preview

Case Study 2: Fauquier Gas Company

Decent Essays

Case Name: Fauquier Gas Company I. Major Facts: In this case study presented by Hood (n.d.), Fauquier Gas Company is up against a timeline to supply a new construction project in the works where agricultural land was being developed into residential and commercial use. Fauquier Gas Company is looking for supplier to help with building of 3 ½ miles of new gas pipe that will go online by beginning of September. The manager of supply management Mr. Murphy is having trouble getting any purchasing request for the new pipeline from Mr. Charlie Buck and the specifications from the design team to know what he needs to order. This project is to be complete in the next five months to meet the new gasoline project. The vice-president of …show more content…

c. Fauquier Gas Company has a cross-functional team has acted more as individuals than as a team. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Byers, Mr. Buck, and Mr. Wilson did not understand the cross-functional team approach which in turn his hurting the team. The team of supply management, engineering, and design changes that need to be fixed with enough lead-time to accommodate the specifications so the new pipe can be bought. The advantage of applying enhanced problem resolution is the solution to a number of problems are not under the control of the vendor but the one requesting the materials for the project.
IV. Choice and Rationale:
My choice would be A. above. The reason for choosing A is a cross functional team is best way to fix all problems while everyone is sitting at the table to discuss new changes in the project. Pat Wilson, Charlie Buck, Sam Law, Bill Murphy, and Clive Byers working on cross-functional team could of prevented the supply mangers problems from occurring with just simple communication with the changes in pipe specifications, wrapper, supplier, cost, and timelines could hurt in finding the new material needed for the project. The team would of cut out the back and forth emails on the project due them sitting down and talking. Burt & Pinkerton (2010) identified “a good rule of thumb is 10 hours of preparation for every hour of face-to-face discussions” (372). This would assured that

Get Access