Innovation at Nypro, Inc.

¶ … NovaPlast decision?

Lankton was intending to introduce a new molding machine (called NovaPlast) to Nypro. The benefits with this machine were that it would achieve the molding in a far shorter amount of time than was currently the situation, and that it would be far cheaper for them to use. However, Lankton was unsure how to go about introducing this machine into the workplace (that constituted 21 international Nypro plants). Should the machines be scattered across all the plants / should they be kept to one location? And how fast should they be rolled out?

On the one hand, Lankton was concerned about Nypro's growth stagnating would result in the best and most innovative people leaving his company. Taking this into consideration, one may argue for Lankton to introduce these machines as fast as possible -- at least before his competitors beat him to the chase. This was particularly so since Lankton was a competitive person and Nypro had succeeded up till now by beating the competiton.

Nypro's 21 plants, similarly designed, were only different in that they tailored to the specific market and companies that they served. The problem with this however is that Nypro aimed for consistently but consistency can militate against innovation. To introduce these molds rapidly, Lankton had to find a way to do so that they were consistently integrated at the same time by each of his plants and that each plant learned -- consistently -- to use them well.

The company's innovation up till now was in process not in product. The way they worked on this was by each plant having its own 'continuous improvement' team (CIT) comprised of engineers and headed by managers who worked to analyze and treat customers' problems. In one case, management established a special team to convince the plants to implement a certain system and to actually implement the system.

The problems with introducing NovaPlast to Nypro were the following:

The steep learning curve that required taking time -- a quantifiable amount of time -- in order to learn how to use each of the characteristics of the machine. This would take even longer in this case since NovaPlast was new to the company.

Should one disseminate the machine and training in one place -- thereby conceivably cutting time and beating completion -- or -congruent to Nypro's philosophy of consistency -- should Langton disseminate the machine and training to all 21 plants simultaneously.

There were three options:

1. To build one plant that would house the NovaPlast machines.

2. To install two or three machines in each of Nypro's plants

3. To introduce Nypro at a single plan t. Its success would then determine whether it be introduced at others.

Decision

Taking into account the plant's history of consistency and their focus on it to the extent that it has become a cultural philosophy, I would recommend that Langton implement option 2 as his solution. The reasons for this are the following:

1. The company is going to be faced with enough change. They are going to have to learn how to use this machine and who to use it successfully within a given amount of time. Being faced with further change -- namely distinguishing one plant above the other, or creating a specialized location, may not only cause confusion but May also (in the case of singling out one plant for special treatment) cause conflict?

2. Making an exception in this case may be analogous to making a hole in what has been previously a firm structure causing grounds for other exceptions to be argued in the future. This may eventuate in weakening the company's philosophy and possibly their very structure and existence.