Mini-Case: The Minivan Story. In the May 30, 1994, edition of Fortune magazine, the story of the minivan was told. In the earlier years of the passenger vans, only hippies seemed to appreciate the attributes of the van. However, in the 1970s, all three U.S. automakers began to study ways to modernize and broaden the appeal of their vans. Listening to customers helped Chrysler avoid two crucial design errors: (1) it rejected the long, wedge-shaped nose design and (2) it rejected the design that placed the engine under a hump in the floor (blocking passage from front to back seats). Also, while Chrysler continued to push for front-wheel drive, both Ford and GM handed responsibility of the minivan to the truck divisions, which continued to focus on rear-wheel drive. GM's problems were compounded by the fact that in 1985 station wagons were a significant part of its sales. In the 1990s, both GM and Ford developed front-wheel drive minivans and neither were housed in the truck division. Learning from their mistakes, both GM and Ford devised a new-product development process.
-What do you learn from this case that would help you advise Microsoft in its anticompetitive case with the federal government,or advise Barnes & Noble.com to displace Amazon.com,or advise American Greetings to become the dominant player in the greeting card business? What practical hints,in other words,do you derive from this classic case of analytical problem solving gone awry?

Question

Mini-Case:  The Minivan Story. In the May 30, 1994, edition of Fortune magazine, the story of the minivan was told. In the earlier years of the passenger vans, only hippies seemed to appreciate the attributes of the van. However, in the 1970s, all three U.S. automakers began to study ways to modernize and broaden the appeal of their vans. Listening to customers helped Chrysler avoid two crucial design errors: (1) it rejected the long, wedge-shaped nose design and (2) it rejected the design that placed the engine under a hump in the floor (blocking passage from front to back seats). Also, while Chrysler continued to push for front-wheel drive, both Ford and GM handed responsibility of the minivan to the truck divisions, which continued to focus on rear-wheel drive. GM's problems were compounded by the fact that in 1985 station wagons were a significant part of its sales. In the 1990s, both GM and Ford developed front-wheel drive minivans and neither were housed in the truck division. Learning from their mistakes, both GM and Ford devised a new-product development process.
-What do you learn from this case that would help you advise Microsoft in its anticompetitive case with the federal government,or advise Barnes & Noble.com to displace Amazon.com,or advise American Greetings to become the dominant player in the greeting card business? What practical hints,in other words,do you derive from this classic case of analytical problem solving gone awry?

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of Mini-Case:  The Minivan Story. In the May 30, 1994, edition of Fortune magazine, the story of the minivan was told. In the earlier years of the passenger vans, only hippies seemed to appreciate the attributes of the van. However, in the 1970s, all three U.S. automakers began to study ways to modernize and broaden the appeal of their vans. Listening to customers helped Chrysler avoid two crucial design errors: (1) it rejected the long, wedge-shaped nose design and (2) it rejected the design that placed the engine under a hump in the floor (blocking passage from front to back seats). Also, while Chrysler continued to push for front-wheel drive, both Ford and GM handed responsibility of the minivan to the truck divisions, which continued to focus on rear-wheel drive. GM's problems were compounded by the fact that in 1985 station wagons were a significant part of its sales. In the 1990s, both GM and Ford developed front-wheel drive minivans and neither were housed in the truck division. Learning from their mistakes, both GM and Ford devised a new-product development process.
-What do you learn from this case that would help you advise Microsoft in its anticompetitive case with the federal government,or advise Barnes & Noble.com to displace Amazon.com,or advise American Greetings to become the dominant player in the greeting card business? What practical hints,in other words,do you derive from this classic case of analytical problem solving gone awry?

Mini-Case: the Minivan Story