Program: BA Business PLO #1 Communication Course: MGTU 315 Operations Management Assignment: Final Individual Assignment Week Assessment Occurs: Week 8 Reflecting on Course Learning Outcomes and Portland Plant Turnaround Final Individual Assignment based on the project case “Turnaround at the Portland Plant.” Make assumptions as necessary. This Final Individual Assignment is your Signature Assignment. This means that this paper is to demonstrate evidence of everything that you have learned in your work on the Portland Plant case study. This paper is to be four to five pages long, APA with at least five references (including the text book). o Go to the Syllabus and review all of the Course Learning Outcomes. Be sure to address what you learned and applied in the Portland Plant case to each of the Course Learning Outcomes. You might want to consider having each of the course learning outcomes being a heading for your work. o Remember to include in this paper a recommendation for optimal “operations” planning and control activities to include technology suggestions (what, why, how, when); explain/justify your approach and include the process for operations verification (e.g. cycle counting). o See Rubric for how this Assignment will be graded in the Week 8 Folder. o This final Individual Assignment is due Week 8 of this course. EXEMPLARY 200 PROFICIENT 170 DEVELOPING 150 EMERGING 130 Content Accuracy The content of the Final Individual Assignment is thoughtful and accurate. A good blending of course material and personal experience. There are no factual errors. Applies terminology and concepts appropriately. Creates a clear communication plan for the operations turnaround. Connects to each of the Course Learning Outcomes, Most of the content of the Final Individual Assignment is accurate but there is one piece of information that seems confusing. Applies most terminology and concepts appropriately. Creates a somewhat clear communication plan for the operations turnaround. Somewhat connects to the Course Learning Outcomes. The content of the Final Individual Assignment is generally accurate, but one piece of information is clearly inaccurate. Applies some terminology and concepts appropriately. Plan for communicating the operations turnaround is somewhat unclear. Does not show a clear connection to each of the Course Learning Outcomes, The content is confusing or contains more than one factual error. Does not apply Operations terminology and concepts appropriately. The communication plan for the operations turnaround is unclear. Fails to connect with a majority of the Course Learning Outcomes. Writing and Organization Writing is logical and organized. Sentences are well-phrased and varied in length and structure. Word choice is consistently precise and accurate. The writing is free of errors in grammar, spelling and writing mechanics. The .

1. Program: BA Business
PLO #1 Communication
Course: MGTU 315 Operations Management
Assignment: Final Individual Assignment
Week Assessment Occurs: Week 8 Reflecting on Course
Learning Outcomes and Portland Plant Turnaround
Final Individual Assignment based on the project case
“Turnaround at the Portland Plant.” Make assumptions as
necessary.
This Final Individual Assignment is your Signature Assignment.
This means that this paper is to demonstrate evidence of
everything that you have
learned in your work on the Portland Plant case study. This
paper is to be four to five pages long, APA with at least five
references (including the
text book).
o Go to the Syllabus and review all of the Course Learning
Outcomes. Be sure to address what you learned and applied in
the Portland
Plant case to each of the Course Learning Outcomes. You might
want to consider having each of the course learning outcomes
being a
heading for your work.
o Remember to include in this paper a recommendation for

2. optimal “operations” planning and control activities to include
technology
suggestions (what, why, how, when); explain/justify your
approach and include the process for operations verification
(e.g. cycle counting).
o See Rubric for how this Assignment will be graded in the
Week 8 Folder.
o This final Individual Assignment is due Week 8 of this
course.
EXEMPLARY 200 PROFICIENT 170 DEVELOPING 150
EMERGING 130
Content Accuracy
The content of the Final Individual
Assignment is thoughtful and accurate. A
good blending of course material and
personal experience. There are no factual
errors. Applies terminology and concepts
appropriately. Creates a clear
communication plan for the operations
turnaround. Connects to each of the
Course Learning Outcomes,
Most of the content of the Final
Individual Assignment is accurate but
there is one piece of information that
seems confusing. Applies most
terminology and concepts appropriately.
Creates a somewhat clear
communication plan for the operations
turnaround. Somewhat connects to the
Course Learning Outcomes.

