Christy

 Bui  

Management  5    

Professor  McLaughlin  

January  29,  2011  

Case  Study  –  Intel  Israel    

1. Do  you  agree  with  Dov  Frohman’s  decision  in  advance  of  the  actual  missile  

attacks  to  keep  Intel  up  and  running?  What  about  after  the  actual  missile  

attacks  began?  

Dov  Frohman  faced  many  arising  challenges  when  he  was  presented  with  the  

option  of  shutting  down  his  Intel  Israel  plant  in  1991.  His  ultimate  decision  was  to  in  

fact  keep  the  plant  up  and  running,  which  I  agree  was  the  right  thing  to  do.  He  did  

not  force  any  of  the  employees  to  be  present  during  the  crisis  and  there  was  no  

punishment  to  those  who  refused  to  come  to  work.  As  a  highly  effective  manager,  he  

had  to  be  updated  with  the  latest  information  technology  in  order  to  see  the  pros  

and  cons  of  keeping  the  plant  open  during  the  initiation  of  Operation  Desert  Storm.  

He  recognized  that  this  was  a  situation  where  he  needed  the  most  accurate  and  high  

quality  information  on  the  market  in  order  to  make  a  decision.  This  was  an  non-­‐

programmed  decision  which  exposed  him  to  entirely  new  problem  that  had  to  

precedent  solutions,  therefore,  there  was  more  uncertainty  about  what  the  result  

was  going  to  be.  

Through  all  of  these  situations  he  had  to  take  into  consideration,  Frohman  was  

not  alone.  When  the  issue  first  arose  about  closing  down  his  plant,  he  immediately  
met  up  with  his  management  team.    I  believe  that  this  was  one  of  the  most  

important  decisions  he  could  have  made.  They  discussed  the  issue  at  length  and  

then  made  a  decision  together.  He  effectively  communicated  his  decisions  to  his  

workers  right  after.  When  the  first  8  Iraqi  Scud  missiles  hit  Tel  Aviv  and  Haifa,  

Frohman  was  faced  with  another  decision.  Should  he  stay  with  his  first  decision  of  

keeping  the  plant  open,  or  should  he  close  it  because  of  the  missile  hits?  He  again  

met  up  with  his  management  team,  but  this  time  for  only  30  minutes.  Personally,  I  

believed  that  the  conclusion  to  this  second  decision  was  a  little  hasty.  Group  

decision-­‐making  has  it  assets  and  it’s  liabilities.  Before,  Frohman  was  able  to  use  as  

much  time  needed  in  order  to  make  decision  with  his  team,  but  this  meeting  was  on  

a  time  limit.    One  of  its  liabilities  is  that  groups  often  work  more  slowly  than  

individuals  do.  I  feel  like  it  should  have  taken  more  time  for  them  to  come  to  the  

conclusion  of  keeping  the  plant  open  after  the  missile  attacks.  The  time  crunch  and  

the  stressful  environment  he  was  in  could  have  factored  into  how  Frohman  went  

about  drawing  his  conclusions  of  the  day.  I  do  not  agree  with  his  second  decision  

because  of  the  fact  that  his  company  was  very  easily  a  target  of  the  Scudi  since  he  

was  one  of  the  main  and  most  significant  producers  of  the  microprocessors.  This  is  

what  we  would  consider  a  contingency  theory.    He  had  to  come  up  with  the  right  

solution  is  based  on  what  kind  of  company  he  is  running  and  I  do  not  believe  he  

made  the  safest  decision  for  his  workers.  Some  workers  in  those  countries  are  

desperate  for  the  money,  so  they  would  come  into  work  regardless  of  the  condition.  

If  he  were  truly  thinking  about  the  health  of  his  workers,  he  would  have  closed  

down  the  plant.  

 We  can  also  take  heuristics  into  account.  This  is  the  rule  that  says  there  are  

limits  to  search  in  areas  where  there  is  higher  probability  for  yielding  success.  

Frohman  had  already  made  the  decision  of  keeping  the  plant  open,  so  he  might  have  

used  a  heuristic  that  says  the  best  decision  for  the  company  is  to  keep  on  doing  what  

they  were  doing  even  if  the  circumstances  have  changed.  He  is  also  using  this  second  

decision  to  justify  his  previous  decision.    

2. Do  you  agree  that  Frohman  should  have  made  the  decision  to  remain  open  or  

close  or  should  executives  at  Intel’s  corporate  headquarters  have  made  it?  

I  believe  that  Frohman  made  the  right  decision  to  keep  the  plant  open  the  first  

time,  and  the  executives  of  Intel  made  the  right  choice  of  leaving  the  plant  manager  

in  charge  of  that  decision.    As  a  manager,  Frohman  interacts  with  his  workers  daily  

and  knows  how  his  specific  plant  functions.    He  already  knows  how  his  plant  runs,  

how  it  is  organized,  and  how  the  workers  would  respond  to  decisions  that  he  makes.  

