Hector Garnica

Management 5
November 17, 2008

ID#91001314

Case Analysis #2: Cranston Nissan

1. Personnel Responsibilities:

1. Ill-advised mutual guaranteed agreement between service representative and

customer on ready date of car.

2. Service representative failed to keep customer informed on the status of the

car’s progress for its service.

3. Caused the customer timely inconveniences by having him make several long

distance trips back to the shop without providing the customer with alternative

means of transportation such as a shuttle or loaner car.

4. Prolonged inability to deliver the car to customer with corrected service

problem.

Service Station:

a. Customer’s vehicle received poor priority status by repair shop.

b. Through fixing problems the personnel of other specialized sectors of the shop

created more problems for the car.

c. Shop did not adhere to guarantee repair of customer’s vehicle.

d. Inability to identify the new arising problems of the car.

Mode of Operation:

1. Poor adroitness between departments and personnel.

2. Lack of responsibility by personnel to account for mistakes in service.

 3. Management hierarchy is almost non-existent due to several specialized

employees being involved with the customer.

4. Poor capacity planning with the part not being ordered on time.

Product Quality:

1. Parts of the outer body of the car were not properly re-attached or re-

assembled.

2. Car is revealed to have damaged interior components (e.g. security light) by

personnel.

3. Evidently, the customer’s vehicle was not properly furnished (not a good wash

job).

2. The most apparent problem, as seen in the customer’s complaint letter to the

general manager, is that there was very little or no accountability by the personnel

both between the customer and service representative or between the personnel

themselves. The customer’s initial frustrations were due to the lack or

coordination within the department’s subordinates when the customer was

promised that his car would be ready by the estimated time. However, when the

first problem with the courtesy light appeared new problems continued to unfold

of a different matter from interior electrical devices to the exterior of the car.

Another probable cause could be attributed to a low work standard because when

problems arose the customer had to see different specialized personnel with

remarks by them saying that “there was nothing to report.” Along with evidence

that the rear view mirror had been damaged and as indicated by Jim that “[no one]

wanted to own up to it, by that time it had become apparent to both the customer

and the employee that there was hardly any sort of control within the department.
 In addition, timing in executing the needed service had also become a major

liability for the service department. From the time to when the vehicle was first

left at the shop to the customer’s status inquiry phone call the car was still sitting

in the shop with “nothing” done to service its problems. Furthermore, before the

car could be further serviced to the customer’s inconvenience the go ahead to

continue the servicing to the car was not properly authorized. This once again

revealed the poor coordination and time management within the department.

Lastly, there was the issue with the ordering of the molding for the car door on the

day the customer came to pick up the car. This further agitates the customer and

the bad planning of “getting the materials to the right place at the right time.” At

this point the service department has already trifled with the customer’s time long

well past acceptable inconveniences. Nevertheless, the poor management of the

service department’s supply chain can also be attributed to bad timing and

sequencing within the TQM process.

3. What should be in the immediate mind of Jackson is that the customer must be

attended to in the most upfront manner to provide the customer with effective and

efficient service. This initial action would at least re-establish the corporate

culture and reputation of the shop and at the same time attack the problems by

assessing and monitoring them within the reported service department. That way

the customer can be re-assured that his/her service will be honored and there will

be no need for further repercussions either legal or financial. Finally, the

employees should be held accountable for the mishaps experienced by the

customer and begin to adhere to higher management to establish infrastructure

within the department so as to ensure that future problems are discretely dealt
with before they occur. However, in the long-term Jackson may have to meet with

his subordinates to attack the problem at its roots and implement a plan to

permanent and effective structure within the department. This would include

having the employees trained in further problem assessment , customer service,

and team building to help set a higher work standard and help the employees be

more efficient and effective at their jobs. It also would require cross training the

best employees in order to increase the utility and flexibility of the employee

when dealing with the customer on the spot instead of waiting for another

employee to service the customer. Ultimately, the restructuring of the

management and procedural status of the department would in the long-run

contribute to better customer satisfaction, meet six sigma’s requirement and

increase the overall productivity of the shop. As a result higher expectations

should arise and thus would be accompanied by increased revenues.