Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

1.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 improve productivity, efficiency and innovation in the work area on a continual basis. By constantly improving their systems, the plants better improve the company as a whole. Through the creation of an internal competition between plants, Nypro management helped to eliminate complacency 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, which is 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 whether rivals 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 could receive the offered stock options. By encouraging employees to be successful, the company in turn was rewarded with a happy staff that was continually looking for ways to better improve the company.

Christensen, C.M., & Voorheis, R. (1995). Managing innovation at Nypro, Inc. (A). Harvard Business 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 proactive and 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 this approach. 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 offerings to product creation that another customer might in a different location. This process was achieved by 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 locations were 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 organization to maintain those components/employees which made them successful (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 2). This process was accomplished by installing an incentive-based reward system, which provided employees with stock options based on years of service, pay level, and performance ratings (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 2). These employees (who became stockholders) would be responsible for selecting the board of directors (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 2). In addition, Lankton implemented a system based on customer service through focusing on managing their customer relationships by establishing teams that focused on the 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 different organizations 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 development and 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). The second team, the Continuous Improvement Team, focused on manufacturing, quality control, material procurement, and marketing processes (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 4). These teams allowed for innovative steps and processes to be continually developed during all aspects of the product/process creation and production, while focusing on improving each step. If teams became stagnant in their innovative process, Nypro management would change some of their people 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 the company by making comparisons of the teams/units and not the individuals (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 5). This process strengthened the companys position of developing superior technology, standardizing of processes and offerings, creating a proactive and innovative environment, rewarding employee performance, and customer-oriented operations. 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, from AMBA670 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 be limiting the potential the NovaPlast machinery could add to the the company's current/standard equipment? 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 the production parts/processes (Christensen and Voorheis, 1995, p. 9). If you moved all the NovaPlast injection molds to one location, wouldn't you make it difficult to further develop upon this 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, AMBA670 Course Content Pack. from