J and G garden design principles

J & G. Garden Center Case

Review of the Case

G Garden Center: Lawn Care Services Division came into existence after the development of a landscape design and installation service by John and Gloria Weed. They added several product lines as their business develop3d and managed to do so in away that the process paid for itself. Having completed the first phase of their pan, the Weeds institute a new service, Big John, the Lawn and Garden Doctor, specializing in the treatment and eradication of lawn and garden pests. This part of the process involved a good deal of time, effort, and expense, including the hiring and training of two employees and the construction of a custom-built, high-security storage facility. The new division was profitable and attracted a good deal of business. The problem developed fist when a customer's dog got sick on some chemicals, though the client had been warned beforehand to keep the dog out of the area; and then when dome water runoff was said to have damaged a neighbor's well, though the court found the company not to be liable. However, John has become worried about what could happen in the future and may have guilt over these events in spite of not being held guilty by the court. He worries about the image of his family and his business. He knows that his business provides a useful and necessary service, but he worries about the issue just the same.

The Root Problem

The root problem may be simply John's anxiety about events over which he has no control. The problem can also be identified as the fact that this is a business with potential liability issues that frighten John and make him les eager to be as aggressive in pursuing his business as he should be.

Problem Components

Because of John's doubts, he is faced with a decision about how to proceed into the future. He could reform the business unit to operate in a way that makes him more comfortable, but to do this, he would have to decide what sort of structure would address the problems he sees and how they could be changed to be more acceptable. A second possibility would be to eliminate this division, which would assuage John's fears but which would also be an expense and might damage the business of the company for those clients who depend on this particular service. The service could also be left as it is, which would require reducing John's anxiety in some fashion so he could function in the structure that he has created.

Certain issuers are apparent in this problem and that need to be considered. First, this business will always make use of poisons that have the potential to harm people or animals or to harm some aspect of the environment. Care must be taken with these products, but they are such a key part of the business that they cannot be eliminated. They are also the primary source of trouble, contributing both to the illness of the dog and the contamination of the well, but they remain an essential tool in lawn and tree care.

The company has recognized this fact from the first and has always followed the ethical principal of informed consent. The client is told from the start what products are to be used and is warned when poisons are to be spread around. The owner of the dog was warned but apparently could not control his dog. The company might investigate whether there is some more effective kind of barrier that could be used to keep out pets, but no barrier is fully effective so that an animal can always get in if it really wants to do so.

In any case, no consent is possible from neighbors who might be affected, as was the case with the owner of the well. Again, there can always be some runoff that might have a secondary effect. In this case, the court decided that the company was not negligent and not responsible, but the potential for a different outcome does exist, meaning that nay worry John has about this possibility is warranted. The company has insurance for such contingencies, which might or might not be sufficient. Also, if a judgment were brought against the company, insurance rates might go up or the policy canceled altogether. John might be warranted in worrying about this as well. That is precisely the reason why most businesses carry liability insurance, out of fear that "they may be confronted with a claim which they could not meet out of their own resources" (Cane, 1996, p. 413). John may not be worried simply about finances but about related issues and actions that might harm the reputation of his business, a reputation that is clearly of importance to him. Such a concern often affects larger corporations, and analysts note that a positive corporate reputation "can be crucial to successful venture development" (Goldberg, Cohen, & Fiegenbaum, 2003, p. 168). Reputation can be even more vitla for a small business, which is often based on reputation as much or more than other elements in the business mix.

The other product and service divisions in the company have all done well since they were created, and this division was not created simply to make more money but because it was John's plan from the beginning to offers this sort of service. His concern now carries a sense of disillusionment, since his dream has turned out to have a few flaws.

Generating Alternatives

The alternatives have already been noted:

1) Keep the business as it is except to take greater care to avoid problems in the future.

2) Change the way the business is structured while continuing in business.

3) Close the business as simply too risky.

Evaluate Alternatives

Leaving the business as it is also the easiest approach to take. In truth, there are a number of reasons for considering this seriously. The problems can be seen as minor when compared to the many jobs that have been performed since the business opened. The business has b been doing well and has a good reputation, and these minor incidents have not changed that or damaged the reputation of the business at all as yet. The reputation would be more likely damaged if a judgment were brought against the company and even more if a judgment were brought against the client. In the case of the contaminated well, for instance, a finding that the company was liable for the runoff might be a problem for those concerned about damage to the neighbors, and this concern would have been expanded greatly if the client had been sued and found liable for hiring this company and for the actions of the company in the client's behalf. That sort of suit is possible in certain circumstances. However, the outcome shows that the company takes sufficient precautions and so that it has not endangered the economic well-being of its clients, so that threat is speculative. In the case of the dog, the client would be the one charging that the company was at fault, but with the releases that were signed and the full information provided, that was not possible, either. Lessened vigilance should never be contemplated, but the two instances show that the business practices followed are at least sufficient to protect the company and to assure the public that the company can be trusted.