Morrison Company Case Analysis Please follow –>Rubrics and outlines for Case Study that are attached below –>Discussion Post rubric is in an attachment

Morrison Company Case Analysis Please follow

–>Rubrics and outlines for Case Study that are attached below

–>Discussion Post rubric is in an attachment and here is the outline:

Using the assigned case study for the discussion thread. Start your discussion by discussing the top 2 strategic alternatives available for Morrison. Support your reasoning for why these 2 alternatives are the best approach. (200 words)

Book: file:///C:/Users/Raquel/Desktop/OM/Operation%20management%20book.pdf

** no outside sources can be used only the case and the book( Chapter 11)** Grading Rubric
Case Studies
Category
Content of Memo
Abstract
Background Info
Issues/Challenges
Caliber of Analysis
Recommendations
Basis of
Recommendations
90-100%
80-89%
70-79%
Provided a clear
& complete
abstract of the
memo, outlining a
summary of the
entire paper.
Provided an
excellent
background (only
info that has
brought org to its
current issues.
Provided a good
case of the
memo, outlining
some of the
aspects of the
paper.
Provided a good
amount of info.
May have left out
one/two important
facts or provided
some nonrelevant info.
Provided an abstract
but may have not
been a complete
picture of the
components of paper.
Did not provide
abstract of the
memo or may
have been
unclear.
Provided some
background info but
left out key
information or spent
time on non-relevant
info.
Identified all the
pertinent issues
with the
organization.
Concentrated
only on relevant
issues
Performed
excellent analysis
using concepts
outlined in text &
appropriate for
situation.
Provided clear
recommendations
that address the
current issues
facing the
organization.
Concentrated
only on relevant
issues.
Identified most of
the pertinent
issues with the
organization.
May have had
some nonrelevant issues.
Performed good
analysis but may
not have used
the best concepts
provided in the
text.
Provided
recommendations
that would
adequately
address most of
the issues. May
have addressed
some nonrelevant issues.
Identified issues but
did not seem to have
an understanding of
which were pertinent.
Did not provide
adequate
background info or
seemed confused
as to what
background
information to
provide.
Did not have a
clear
understanding of
the issues of the
organization.
Provided solid
reasoning as to
why the
recommendation
is the right
method.
Provided good
reasoning as to
the why the
recommendation
is a good method
but did not
provide reasoning
as to why it is the
best method.
Provided some
reasoning to justify
recommendation but
did not convince the
reader that it was the
best method.
Performed an
adequate level of
analysis but left out
key
components/concepts.
Provided
recommendations that
may address some of
the issues facing the
organization. Also
included were nonrelevant issues.
Below 70%
Did the not use
appropriate
concepts for the
situation or
analysis was
limited.
Recommendations
would not address
the issues being
faced by the
organization.
Did not justify the
recommendation
and/or did not
convince the
reader the
recommendation
is best for the
organization.
Summary/Conclusion
Format & Writing
Format of Memo
Grammar & Spelling
Reference
Documentation
A good
conclusion was
included that
summarized key
components of
the case study.
A conclusion was
included that
reviewed most of
the key parts of
the case study.
A conclusion was
included that
briefly/partially
addressed the key
components of case
study.
No concluding
remarks were
included in the
case study.
Writer followed
the format well.
The logic and
flow of material
were sensible
and not
distracting to the
reader.
Writer followed
format in most
cases. The logic
and flow were not
distracting to
reader.
Writer followed format
in some cases but
deviated from the
format and made it
somewhat difficult for
the reader to follow
logic.
Writer made no
errors in grammar
or spelling that
distract the
reader from the
content.
All sources used
for quotes and
facts were
credible and cited
correctly.
Writer made 1-2
errors in grammar
or spelling that
distract the
reader from the
content.
All sources used
for quotes and
facts are credible
and most were
cited correctly.
Writer made 3-4
errors in grammar or
spelling that distract
the reader from the
content.
Writer did not
follow the
suggested format
and made it
difficult for the
reader to
determine the
logic and flow of
material.
Writer made more
than 4 errors in
grammar or
spelling that
distract the reader
from the content.
Many sources
used for quotes
and facts were
less than credible
(suspect) and/or
were not cited
correctly.
Most sources used for
