Analysis of GM Packard Electric Division Business Case Study

This case study analyzes the General Motors Packard Electric Division, focusing on the RIM grommet and its alternatives. The analysis critiques three presenters' approaches to the case, evaluating their identification of options, fulfillment of criteria, and suggested questions. The presenters explore options beyond the RIM grommet, considering factors like cost reduction, space saving, and risk assessment. The critique highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each presenter's analysis, including the specificity of options, clarity of advantages and disadvantages, and the thoroughness of their recommendations. The study also examines the advantages and disadvantages of each option, considering factors like risk, technology investments, and the potential for delivering desired results. The final analysis emphasizes the importance of specific and detailed evaluations in making informed decisions regarding product development and implementation.

Business case analysis
General Motors: Packard Electric Division David
Name
Professor
Course
Date

Business case analysis
Critique on presenter A
Review on case presentation by presenter A
Presenter A argues that RIM has a potential of improving one very crucial problem that
IHG has not been in a position to solve, RIM basically involves mixing two liquid materials, and
it is believed to be a significant improvement and development (Gimsing & Georgakis, 2011).
How well the presenter identified the options to the RIM grommet
The presenter is not specific in mentioning the available options, as a matter of fact he/she
just gave a mere recommendation instead of giving the available options. From the statement that
the presenter has provided, it is more of a recommendation than it is of an
Option.
How well does the selected option fulfill the criteria selected for it?
The presenter did not give any distinguished options, but from his/her presentation the
issue of improving IHG has been mentioned, this is very important and it will play a very crucial
role towards RIM works maximally, for instance, he mentions that it would save space in the
pass through are which is very true (Alexander, 2010).
What questions does the presenter suggest?
The presenter does not particularly suggest any questions, but from his/her presentation, the
issue of separating the RIM materials has been mentioned, it is very essential the presenter says,
this raises the issue of what is the extend of the damage that can be caused.

Business case analysis
What else I suggest the presenter to consider in his/her identification
The presenter was not precise when mentioning the options to the RIM grommet; he should
try to be more specific.
Critique on presenter B
What questions does the presenter suggest?
The presenter is very organized, Unlike presenter A, this presenter is very specific in
singling out the possible options that are available, the options that the presenter articulates are;
Going with RIM exclusively for customer model, Running a separate but parallel development,
an IHG that is to be prepared parallel with a RIM grommet for customers model lastly is the use
of all 1992 models (Kresta, 2012).
Having mentioned all the three available options, the presenter presents the question of using
IHG for all 1992 models. As mentioned earlier in his/her presentation, RIM is a standard method
that is meant to increase to not only reduce the quality but also reduce overall costs. There are a
number of options and conditions that must be met for this to be possible (Franke, 2014).
What else should you suggest for the presenter to consider in his/her identification?
The presenter is not so precise in mentioning the advantages of the options that he/she
had articulated, they seem to be ambiguous and each of them does not mention the specific
option that is associated with it. They are just random and not specific. For instance; he just
mentions that “it is simple and less risky” This is not specific; it is not a satisfactory statement
and does not fully address any of the options mentioned therein.

Business case analysis
The presenter should therefore try to be particular and more specific on the advantages he/she
has mentioned in relation to the presented options.
Critique on presenter C
What questions does the presenter suggest?
The presenter mentions that without necessarily pursuing the RIM grommet, the best
possible option that is likely to bring numerous advantages is by maintaining the current IHG
and not involving any new enhancements under any situation possible. The question that the
presenter addresses from this statement is the certainty and likelihood with which this options is
going to deliver the required results or not. This is very evident throughout the presentations
since there are a number of disadvantages that come along with this selected option that the
presenter has suggested to be the best. For instance, some of the disadvantages associated with
this are; large amounts of risks associated to it due to pace, the technology investments that are
associated with it are very high (Wang, 2018).
What else should you suggest for the presenter to consider in his/her identification?
The two options that the presenter has suggested; delay and change to the IHG grommet
and Quick design of IHG grommet enhancements, he does not go ahead into mentioning what
each options entails. The work is so sketchy; it does not contain the necessary explanations that
are needed regarding the options. This gives the impression that the presenter has no idea of what
he/she is talking about (Mukherjee, 2011).
Furthermore, the advantages and the disadvantages mentioned regarding the options identified
are not precise, they are very sketch and not straight to the point in articulating the stated options.

Business case analysis
References
Alexander, G. (2010). U.S. Patent No. 7,799,998. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Franke, J. (Ed.). (2014). Three-Dimensional Molded Interconnect Devices (3D-MID): Materials,
Manufacturing, Assembly and Applications for Injection Molded Circuit Carriers. Carl
Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG.
Gimsing, N. J., & Georgakis, C. T. (2011). Cable supported bridges: Concept and design. John
Wiley & Sons.
Kresta, J. E. (2012). Reaction injection molding and fast polymerization reactions (Vol. 18).
Springer Science & Business Media.
Mukherjee, D. (2011). U.S. Patent Application No. 12/548,735.
Wang, F. (2018). U.S. Patent No. 9,992,106. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.