Create an internal company report based on a Case Study in Chapter 8 or 9. Include at least one embedded Excel spreadsheet of data. About 500 words.

The data should come from somewhere in the case study. There are quite a few to choose from, or make up some of your own. The goal is to learn how to write a Corporate Report.

The report should have the following format.

Executive Summary - Write the rest of the report first, then write the summary.

Methodology - include the data for your report, an embedded chart of data.

Analysis: Analyze the results of your data above. What are the results.

A study undertaken by General Motors in 1982 concluded that the American automobile industry could not successfully challenge the Japanese in producing small, fuel-efficient cars without a radical overhaul of traditional manufacturing processes.75 Out of this study came a proposal not just for a new automobile but for a new company, separate from G.M.s other units. The resulting Saturn Corporation, a wholly owned G.M. subsidiary, would utilize the advanced technology and management practices that had enabled the Japanese to gain a $2,000 per car cost advantage over their American competitors. The Saturn factory would also make a radical break from the past by involving assembly workers in company decision making. The new president of the Saturn Corporation declared,Saturn is not a car, and it is not a manufacturing process. It is a new way of doing business with everyone.76 Roger B. Smith, the chairman ofG.M., said, The Saturn process is going to institute technology and business and management procedures so advanced that they dont exist anywhere in the world today, not even in Japan.77 Between 1983 and 1991, when the first car rolled off the assembly line, G.M. negotiated a revolutionary contract with the United Auto Workers union (UAW) that did away with conventional, hierarchical labormanagement relations. The Saturn Philosophy set forth in the contract stated, We believe that all people want to be involved in decisions that affect them, care about their job and each other, take pride in themselves and in their contributions, and want to share in the success of their efforts. In accord with the union agreement, Saturn workers, initially 6,000 in number, were organized into self-directed work units of 6 to 15 people with responsibility for a particular part of the production process.The work groups performed a series ofoperations taking several minutes and requiring some skill, instead of the quick repetition of a single task involving little skill on the typical assembly line. Among various other tasks, members determined job assignments, set work schedules, maintained equipment, and ordered supplies. In contrast to the dozens of job classifications used in traditional assembly-line production, there was one classification for production workers and three to five for skilled workers. Each team also elected one member to be a counselor to represent the union. At the next level, three to six work units were formed into work modules, led by a company work unit adviser. Workers had union representation on all committees, including the Business Unit Committee that coordinated plant-level operations and the top-level Manufacturing Advisory Committee and Strategic Advisory Committee. Decisions at the plant were to be made by consensus to the extent possible. The agreement stated that any party may block a potential decision, but adds, In the event an alternative solution is not found, the blocking party must reevaluate the position in the context of the philosophy and mission.78 Although management reserved the right to make the final decision on any matter, employees still had considerable voice in the decision-making process. In addition to participation in decision making, the Saturn contract provided for variable pay. There were no time clocks, and workers were paid a salary instead ofan hourly wage. In the first year of operation, absenteeism at the plant was less than 1 percent, which is one-tenth of the rate at other G.M.plants and about the same as Japanese factories. The base pay for workers was set at 80 percent of the average compensation at other unionized G.M. factories, and the difference was to be made up by bonuses based on productivity. Job security was provided by a guarantee that 80 percent ofthe work-force would be protected from layoff except in the case ofcatastrophic events, and even then, layoff could be avoided by a consensus decision to substitute reduced work hours or temporary shutdowns. To produce the Saturn, G.M. built a state-of-the-art plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee, 25 miles south of Nashville. However, by the time the factory began operations, the American automobile industry was in a slump, and the demand for small cars was declining. The goal of producing 500,000 cars annually was cut in half, and because of production problems, the company did not make a profit the first year. During the 1980s, G.M. workers at any facility in the country could apply for a job at the Spring Hill plant, and many who moved were attracted by the prospect ofworker participation.However, in 1990, applicants were restricted to workers who had been laid off at other G.M. plants. These workers were, on the whole, less enthusiastic about the new system and were more suspicious of management. Although the first workers were given 700 hours of training to prepare them for Saturns cooperative work methods, the amount of training for subsequent hires was reduced to 175 hour By 1997, Saturn workers were becoming dissatisfied with the new system. The sales of the Saturn dropped almost 10 percent that year, and unsold cars were piling up at dealerships. Production was halted one day a week, and workers were put to other tasks around the plant. Workers bonuses fell to $2,200 in 1997 from $10,000 in each of the two previous years. Workers blamed some of the problems on mistakes by management. G.M. had ignored workers sugges-tions that Saturn produce small sport-utility vehicles. Although the Saturn was popular, the automobile itself was rather conventional in design, and G.M. had been slow to make improve-ments. In order to cut costs, G.M. was trying to reduce the number of frames and parts of its automobiles by designing Saturns with components from other G.M. lines made at plants with traditional labor contracts. The Saturn was intended to be a unique product, built entirely at the Spring Hill plant. However, the local union head complained, They are just looking at basically outsourcing everything they can, and run it through a lean assembly and still call it a Saturn.79 It appeared to workers that G.M. was trying to fold Saturn back into the parent company. Despite their participation in decision making, some Saturn workers felt that they had lost the power of unionized workers in traditional plants. Historically, worker participation has been viewed as an effort by companies to reduce the power of unions. Even when well intentioned, worker participation programs are difficult to implement because they can be successful only if power is meaningfully shared. Such programs have also been short-lived. According to one expert, only 25 percent of all programs, meaningful or not, last beyond five years.80 Workers complained that their union leaders had become too close to management. In 1998, a proposal to abandon the Saturn agreement and replace it with the standard UAW labor contract was rejected by a margin of two to one, which means that a third of all workers supported the change. The next year, in 1999, the local union leaders who had guided the Saturn experiment from the beginning were voted out of office and replaced by new leadership that favored more traditional labor relations. Although worker participation continues at Saturn, the early dreams have not been realized. Whether the setbacks have occurred because of adverse economic conditions, company sabotage or the impracticability ofworker participation remains to be determined.