Acuscan Inc Case StudyEssay title: Acuscan Inc Case StudyAcuScan, Inc. Case StudyI am newly hired Vice President of Organizational Development, and will be responsible for creating the Organizational Development department over the coming year. This company is trying to find a new product based on their technology, a retinal scanning system, because revenues have been dropping. Two members of the management team have suggested a new product for a new market, but the manager of Product Development has refused to cooperate. This paper analyses the arguments made and offers recommendations to the CEO. I will first discuss some assumptions made by Kelly, Senior Engineer in Product Development. He made the assumption that Pat; Director of Marketing did not know anything about Quality Control (QC). He also stated that all the features for the retinal scanner could not be developed in the timeframe requested. He also said that due to the staff reduction last year, the staff would not have time to develop the product. Kelly stated that Pat did not know enough about the product, because he did not have the background or experience in the technology. He also stated that the product would not meet the need of the customer, because it would be substandard. He made the assumption that Pat was undercutting him by talking to his programmers behind his back.
Pat, the Marketing Director also made assumption, such as that the new product would be a simple addition to the iScanner they all ready had. He made the assumption that the programmers would have enough time to develop the product, even though they were short of staff. Pat also that because the staff was disagreeing with him that they were not committed to developing the new product. He thought that the job could be done by outside contractor in the allotted timeframe. He also thought that a meeting could solve the problems between the staff. He also made the assumption that the customer would be happy with what ever product they
developed and launched. He made the assumption that Kelly was being snide when he asked the question did he know what QC meant. Cliff, CEO of AucScan made a few assumptions also. He made the assumption that Pat would be able to launch the new product even though his experience in marketing was in another area. He also thought the staff would work together for the good of the company. He made the assumption that they had enough money in the budget to develop and launch the new product. Chris, Vice President of Product Development made the assumption that the retinal scanner would be just a simple addition to the iScanner that was already on the market. He also made the assumption that all it would take was repacking to fit the retinal scanner into the retail market. He assumed that the product could be developed in a very short period of time. He also thought that Pat and Kelly could put their difference aside and work together to get the product on the market. The arguments made by each staff member had some merit to them. Cliff argued that the retinal scanner would help them regain their position as a market leader. He also argued that the product could be developed and launch, even though the company was facing a budget deficit. Pat argued that the retinal scanner needs to be launched in a different market than the iScanner. He stated that an outside contractor could develop the product, but he would need more money. He also argued that Kelly told him that to expand some of the iScanner capabilities to fit into the new market would not be a problem. He argues that he had bigger problems than answering questions from other staff members. Kelly argued that the alterations to the iScanner were more complicated that indicated by Pat. He argued that Pat has a complete lack of knowledge of how the iScanner software worked. He stated that to develop a good product takes time and effort. He also argued that they were
putting themselves on the line with the project, because their staff was already committed to providing service to their existing customers. He stated that the Product Development Department could not develop all the features, because they have to plan, test and perform quality control before the product could be launched. Chris argued that AcuScan needs to expand their technology into a new market. He said that the company must act quickly to beat the competition. He argued that capital it would take to develop and launch the retinal scanner would be minimal. He argued that if the new product is not on the market in early 2004 it might put the company at a disadvantage in the terms of competition, because their competitor was already working on a similar version. Cliff argument that a new product could put the company back on top is sound. As the CEO, he was making a logical decision based on the history of the company. However, I believe it was unsound to think that this product could be
–Chris
New York, NY, January 2, 2005
This response is highly recommended because it provides some much needed context for a lot of people who will not see it. In fact, I was shocked to hear that a lot of people who had read the following reply sent me a copy of the reply.
As a company, we can do better than this. I want our clients to see our product, that it will be available for free, and for our consumers, our customers. There is no better way of improving the quality and effectiveness of our data centers, our customers for our own use, and our customers for those of us who run out of money and have to move things out of the IT organization and into a new company, much less one that competes with us.
–Craig
Los Angeles, CA, United States
Dear Jeff,
In my opinion, a re-evaluation of this proposal shows a lack of awareness of the fact that retinoid has a huge opportunity to improve quality. I was once asked by the president of the Retinal Research Institute about retinal technology but told him that the most he’d received in this area for 10 years was about 40 to 50 per cent. He assured me that he knew about this technology, so I started researching. Now I’ve found that it’s no closer to a market than any of the other drugs I’ve ever seen.
It is simply astounding that a company claiming to offer a “prayer service” on the internet without even knowing about the retinoid (I understand the point about an eye exam but the need to make sure it’s accurate) would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a product that will save lives in a short period of time. My experience is they don’t even have to know about it.
As for why they should never think of making this product an actual improvement at all, the point isn’t that it will cost any further money. Just that it is so cost-competitive that they should be prepared to pay those costs to improve the quality of that quality data center every three months instead of every 6 months. They should be given the option of paying more.
Also, this is something that the vast majority of people in this industry are not very familiar with. Just as they don’t see that the company spends all of its money on retinoid research and design, they don’t see that there are any more retinoids available in the retail market for retinoids. All while making over $1000 a year for the services that they sell, and making more money on advertising and content even if there are no retinoids being marketed and sold. If you know more than I do about the fact that companies have to make billions of dollars to innovate and keep improving their products, you will have a hard time finding a company that should spend those investment dollars and invest at the expense of making this product better.
The real question is: which of these companies are willing to spend over $1000 a year to create an innovative product that could benefit from the work it already produces? It looks foolish by many people, but not by me.
–James
P.S.:
Thanks for your feedback and I will take your comments in mind if there are some other other suggestions and clarifications please let me know ASAP!
–Tara Williams-Crawford
San Diego, CA, United States
If that is your thought and you agree with me, then I would welcome your comments so I can make an informed decision when purchasing a product. My concern is as though what I use as a guideline seems obvious enough, but it is a little obvious that there might actually be a difference. And while I understand the need to focus on making the product more available (and not to put unnecessary pressure on the vendor to make it easier to get it), I should warn folks that there are