quotes and facts were
credible but were not
cited correctly.
Notes/Comments:_______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Discussion Forum
Grading Rubric
5 pts possible
5 pts.
Consistently showed
original, thoughtful and
reflective responses.
Demonstrated the
learning from readings,
lectures, and class
discussions. Opinions
were formed from class
content. All posts were
done on time.
3-4 pts.
Mostly showed original,
thoughtful and
reflective responses.
Demonstrated the
learning from readings,
lectures, and class
discussions. Opinions
were formed from class
content. One post may
have been late or
missing.
2-3 pts.
Occasionally showed
original, thoughtful and
reflective responses.
Occasionally demonstrated
the learning from readings,
lectures, and class
discussions. Opinions
were occasionally reflective
of class content. More
than one post may have
been missing or late.
0-2 pts.
Rarely showed original,
thoughtful and reflective
responses. Rarely
demonstrated the
learning from readings,
lectures, and class
discussions. Opinions
were not reflective of
class content. Late or
missing posts.
The criteria for grading individual written case analyses include:
● Identification of key problems/strategic issues.
● Demonstrate that you can use the concepts, tools and techniques of operations management
presented in your textbook. Both breadth and depth of analysis will be evaluated.
● Present realistic workable, well-supported recommendations for action.
● Use good communication skills. Each case should be written using good grammar and formatted to
meet APA requirements. Mistakes, bad grammar and lack of format will reflect in your score on the
assignment. Proof read all assignments. (Don’t rely on spell check to correct all mistakes. Properly
document all sources of references—no exceptions)
● Evidence of adequate preparation, pride of workmanship, and display of professional attitude and
approach.
● All students are to prepare for the case study discussion by thoroughly reading and analyzing ALL
cases-no exceptions. Even if you are not submitting a written case study, you must still be thoroughly
prepared for each and every case.
Case Study Paper Format
● APA format
● No longer than 3 pages – double spaced
● Abstract (check your APA manual on how to do this properly for case studies)
● Background – no more than ½ page. Only include pertinent information that has brought the
organization to its current situation.
● Issues – Identify the pertinent issues that the organization is facing.
● Analysis – Using analysis tools/concepts from your text or appropriate mathematical calculations;
perform the appropriate analysis of the data/situation. (Analysis tools can be placed in an appendix and
are not counted in the limit of 3 pages. Only include a summary of the results of the analysis performed
in the body of the paper).
● Recommendations – Provide possible recommendations that will resolve the issues identified. Select
the best recommendation(s) and support your decision.
STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
PAUL MYERS
The Morrison Company
“Let’s meet tomorrow for breakfast to discuss your sense of what’s gone wrong and how we can
fix it.” CEO Jason Robbins’s request echoed in Shauna Breen’s mind as she sat down at her desk to
gather her thoughts. It was the end of her first day as The Morrison Company’s new Director of
Operations. Morrison developed and manufactured radio frequency identification (RFID) tags
known as smart labels for the retail and pharmaceutical industries. The company’s sales had boomed
over the past year, and production levels had increased dramatically to meet monthly and quarterly
shipping targets. However, an end-of-year push exacerbated manufacturing problems that had
plagued management throughout the previous nine months. Fourth-quarter performance from RFID
products aimed at retailers was lower than expected. Fortunately, stellar earnings from its
pharmaceutical RFID line buoyed Morrison’s financial results for the year overall (Exhibit 1).
Breen was an experienced operations manager hired for her
successful track record of engineering
dramatic turnarounds at several small manufacturing firms. She had begun the day with separate
meetings with her direct reports followed by a thorough tour of the plant. While she had sought a
new opportunity that would challenge her, what she heard and saw indicated that the company’s
operations performance was even worse than she had anticipated. “This is a heck of a way to start the
New Year!” she told herself as she fired up her laptop to prepare for the next morning’s meeting with
Robbins.
Company Background
President and CEO Jason Robbins started The Morrison Company – named after his maternal
