1.

Write a brief report that outlines the reasons (both internal and external) for
Burgmaster’s demise, and whether operations management played a significant role
in the demise.
A concise document outlining the causes (internal and external) for Burgmaster’s demise.
Internal factor:
 Following the LBO (leveraged buyout), Burgmaster had to deal with a lot of pressure to
raise money. To facilitate cash inflow, they were forced to push their inventory as far as
possible, which led to the sale of defective goods to clients.
 The LBO restricted Burgmaster from recapitalization, which is important for him to
compete with his rivals.
 They had no choice but to make promises to clients about things that engineers had not
yet created to maintain profitability and compete with their rivals.
 One of the most devastating was a computerized production scheduling system that was
inadequate for making complex machine tools. Hence, it gives a dramatic depiction of
supply snafus that resulted in delays and cost increases.
 It turned out that nothing could genuinely replace the managerial presence on the work
floor when the Burgmaster sold out to Houdaille in the hopes of growing and seeking a
better formula. Burgmaster had only been successful because they were knowledgeable
about every aspect of their industry.
External factor:
 The government's tax rules and macroeconomic policies, which at the time were more
inclined towards LBOs and speculation than productive investments, can also be held
responsible for Burgmaster's demise.
 The company's demise was also attributed to other regulations, such as "the Pentagon
acquisition" program, which prioritized exotic equipment above affordable, ordinary
ones.
 Instead of responding when the industry saw increasing import competition, companies
steadfastly maintained their conservatism. Burgmaster, therefore, failed to restructure
their organization as required by the circumstances.
After analyzing these factors, it can be concluded that operations management played a
significant role in Burgmaster’s demise. Although Burgmaster knew their business well, and
therefore, their adeptness and involvement in the operations worked for the company, their first
terrible error was to sell everything in the hopes of growing with a new formula. Houdaille was
mistaken to embrace a new formula while the techniques of the present operation were generating
inflows for Burgmaster. Instead, he should have stuck with the strategy that made the most sense
given their inadequate business knowledge. Additionally, following the LBO, the business neglected
to implement efficient manufacturing and inventory management procedures, which led to faulty
products. Additionally, they failed to adhere to and satisfy customer needs and wants, which made
them vulnerable to competition. Their supply management was already subpar and the LBO just
made matters worse.

2. Do you think that inadequate strategic planning was a factor that resulted in the
company’s asking for trade protection?
I’d like to agree with this statement, inadequate strategic planning might be cited as one of the
causes of the company's request for trade protection and subsequent collapse. The early corporate
strategy of the company was to create revolutionary machines that gave the consumer flexibility.
Therefore, the plan was to set their product apart by being distinctive and by giving customers the
option to customize the devices. However, the corporation was unable to compete due to a lack of
environmental scanning, lackluster response to threats, and other outside economic and political
reasons. SWOT analysis, which is frequently viewed as the link between organizational strategy and
operations strategy, appears to have been lacking or ignored by the corporation.

Burgmaster also failed to develop the appropriate operational strategies needed to implement
their company strategy of distinctiveness, innovation, and customer adaptability. Businesses turned
their attention elsewhere when they needed to make investments in research and development for
new and improved products and services, as well as new operations and supply systems to
accommodate the new products or services. They embraced cutting-edge management strategies
like poorly executed computerized systems for production scheduling, which were ineffective for the
demands of the organization at the time. SWOT analysis, which is frequently seen as the link
between organizational strategy and operations strategy, was either absent or ineffectively used.

While competitors worked with a low-cost strategy and provided less expensive items to better
satisfy customer demand than Burgmaster, there were no operational strategies based on the
company's core capabilities in place to fulfill the corporate objective. Every organization should have
a strong operations strategy, but manufacturing is particularly in need of one. These should have
included inventory management and the creation of techniques for assessing and attaining
productivity improvements for Burgmaster, like any other manufacturing organization.

Burgmaster made the strategic choice to merge with other companies to create a multinational
corporation, but they should have merged with a business that added value to their own and
supported their ongoing operations instead of choosing a business based solely on its financial
strength and purportedly superior formula.

Burgmaster needed to find a balance early on between financial resources, operational

3. Can you think of a strategy that could have increased Burgmaster’s chance of
survival? Explain why you think that strategy would have been effective.
Burgmaster should have adopted a survival plan that would have allowed it to adjust to the
economy's shifting market trends. Burgmaster needed to embrace this practice if modern trends
were to simplify corporate procedures in order to survive in the marketplace. Business process
automation would have improved efficiency, decreased long-term expenses, and contributed to the
realization of economies of scale. Machines have proven to be more effective and efficient than
humans, increasing corporate productivity and efficiency. Unlike humans, machines don't need
breaks while working, causing fewer delays. Even if machines sometimes break down in the middle
of a performance, they can often be fixed and then used for a considerable period of time.
Automated systems also require less supervision, which lowers expenses.

Merging the company with another that was more successful and skilled in running a
corporation could have been another strategic choice. This would have allowed the company to
restore its market leadership by concentrating on sales, the most quantifiable metric for measuring
corporate performance.