B. R. Richardson Timber Products Corporation Case Analysis

Joanne Correira
MBA 563
January 29, 2015
Question 1:

Jack Lawler’s entry and contracting process at B. R. Richardson was very informal and vague. He received a call from Richard Bowman, the company’s industrial relations officer, who stated that the company was searching for someone to conduct a “motivation course”. Low morale, a plant fatality, and an overly authoritative manager were cited as reasons. Mr. Lawler agreed to visit the plant to meet with Bowman and Richardson, the founder and president, as well as to gather information for his assessment.
During the initial plant visit, Bowman and Richardson did a company overview including information about the plant workers. They also shared their concerns about the plant manager, Joe Bamford, being insensitive with the workers. Beyond that, they did not discuss any problems, perceived or actual, nor did they share any goals. After the initial plant visit, Mr. Lawler sent a letter to Mr. Bowman outlining three options – 1. Mr. Lawler could refer them to someone in their immediate area, 2. Mr. Lawler could be engaged as a consultant, and 3. Mr. Lawler could be engaged as a consultant with help from his graduate students. He impressed upon them that a diagnosis was needed first regardless. Mr. Bowman responded six weeks later. He and Richardson agreed that a diagnosis was needed but Richardson did not want to invest much money. Consequently, Bowman and Lawler verbally agreed on the third suggestion offered in his letter. Mr. Lawler would bill for three days of his time plus expenses incurred when he and the students visited the plant to gather information. Mr. Lawler would then do an analysis and make a presentation to B.R. and Bowman. I’m not sure how long Jack Lawler has been in business but I was incredibly surprised by his entry and contracting process at B. R. Richardson. Aside from the letter he had sent after his initial visit, there was no written contract presented to B. R. Richardson. In addition, his first suggestion to this potential client was to refer them to another consultant. If he wasn’t interested in the project, he should’ve just stated that up front instead of including a referral as one of his alternatives. Not just one of his alternatives but the first alternative! In addition, suggesting the use of graduate students seemed odd. I’m sure it was to provide a low-cost alternative for a money-conscious client but I question why a professional that was sought out by the client for his expertise would then provide a low-cost alternative which would ultimately dilute the quality of his work. I definitely would have handled the entering and contracting process differently. Specifically, I would have:
Presented my standard contract to the client outlining the process.
The contract would be to engage my consulting services only.
The contract would set forth client expectations, including fees.

Question 2: I would use the Open Systems model to organize the diagnostic data. The data would then be organized into organizational, group and individual levels. The highest, or organizational level, would focus on Papoose Laminators overall since that is the largest “division”. The group level would consist of Preglue, Gluing, Planing, and Finishing. And the individual level would consist of all the characters that comprise the company. I would organize the data into three categories for feedback to Bowman and Richardson: interviews, observations and unobtrusive measures. Lots of informal interviews took place during their second visit and it seemed that everyone they spoke with was more than glad to share their opinions, both positive and negative. In addition, the diagnostic team was able to observe the plant operations and employee interactions. Some unobtrusive measures like safety and attrition