grandfather – in 2003 just outside of Denver and was its sole owner. A serial entrepreneur, Robbins
HBS Professor Steven Wheelwright and witter Paul Myers prepared this case selaly as a basis for class discussion and not as an endorsement.
a source of primary data, or an illustration of effective or ineffective management. This case, though based on real events is fictionalized, and
any resemblance to actual persona or entities is concidental. There are occasional references to actual companies in the narration.
Copyright © 2011 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order coples or request permission to reproduce materials call 1-800-545-7685,
write Harvard Business Publishing Boston, MA 02163, or so to http://www.hbsp harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized,
photocopied, or otherwise reproduced. posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School
4564 | The Morrison Company
had sold his two previous businesses to private equity firms, and he expected to do the same one day
with this venture.
Robbins thought of the idea for The Morrison Company while attending his 20 business school
reunion. He had listened to a presentation on emerging supply chain management trends including
the use of RFID technology to track pallets and cases of goods after they left the shipping dock en
route to downstream supply chain positions. After conducting extensive market research, Robbins
assembled a team of highly experienced engineers to develop an initial line of products. He decided
to target pharmaceutical firms since, according to its strategic industry scan, some had already begun
to consider implementing smart tags. Coincidentally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
was preparing to issue the first guidelines for RFID pilot studies involving drugs, so the time was
ripe for entering the market. The company began producing smart tags for pharmaceutical use in the
summer of 2004. During the second half of 2007, Morrison expanded its product line to attract
retailers.
RFID Technology & Smart Tags Market
Technology
RFID technology combined transponders (i.e., tags), with varying capabilities to store, transmit, and
receive data wirelessly, with devices known as readers, which
received and transmitted the data via
the reader’s antenna (Exhibit 2). Readers could be handheld and mobile or fixed and stationary. RFID
tags enabled automatic identification, monitoring, and authentication of the objects to which they
were attached. Data generated by RFID systems could be transferred to an information system for
processing, analysis, and storage. Moreover, data stored on certain types of RFID tags could be
changed, updated, and even erased. Unlike barcodes that required direct contact with a scanner,
RFID tags did not need even a direct line of sight to the reader, only some level of proximity between
the tag and the reader. High frequency (HF) passive RFID tags had a range of up to roughly one yard,
while lower-priced ultra-high frequency (UHF) tags had much longer read distances.
Each RFID tag consisted of an inlay embedded in various materials so that it could be fabricated
into adhesive labels or more durable adhesive tags. Inlays consisted of a clear plastic film to which an
integrated circuit (1.e., IC or “microchip”) and an antenna were affixed. RFID tag producers included
firms that manufactured ICs, inlays, finished tags, and those that provide some or all of these
capabilities. The inlay market was highly fragmented, and many small suppliers provided
supplemental manufacturing capacity to larger ones.
Smart Tags Market
The total global market for RFID hardware, including smart tags, reached approximately $4.9
billion in 2010. Forecasts predicted that figure would increase at an 11.5% compound annual growth
rate (CAGR) to $8.5 billion by 2015. The most typical use or most frequent application of RFID tags
was in such areas as supply chain management, security access and control, asset tracking, and
contactless payment (e.s., EZ-Pass for highway tolls). Firms in highly regulated industries such as
defense and pharmaceuticals were among the early adopters of RFID technology
Retail applications such as supply chain and inventory management accounted for approximately
6%-7% of global RFID revenues in 2010, and analysts believed that would rise to 10% within five
years. RFID tags offered retailers a way to track merchandise for stocking purposes, since they could
provide near real time data on where products were in the distribution chain. Item-level tagging
2
BRIEFCASES | HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL

Purchase answer to see full
attachment