FITTskills - Metrovox
1. Based on the risk factors associated with the Bugabyte and the Bugabyte Lite, which product do you think Grunwald and Vogel will recommend as the best candidate for assembly outsourcing?
To decide which product, either Bugabyte or Bugabyte Lite, is the best candidate,
Metrovox has to identify its core competencies and to outsource non-core activities. I personally think Grunwald and Vogel will recommend Bugabyte Lite for assembly outsourcing while Bugabyte to be kept assembling in-house and not to pass out to others to perform.
Bugabyte Lite has been on market for over six years with the same quality but a new look.
It has a well established assembly process and product testing. This helps Metrovox to outsource its Bugabyte Lite because Metrovox can easily establish production standards and testing guidelines in its requirement documents for outsourcers to follow. It also helps Metrovox to establish performance indices to access quality control. So, those outsourcers have a higher chance of meeting Metrovox’s high quality product expectations. By contrast, the Bugabyte is still relatively new on the market and just recently Metrovox has included several new stages in their assembly stage.
Communication to those Bugabyte outsourcers to comply with the new production stages standards may not be easy initially and so Metrovox may sacrifice the high Bugabyte product quality as usual. Indeed, there is also a significant amount of proprietary information that is used in Bugabyte circuit board testing. This means that releasing this proprietary information to the Bugabyte outsourcers for testing must pose a significant threat on Metrovox because outsourcing Bugabyte assembly line means releasing
Bugabyte design and specification details to some third-parties and may ultimately lead to Bugabyte imitation’ opportunities. On the one hand, Metrovox would want to highlight the Bugabyte handheld video devices. On the other hand, outsourcing Bugabyte
To decide which product, either Bugabyte or Bugabyte Lite, is the best candidate,
Metrovox has to identify its core competencies and to outsource non-core activities. I personally think Grunwald and Vogel will recommend Bugabyte Lite for assembly outsourcing while Bugabyte to be kept assembling in-house and not to pass out to others to perform.
Bugabyte Lite has been on market for over six years with the same quality but a new look.
It has a well established assembly process and product testing. This helps Metrovox to outsource its Bugabyte Lite because Metrovox can easily establish production standards and testing guidelines in its requirement documents for outsourcers to follow. It also helps Metrovox to establish performance indices to access quality control. So, those outsourcers have a higher chance of meeting Metrovox’s high quality product expectations. By contrast, the Bugabyte is still relatively new on the market and just recently Metrovox has included several new stages in their assembly stage.
Communication to those Bugabyte outsourcers to comply with the new production stages standards may not be easy initially and so Metrovox may sacrifice the high Bugabyte product quality as usual. Indeed, there is also a significant amount of proprietary information that is used in Bugabyte circuit board testing. This means that releasing this proprietary information to the Bugabyte outsourcers for testing must pose a significant threat on Metrovox because outsourcing Bugabyte assembly line means releasing
Bugabyte design and specification details to some third-parties and may ultimately lead to Bugabyte imitation’ opportunities. On the one hand, Metrovox would want to highlight the Bugabyte handheld video devices. On the other hand, outsourcing Bugabyte