Análisis Caso Acc Hardvard Business Review

American Connector Company Vs DJC Japanese Corporation. Analysis
Same market companies, clearly differences in productions systems. The flexibility of produce customizable products compared with the Japanese Method of production.
Luis Manuel Pulido. Carlos Cruz Bernal. Maestría en Ingeniería Industrial EPAP 2012-02


1. Briefly Historical Context
After the post-WWII period, earlier 60`s,while the US were enjoying an steady economical growth, driven by a higher internal purchasing power and favored by its position as the biggest export and import country, Japan was determined to moving forward its economy on the new markets, increasing its competitiveness, based on the incursion of new foreigners advanced technologies.

Taking a look in the States, over the 60`s, a high demandover massive products promoted the business investment in new plants to produce consumer goods in an excessive scale, one mass production strategy. In effect, even today, that should be an invisible principle of the US industries, “Biggest and massive”, as synonymous of capacity and capability to supply the market.

In other hand, in the last middle of century, the Japanese technologicalevolution advances, were based on the reverse engineering. That means they took global features of ways to produce a large list of products just watching what the global competitors are doing and how they are doing. That concept looks like an earlier definition of Benchmarking process in a big scale. But, they didn`t stop there, they take those “imitations-products” and improve it, with exceptionalquality and performance, adding value.

However, with or without benchmarking, Japan, in its industrial age, was tried to improve the productivity inside the factories. That because as a whole, the country had limited resources. A good and remarkable example is Toyota Company. Founded in the beginning of the 30`s as a company, Toyota, were already worked in a particular system of production focus ineliminate the difference kind of waste over its process.

In contrast, whit a big amount of resources, the US companies, was worried to supply a large market. Their strategies of productivity were focuses on massive production, mainly decreasing times of production per unit. An example of it is Ford Company and ihre T-Model.

2. The operational Strategy
A target could be reached, bydifferent strategies. It would be the merit for the case ACC-DJC from our point of view. In Fact, the real instance that Harvard Business School bring us, is show the reader how the companies can increase their profitability just follow good practices in-house, take advantages from an operational strategy.

If we understand the Operational strategy, like Krajewsky-Lee set out in the first step, theplan of action involves the areas who add value directly into the product, it referenced mainly the core of value chain areas. That`s right, but no enough. As well cited the case, the operational strategy comes from the Top of the company, as we interpret it, in a manufacturing company, the operational strategy defines another kind of fields (Cost, Deliveries, quality). And agree with K-L, asuccessful decision in operations should show a strategic fit in the value chain.

In general terms, we understand the value chain for a manufacturing company, conformed by three punctual areas: Sales, as a provider of flow orders; Supply chain (In-out), acting like a bridge between the company and the outside; and as a core of the transformation and add-value, the production area.

The analyzedpaper, mentioned insistently the production area like the object of study. So well, we going to try describe the situation for both companies, making a comparison between.

3. ACC – DJC Comparison analysis
First, as we try to show in the briefly history context, an operative strategy could depend highly of the external environment. That means a market needs to be provided of products. Products...