Lawford Case Study Hbr
Lawford Electric Company
Case Analysis
Lawford Electric Company
Case Analysis
In this case, Robert Allen, a Field Sales Engineer for the Systems Controls department at Lawford Electric Company, has lost a very large sale with Bayfield Milling. Bayfield Milling’s average annual purchases with Lawford are about $50,000. The lost revenue on the bid discussed in the case was nearly $900,000.
The case chronologically outlines Allen’s Sales Activity log which provides an overview of the presentations and conversations he has with Bayfield Milling’s employees. Exhibit A outlines the cast of characters in the case. In reviewing the sales log the question to be answered is “How did Robert Allen lose the sale?”
Allen lost the sale on several fronts. First and foremost he didn’t seem to fully understand the players. That is to say, who was the decision maker, who the influencers were and who needed the technical information? He neither connects with the operations department, a key group on this project, nor does he fully utilize his boss’ offers to help. Lastly, he doesn’t address an underlying them in the case, which is that Bayfield is concerned with reliability.
To start, Allen does not seem to grasp the role that Gibson has in this sale. Gibson is the purchasing agent not the decision maker. Gibson is the right person to work with when pushing reorders and selling parts, however the drive train system is a major capital expense. Bayfield had already spent $200 million on the mechanicals of the project and was planning on spending another $900k on the drive system. Gibson has no executive power and therefore Allen should have spent less time with him. An example of this is when Allen shows Gibson Pollack’s spec ideas. It’s clear from the log that Gibson was the wrong person to share this information with because he admits he doesn’t really understand them. At this point, Allen should be presenting this information to the
Case Analysis
Lawford Electric Company
Case Analysis
In this case, Robert Allen, a Field Sales Engineer for the Systems Controls department at Lawford Electric Company, has lost a very large sale with Bayfield Milling. Bayfield Milling’s average annual purchases with Lawford are about $50,000. The lost revenue on the bid discussed in the case was nearly $900,000.
The case chronologically outlines Allen’s Sales Activity log which provides an overview of the presentations and conversations he has with Bayfield Milling’s employees. Exhibit A outlines the cast of characters in the case. In reviewing the sales log the question to be answered is “How did Robert Allen lose the sale?”
Allen lost the sale on several fronts. First and foremost he didn’t seem to fully understand the players. That is to say, who was the decision maker, who the influencers were and who needed the technical information? He neither connects with the operations department, a key group on this project, nor does he fully utilize his boss’ offers to help. Lastly, he doesn’t address an underlying them in the case, which is that Bayfield is concerned with reliability.
To start, Allen does not seem to grasp the role that Gibson has in this sale. Gibson is the purchasing agent not the decision maker. Gibson is the right person to work with when pushing reorders and selling parts, however the drive train system is a major capital expense. Bayfield had already spent $200 million on the mechanicals of the project and was planning on spending another $900k on the drive system. Gibson has no executive power and therefore Allen should have spent less time with him. An example of this is when Allen shows Gibson Pollack’s spec ideas. It’s clear from the log that Gibson was the wrong person to share this information with because he admits he doesn’t really understand them. At this point, Allen should be presenting this information to the