3. The content of the Final Individual
Assignment is generally accurate, but
one piece of information is clearly
inaccurate. Applies some terminology
and concepts appropriately. Plan for
communicating the operations
turnaround is somewhat unclear. Does
not show a clear connection to each of
the Course Learning Outcomes,
The content is confusing or contains
more than one factual error. Does not
apply Operations terminology and
concepts appropriately. The
communication plan for the operations
turnaround is unclear. Fails to connect
with a majority of the Course Learning
Outcomes.
Writing and Organization
Writing is logical and organized.
Sentences are well-phrased and varied in
length and structure. Word choice is
consistently precise and accurate. The
writing is free of errors in grammar,
spelling and writing mechanics. The
Writing is generally logical and
organized. Sentences are well-phrased
and varied in length and structure. Word

4. choice is generally precise and mostly
accurate. There are occasional errors in
grammar, spelling and writing
Writing lacks logical progression or
organization. Sentences are awkward and
often unclear. Word choice is acceptable
but range of words is limited or lack
precision. The writing has errors which
impact the understanding of the report
Writing is not logical or organized.
Sentences do not form a cohesive whole
and structure of sentences is distracting
and confusing to the reader. Words are
used inappropriately. There are several
errors in grammar, spelling and writing
report is the specified length of the
assignment. APA is accurate.
mechanics. The report is the specified
length of the assignment.
and cause a distraction. The report is
shorter than the specified length of the
assignment.
mechanics. The report if shorter than the
specified length of the assignment.

5. Understanding of Theory and/or
Critical Concepts
Communicates an excellent
understanding of the theory of business
technology and business by explaining in
own words and experience always using
the theory or concepts appropriately in
the assignment.
Communicates a good understanding of
business technology theory or concepts
by explaining in own words and usually
using the theory or concepts
appropriately in the assignment.
Communicates some understanding of
business technology theory or concepts
but relies on more paraphrasing and
quoting than own words and sometimes
uses the theory or concepts appropriately
in the assignment.
Does not communicate understanding of
business technology theory. Relies on

6. paraphrasing and quoting and does not
uses theory or concepts appropriately in
the assignment.
Application of Theory
Consistently applies operations theory to
practice, examples, experience, and
personal experience with the technology
in a thoughtful and meaningful manner
per the assignment. Takes theory beyond
traditional applications.
Often applies business operations theory
to practice, examples, experience, and/or
“real world” situations in a thoughtful
and meaningful manner per the
assignment. Usually, takes theory
beyond traditional applications.
Sometimes applies operations t theory to
practice, examples, experience, and/or
“real world” situations but it is not
always thoughtful and/or meaningful.
Sometimes, takes theory beyond
traditional applications.
Rarely or never applies business
technology theory to practice, examples,

7. experience, and/or “real world”
situations in a thoughtful or meaningful
way. Does not take theory beyond
traditional applications.
Synthesis
Surprisingly and insightfully takes ideas,
theories, processes, and/or principles into
new territory, broader generalizations,
hidden meanings and implications.
Demonstrates an ability to take the
course material and use it in his/her life.
Clearly evaluates the power and
relevance of these ideas in multiple
situations and settings.
Takes ideas, theories, processes, and/or
principles into new territory, broader
generalizations, hidden meanings and
implications. Evaluates the power and
relevance of these ideas in multiple
situations and settings.
Sometimes, takes ideas, theories,
processes, and/or principles into new
territory, broader generalizations, hidden

8. meanings and implications. Sometimes,
evaluates the power and relevance of
these ideas in multiple situations and
settings.
Rarely or never takes ideas, theories,
processes, and/or principles into new
territory, broader generalizations, hidden
meanings and implications. Rarely or
never evaluates the power and relevance
of these ideas in multiple situations and
settings.
ATTACHMENT D: Project Case Scenario
TURNROUND AT THE PORTLAND PLANT1
Introduction
“Before the crisis the quality department was just for looks, we
certainly weren’t used much
for problem solving, the most we did was inspection. Data from
the quality department was
brought to the production meeting and they would all look at it,
but no one was looking

9. behind it”. (Quality Manager, Portland Plant)
The Portland plant of Rexam Graphics was located in Portland,
Oregon, across the continent
from their headquarters in Massachusetts. The plant had been
bought from the James River
Corporation by Rexam in March 1998. Precision coated papers
for ink-jet printers accounted for
the majority of the plant’s output, especially paper for specialist
uses. Ink-jet products had a
particularly tighter production specification, especially in terms
of coat weight variation. The
plant’s process technology consisted of coating machines that
allowed precise coatings to be
applied. After coating, the conversion department slit and then
cut the coated rolls to shape.
The curl problem
In late 1996 Hewlett Packard (the plant’s main customer for
ink-jet paper) informed the plant of
some problems it had encountered with paper curling under
conditions of low humidity. There
had been no customer complaints to HP, but their own personnel
had noticed the problem.
Nevertheless HP took the curl problem seriously. Over the next
seven or eight months a team at
the plant worked on a series of design experiments to try and
isolate the cause of the problem.
Finally, in October of 1997 the team made recommendations for
a revised and considerably
improved coating formulation. By January 1998 the process was
producing product that HP
regarded as acceptable. However, 1997 had not been a good

