OCD CASE ANALYSIS

CASE: BOEING
GROUP: XY SYNERGY
AMIR QAYYUM BIN CHE NORDDIN G1337179
NORULAIZA MOHAMED DAUD G1338270
SITUTI CHE AZIZ G1231074
NUR AWANIS BT MD ARIFPIN - G1336594
SARI YULIS TERFIADI G1338507

1. Select one or more diagnostic models that you believe provide a framework that
succinctly identifies the key factors at the centre of the Boeing situation. Explain
your choice of model.

Figure 1.0 Burke Litwin Model

In order to analyse and find the key factors of the Boeing case, I choose Burke Litwin
model. In this model, 12 elements in the model can be classified into 2 source of major
change; transformational or transactional. Transformational change includes external
environment, mission and strategy, leadership and organisational culture. The
transactional change are structure, management practice, system, work unit climate, task
requirement and individual skills, motivation, individual needs, and individual
organisational performance. This diagnostic model would provide framework for us in
order to understand this case. It is because the issue that being raise in the case such as
unnecessary procedures, increase in market demand, and lack of communication must be
integrate and explain comprehensively, and Burke Litwin model able to provide this
comprehensive diagnostic. Plus, the fundamental idea in the Burke Litwin model, which

is planned change should flow from the top (environment) to the bottom (performance)
are best to analyse the impact that new CEO , Stonecipher impose.

2. Explain the Boeing situation in terms of your selected model.

In terms of explaining the Boeing situation through Burke Litwin model, first we need
to identify what is happening in the Boeing. The case is centric on resignation of Phil
Condit as Boeing CEO and being replaced by Harry Stonecipher. This change of
leadership can be seen as part of transformational change, and base on the case we can
see positive changes being delivered by Stonecipher. There are several external
environment factors situation, where boing failed to handle that cause boing going into
crisis. Firstly, the emerge of Airbus as major market share in airplane industry, cause
Boeing react in altering their internal process. In addition, when there is increasing in
demand (double), Boeing response in wrong way when they change their production
capacities. These two response cause damage to the Boeing. Boeing need to adjust ad
streamlined the production to increase efficiency. This can be view as transactional
change; system.
In terms of external environment, the clash of culture between McDonnell and Boeing
cause the merger fails. On the system as transactional change, the introduction of
technological change to increase product life cycle, can be seen as smart move. In relating
the external environment with individual performance, the diversification strategy from
airline industry into information services and space industry, which being driven by
external pressure, has demoralized employees, which cause the decrease in individual
performance. In the view of work unit climate, shifting the executives to Chicago from
Seattle can help them focus on International Growth, which is related with their
motivation. In the leadership view, Harry Stonecipher do impact the mission and strategy
of Boeing, when under his leadership, he focus on smaller aircraft market. In terms of
consumer demand, that part of the external environment, Boeing fails to recognize that
the fluctuation of revenue is tally with the consumer demand. On the relationship of
external environment and individual performance, the lower share price, that being use as
performance indicators, has led to change in leadership, in association with external
environment. Lastly, in relation with work unit climate and motivation, the aggressive
push from management to demand of increasing the production overnight, cause bad
work climate, that at the end led to strike. This strike, clearly affect the performance of
employees.