{"title":"Darden Business Publishing Gets Lean (a)","authors":"E. N. Weiss, R. Goldberg, A. English","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2975002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Darden Business Publishing provides its own field case as a consultant is enlisted to help it streamline production using Lean principles. The case provides an overview of continuous improvement concepts applied in a service setting. \n \nExcerpt \n \nUVA-OM-1497 \n \nRev. Apr. 7, 2014 \n \nDARDEN BUSINESS PUBLISHING GETS LEAN (A) \n \nDarden Business Publishing (DBP) prepared business case studies for use in the Darden classroom and, simultaneously, for publication and sales worldwide through both its own website and those of partner distributors. The case collection was a key manifestation of Darden's intellectual capital and value proposition; new cases kept the MBA curriculum relevant and imparted thought leadership by Darden faculty and researchers. But Steve Momper, DBP's director, had grown frustrated by a backlog of work in process (WIP) and an average 86-day lead time for case publication. Future growth in the business required an expansion of capacity, yet budget constraints had forced the elimination by attrition of two editor positions. Momper knew that the editing and publishing process required significant rework. The time was right to call on Austin English, a Darden alumnus whose consulting firm, RCF Associates, specialized in continuous process improvement (CPI). \n \nThe Existing Process \n \nIn recent years, DBP had grown rapidly, yet its process had never been reevaluated in its entirety so, over time, legacies had led to inefficiencies. There was more emphasis on beginning projects as they were received than on finishing those whose editing had already begun. A motivated faculty member with a tight deadline might be forced to wait in line while a colleague allowed months to elapse before reviewing a draft. In some instances, so much time would pass that a faculty author not only would no longer need the case but would barely recall the work in question. \n \n. . .","PeriodicalId":121773,"journal":{"name":"Darden Case: Business Communications (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Darden Case: Business Communications (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2975002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Darden Business Publishing provides its own field case as a consultant is enlisted to help it streamline production using Lean principles. The case provides an overview of continuous improvement concepts applied in a service setting.
Excerpt
UVA-OM-1497
Rev. Apr. 7, 2014
DARDEN BUSINESS PUBLISHING GETS LEAN (A)
Darden Business Publishing (DBP) prepared business case studies for use in the Darden classroom and, simultaneously, for publication and sales worldwide through both its own website and those of partner distributors. The case collection was a key manifestation of Darden's intellectual capital and value proposition; new cases kept the MBA curriculum relevant and imparted thought leadership by Darden faculty and researchers. But Steve Momper, DBP's director, had grown frustrated by a backlog of work in process (WIP) and an average 86-day lead time for case publication. Future growth in the business required an expansion of capacity, yet budget constraints had forced the elimination by attrition of two editor positions. Momper knew that the editing and publishing process required significant rework. The time was right to call on Austin English, a Darden alumnus whose consulting firm, RCF Associates, specialized in continuous process improvement (CPI).
The Existing Process
In recent years, DBP had grown rapidly, yet its process had never been reevaluated in its entirety so, over time, legacies had led to inefficiencies. There was more emphasis on beginning projects as they were received than on finishing those whose editing had already begun. A motivated faculty member with a tight deadline might be forced to wait in line while a colleague allowed months to elapse before reviewing a draft. In some instances, so much time would pass that a faculty author not only would no longer need the case but would barely recall the work in question.
. . .