dealing with this vertical chain of authority they have to deal with their functional manager as well as their team leader. This usually results in the CRT leaders requests being remaining out of the equation.