Corwin Corporation Case Responses
Corwin Corporation Case Responses
Questions:
1) Should companies risk bidding on projects based upon rough draft specifications? Explain your answer in detail.
No, because rough drafts are exactly that – a draft. Despite a first-mover advantage for early bidders, the project can completely change, which would impact the ability for a firm to meet the required budget, timeline, project goals and customer satisfaction.
2) How should West have handled the situation where Pat Ray’s opinion of the test data was contrary to that of Corwin’s engineering personnel?
He should have compared both tests' data and process to the requirements of the project to determine which was more appropriate to use.
3) Should Pat Ray have been given the freedom to visit laboratory personnel at any time? Should he have had the right to remove a functional employee from the project? Discuss your answer with rationale.
Legally, Ray had the freedom to visit lab personnel because the contract between the two companies
“contained a clause specifying that Peters Company had the right to send an in-house representative into Corwin Corporation for the duration of the project.” However, unless the contract also specified the in-house representative had authority to remove a funcional employee from the project, Ray should only have been able to make a suggestion to the project manager and his company.
4) What risks exist when the vice president for manufacturing (or any other “significant” individual) is not available during the go or no-go bidding decision?
Accountability for deliverables cannot be guaranteed; also, they may have insight into the impact of a project on the company's resources as a whole (capital, personnel availability, scheduling, etc).
Questions:
1) Should companies risk bidding on projects based upon rough draft specifications? Explain your answer in detail.
No, because rough drafts are exactly that – a draft. Despite a first-mover advantage for early bidders, the project can completely change, which would impact the ability for a firm to meet the required budget, timeline, project goals and customer satisfaction.
2) How should West have handled the situation where Pat Ray’s opinion of the test data was contrary to that of Corwin’s engineering personnel?
He should have compared both tests' data and process to the requirements of the project to determine which was more appropriate to use.
3) Should Pat Ray have been given the freedom to visit laboratory personnel at any time? Should he have had the right to remove a functional employee from the project? Discuss your answer with rationale.
Legally, Ray had the freedom to visit lab personnel because the contract between the two companies
“contained a clause specifying that Peters Company had the right to send an in-house representative into Corwin Corporation for the duration of the project.” However, unless the contract also specified the in-house representative had authority to remove a funcional employee from the project, Ray should only have been able to make a suggestion to the project manager and his company.
4) What risks exist when the vice president for manufacturing (or any other “significant” individual) is not available during the go or no-go bidding decision?
Accountability for deliverables cannot be guaranteed; also, they may have insight into the impact of a project on the company's resources as a whole (capital, personnel availability, scheduling, etc).