Disseminating the relationship of co-determination and operations management begins with the understanding that Germany’s co-determination laws exist to allow workers to have a voice in the organization’s direction (“Co-Determination”, n.d.). This is accomplished through a variety of methods and provides increased transparency for the worker. Mr. Smith’s Case Study discusses in elaborate detail a situation where an international operational management change was expected (“Mr. Smith”, n.d.). This paper focuses on operational co-determination, Mr. Smith’s Case Study, and how they share themes learned in coursework.
The “System”
In the problem, Mr. Smith identifies that due to the success of the Crosby Quality Management System in the USA subsidiaries, it was to be implemented in the German subsidiaries as well. Companies evaluate the operational competencies that enhance competitive advantages, and since the German subsidiary was already world-class, changing the process caused issues with the existing management in place. A process was introduced to assess the situation and initiate implementation, although shut down in dramatic fashion. The theme here overlapped with the course content of differentiating between service operations and identifying the role of an operational manager (Stevenson, W. J., 2018). These were discussed by Mr. Smith in his experiences.
Transformational Model / Implementation
The system was introduced as a transformational model, another concept that we learned in this class. This involves the creation of a framework to assist the leaders with an ability to understand the redesign (Stevenson, W. J., 2018). This was critical in decreasing misconceptions between parties. The “operations strategy” of the process was clearly negotiated and articulately between the parties, and increased cooperation between departments. Mr. Smith assessed the role of operations in developing long-term, strategic objectives for the Germans and their co-determination laws (“Co-Determination”, n.d.). His final plan was formed to deceive the USA subsidiary, for the appearance of successful implementation of the system and increased collaboration.
Conclusion
In “The Aftermath”, it is established that implementing the system was never done, but internal relationships and synergy within the Germany branch was improved with no improvement in relationships with the USA subsidiaries (“Mr. Smith”, n.d.). Due to different organizational differences in international operations, different models do not necessarily carry-over. Clearly, the Union Model in the USA was unable to co-exist with the co-determination laws (“Co-Determination”, n.d.). A system in one area of the world most likely will not work in another due to laws, regulations, and culture – all concepts explored in the coursework. Instead of forcing the adoption of the Crosby system, it would be better to create a transformational model for the systems in the USA and Germany to interact and collaborate.
Resources
“Co-Determination – Employee Participation in Management Decision Making.” MBA 635. 19 May 2019. Mr. Smith, the American Headquarters and German Co-Determination Laws. Saint Mary's University, https://engage.smumn.edu/learn/pluginfile.php/715485/mod_resource/content/1/Mr. Smith, the American Headquarters and German Co-determination Laws.pdf.
Stevenson, W. J. (2018). Operations Management. (12th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.