Anyone thinks the new plant reporting structure - force fit by BG... Will it works? Or is it going to be another mess that will need restructuring 2 years later? Somehow there is an elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.
7 replies (most recent on top)
There was always some tension between the 'landlord' division and the 'tenant' divisions in every plant.
The only time I ever really saw the system break down is when it came to 'who pays for new lines?'. Nobody wanted to be the first onto a new/empty maker, they always wanted to be on the old/fully-paid-for/loaded maker because it made the product transfer costs cheaper.
Most of the other times the differences could be figured out with a few discussions and some horse-trading on costs.
I feel that the smaller Divisions in the non BG belonging would be an abandon child.
Its whatever Kearney and Dominic say. Thats it!
You are talking usa centric
It’s a joke, plant directors and their respective VP are running around like “chickens with their heads cut off”.All sorts of short term and non logical decisions because they have incomplete knowledge of the global business. Shareholders beware….depending on where the plant is likely located will dictate which divisions succeed or fail. Gibbons squad that came in are bullies and have a clear agenda that has nothing to do with addressing culture and the customer experience. This is why you are seeing great people leave.
It could work in the past, but then 3M didn’t have massive yearly layoffs like now. Wondering if there would be a inclination to those divisions which belong to the BG when it comes to layoffs.
BG reporting won't be a problem.
Before A3M plants reported to individual divisions for many many years. Even plants that served 20 divisions reported to only one lead division. Conversely there were also multiple divisions that didn't own a single plant.