This  way,  he  is  able  to  make  rational  decisions  on  how  to  approach  the  problem  

uniquely  to  his  own  Intel  branch.  Intel’s  executives  do  not  know  the  specifics  of  the  

company,  so  if  they  were  to  step  in,  they  would  only  be  making  a  general  decision  

about  what  to  do.  Also,  since  a  role  of  a  good  manager  is  to  be  able  to  communicate  

and  create  a  relationship  with  their  workers,  I  believe  that  workers  at  Intel  Israel  

would  have  responded  more  contently  with  Frohman’s  decision  because  they  have  

somewhat  of  an  interpersonal  relationship  with  him.  Where  as  if  a  big  corporate  

man  walks  in  and  tells  them  what  to  do,  they  would  have  a  different  reaction.    

 
 3. What  criteria  would  you  have  considered  if  you  were  in  Frohman’s  position?  

How  would  you  have  weighted  these  factors?  

I  believe  there  are  a  lot  of  factors  to  take  into  consideration  when  dealing  with  a  

sensitive,  significant  decision  such  as  this.  To  me,  the  basic  assumption  that  people  

are  able  to  make  rational,  logical,  and  organized  goal  for  a  problem  is  what  a  lot  of  

effective  managers  think  about  when  making  a  decision.  I  would  have  identified  the  

problem,  developed  a  key  objective,  generate  alternatives,  analyze  alternatives,  

select  the  best  solution,  implement  the  decision  and  then  evaluate  the  results.    I  

think  this  is  the  best  way  to  set  your  goals  because  the  decision  to  keep  your  plant  

open  or  closed  is  not  a  programmed  decision,  rather  it  is  non-­‐programmed  in  which  

it  is  a  new  problem  with  high  levels  of  risk  and  uncertainty  for  the  outcome.  

Frohman  had  mentioned  how  his  biggest  concern  was  also  the  uncertainty  of  the  

situation.  

The  first  criterion  for  good  decision-­‐making  is  having  good,  reliable  information.  

You  want  timely,  high  quality,  complete,  relevant  and  easily  understood  statistics  

about  the  situation.  In  this  case,  I  would  want  my  group  of  management  to  find  out  

how  likely  it  was  for  missiles  to  hit  our  company,  if  the  missiles  were  in  fact  

equipped  with  chemical  warheads,  and  how  would  the  economy  be  effected  if  we  

closed  down  the  plant.  I  would  want  all  of  this  information  given  to  me  in  a  timely  

manner  and  presented  by  people  who  are  able  to  interpret  this  information  

systematically  and  intuitively.  

I  would  first  think  about  the  probability  of  effect:  What  is  the  likelihood  that  

harm  will  actually  occur?  The  distance  of  Iraqi’s  Scud  missiles  was  at  a  far  enough  
geographical  distance  for  the  Intel  Israel  to  not  be  as  concerned,  but  they  were  still  

in  the  crossfire.  This  fact  would  make  me  lean  towards  the  side  of  keeping  my  plant  

open  because  of  the  low  probability  of  a  missile  actually  hitting  my  plant  (as  proved  

when  the  first  missiles  hit  and  landed  as  far  as  5,700  miles  away  from  the  plant.)    

  Something  else  I  would  try  to  think  about  before  I  make  a  decision  is  the  

process  of  multiple  advocacy.  In  order  to  improve  a  decision,  I  want  to  have  several  

group  members  to  represent  the  opinions  of  the  pros  and  cons  of  the  situation  of  

leaving  the  plant  open  or  to  close  it  down.  This  way  I  can  have  an  unbiased  look  at  

both  situations.  The  Frohman  group  did  a  lot  of  brainstorming  in  order  to  come  up  

with  a  solution  they  later  recognized  that  it  was  the  better  decision  to  keep  it  open.    

I  would  want  to  take  the  rational  decision  making  model  into  consideration  

when  making  a  decision  because  based  on  this,  people  are  rational,  logical  and  

organized.  For  a  specific  situation  such  as  this,  I  want  to  be  able  to  identify  the  

problem,  find  alternatives  to  the  solutions,  and  implement  the  best  decision  I  come  

up  with  which  is  to  either  leave  the  plant  open  or  close  it  down.    

Different  techniques  are  used  when  a  company  has  to  make  a  decision.  Frohman  

and  his  management  team  seemed  to  have  brainstormed  before  they  made  an  

ultimate  decision  on  what  to  do.  The  team  reached  either  a  majority  or  unanimous  

decision  before  the  announced  their  conclusion,  but  I  think  that  I  would  have  

approached  it  a  little  differently.  Since  deciding  whether  to  keep  a  plant  open  or  

closed  is  a  very  serious  and  touchy  subject,