10. year for the plant. Although sales
were reasonably buoyant the plant was making a loss of around
$1 million for the year. In
October 97, Tom Bickford, previously account manager for the
Hewlett Packard business, was
appointed as Managing Director.
Slipping out of control
By spring of 1998 the curl project was completed. Nevertheless,
productivity, scrap and re-work
levels were poor. In response to this the operations management
team increased the speed of the
line and made a number of changes to operating practice in
order to raise productivity.
1 Case reproduced with the permission of Dr. Nigel Slack,
Warwick College, where the case originated, 2007.
“Looking back, changes were made without any proper
discipline, there was no real concept
of control and the process was allowed to drift. The perception
was that we were always
meeting specification. Yet we didn’t fully understand how close
we really were to not being
able to make it. The culture here said, “If it’s within
specification then it’s OK” and we were
very diligent in making sure that the product which was shipped
was in specification.
However, Hewlett Packard gets ‘process data’ which enables

11. them to see more or less exactly
what is happening right inside your operation. Of course we
were also getting all the reports
but none of them were being internalized. We were using them
just to satisfy outsiders. By
contrast, HP have very much a statistical and technical
mentality which says to itself, “You
might be capable of making this product but we are thinking
two or three product generations
forward and asking ourselves, will you have the capability then,
and do we want to invest in
this relationship for the future?” (Tom Bickford)
The spring of 1998 also saw two significant events. First,
Hewlett Packard asked the plant to
carry out preliminary work for a new paper to supply the next
generation of HP ink-jet platform,
known as the Viper project. If won, the Viper contract would
secure healthy orders for the next
two or three years. The second event was that the plant was
acquired by Rexam.
“What did Rexam see when they bought us? They saw a small
plant on the West Coast of
America losing lots of money”. (Finance Manager, Portland
Plant)
Indeed Rexam were not over impressed by what they found at
the Portland plant. It had been
making a loss for at least two years and had only just escaped
from incurring a major customer’s
disapproval over the curl issue. They made it clear that, if the
plant did not get the Viper
contract, its future looked bleak. The plant’s engineers fully

12. understood the importance of Viper
and were working hard to develop the new product. Meanwhile,
out in the plant, the chief
concern continued to be centered around productivity issues.
But also, once again, Hewlett
Packard were starting to make occasional complaints to the
plant’s operations management about
quality levels. However HP’s attitude caused some
bewilderment to the operations management
team.
“When HP asked questions about our process the operations
guys would say, “Look we’re
making roll after roll of paper, it’s within specification (as seen
in Exhibit 1) and we’ve got
97 per cent up-time. What’s the problem?” (Quality Manager,
Portland Plant)
But it was not until summer that the full extent of Hewlett
Packard’s disquiet was made clear to
the plant’s senior management.
“The key milestone date for me, and I will never forget it, was
in June of ‘98. I was at a
meeting with HP in Chicago. It was not even about quality. But
during the meeting one of
their engineers handed me some SPC run data. This was data
that we had to supply with
every batch of product, and said “Here’s your latest run data.
We think you’re out of control
and you don’t know that you’re out of control and we think that
HP is looking at this data
more than you are.” He was absolutely right and there was

13. nothing I could say except that we
would do something about it. This was when I fully understood
how serious the position was.
We had our most important customer telling us we couldn’t run
our processes just at the time
we were trying to persuade them to give us the Viper contract”.
(Tom Bickford)
The Crisis
“At one point in May of ‘98 we had to throw away 64 jumbo
rolls of out-of-specification
product. That’s over $100,000 of product scrapped in one run.
Basically that was because
they had been afraid to shut the line down. If they failed to
keep the machines running we
would flog them and say, “You’ve got to keep productivity up”.
If they kept the machines
running but had quality problems as a result, we flogged them
for making garbage. Now you
get into far more trouble for violating process procedures than
you do for not meeting
productivity targets”. (Engineer, Portland Plant)
Returning from the Chicago meeting Tom immediately set about
the task of bringing the plant
back under control. Knowing that you had taken an operations
management class, Tom asked
for your help to help identify problem areas and make
recommendations to fix the problems.

14. Exhibit 1
Typical process control charts
May 1998