Can you help with write up on questions below:

1)Evaluate Allen's sales calls. Did he have good sales calls? Provide specifics to back up your position?

2) On what date, do you think Allen effectively lost the sale? Why?

• 

Lawford Electric Company (Revised) On February 2, 1979, Mr. Robert Allen, a field sales engineer for the Systems and Controls Division of the Lawford Electric Company, was notified by a letter from Bayfield Milling Company that Bayfield had decided to purchase the drive system for a new shearing line from one of Lawford's competitors. The news was a bitter disappointment to Mr. Allen. This sale, which he had been working on for over a year, would have been a $871,000 order for him. He decided to review his call reports to see whether his failure to secure the order was caused by any flaw in his sales presentation to Bayfield personnel. He was sure that the Lawford equipment was equivalent, if not superior, to that manufactured by his competitors, AG Corporation, Kennedy Electric, and Hamilton Electric. He was just as certain that Bayfield personnel had been scrupulously fair in their decision. Background Information Lawford was one of the oldest, largest, and most respected firms in the electrical equipment industry. It manufactured a broad line of electric motors, generating equipment, and control devices. Its products and service back-up were widely regarded for quality and reliability. Lawford's sales volume in 1978 was in excess of $200 million,, second only to Kennedy Electric in this segment of the electrical equipment industry. Lawford sales executives considered Mr. Allen an above-average sales engineer. His background was similar to that of most of Lawford's 37 field sales engineers. He held a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and was working on his Master's degree in a night program at a local university. He had joined Lawford directly after college graduation in 1968 as an assistant sales engineer, handling routine telephone sales inquiries, and processing and following up on customer orders. He had been promoted to his present position in 1970. A lifelong resident of Buffalo, Mr. Allen considered himself fortunate to be assigned to the Buffalo sales territory-the site of his company's headquarters. He was married, had two young children, and was active in community affairs-Junior Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, and the local chapter of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The Bayfield Milling Company was located in upstate New York, not far from the Lawford headquarters in Buffalo. Bayfield converted strip steel purchased from large steel producers into a variety of forms, for sale to steel supply houses and end users. The company also engaged in a limited steel supply business of its own. Bayfield sales in 1978 were in excess of $80 million. Mr. Allen had been calling on Bayfield regularly during the past eight years. Given the size of his territory, which included the metropolitan areas of Albany, Syracuse and Rochester, and theimportance of Bayfield, whose annual purchases from Lawford occasionally totaled as much as $50,000, Mr. Allen attempted to call on Bayfield at least once a month. During this 8-year period Mr. Allen had formed close business friendships with Bayfield's purchasing agent, Mr. George Gibson, and with several of the company's engineers and operations personnel. The shearing line recently ordered by Bayfield from Magna Machinery Corporation would add a new capability to Bayfield's mill operation, enabling the firm to convert rolled strips of steel into steel sheet of various dimensions. The shearing line would unroll strips of steel at high speed. Because the new equipment could control the speed and tension of the strip at several points along the line, it could trim, flatten and shear the strip into sheets of precise dimensions. The machinery could then convey the finished sheets to a stacking device and ultimately to a pallet for transfer to warehouse, truck, or flat car. The cost of the mechanicals-including uncoiling rolls, pinch rolls, and drag rolls to control tension, plus side trimmers, shears, and conveyors-was about $2 million. The drive system would be about another $900 thousand. Allen's Sales Activity From his call reports, Mr. Allen reconstructed his activities during the period between January 13, 1978, when he learned of Bayfield's need for the new drive system, and February 2, 1979, when he learned that he had lost the sale. January 13, 1978 Called on Gibson. Learned from him that Bayfield was soliciting bids on a drive system for a new shearing line. The line was to be purchased from Magna Machinery Corporation for delivery and installation in January 1980. Preliminary bids on the drive system for the line were due on July 14, 1978. Final bids were due on December 29, 1978, the award to be announced on February 2, 1979. Gibson got very businesslike with me and said that no supplier sales personnel-including staff and management-were to contact Bayfield engineering personnel to discuss product specifications "specs"]. He said that the operations vice president did not want the engineering people bothered, since they would be too busy working on other problems connected with the new shearing line. Instead, all supplier personnel were to work through Gibson, although contact was to be permitted with operations personnel. Gibson gave me the name of the Magna engineer to contact for details of the new line. Gibson said that, judging from the preliminary bids, he would choose four or five suppliers to submit final bids. The final decision would be a joint one made by Gibson, purchasing, Lorenz, chief engineer; Mainwaring, plant superintendent; and Vogel, operations vice president- also not to be contacted in person. Gibson suggested that Lawford would be a cinch to be one of the finalists, but that Vogel and Lorenz would be "pretty hard-nosed" about the final decision. I took this to mean that cost would be an important factor. Returned to the office and wrote the Magna engineer in Cleveland for the specs on the shearing line. Wrote to Albany Fabricators for a testimonial letter about the drive system I sold them last year for their slitting line. Told the boss [Fred Webster, Lawford regional sales manager] about the situation. "Anything I can do to help . . .," he said. Took home for review our general specifications on various Lawford drive components.January 23, 1978 Received specs from Magna [see Exhibit 1]. Took them to Pollack [Lawford's systems design engineer] and asked him to put together a tentative system for the Magna line. Called Mainwaring at Bayfield and made a luncheon date for next week. February 2, 1978 Spent all morning with Gibson. Found out that operations and engineering are in a bad hassle over the drive system specs, but Gibson didn't understand the technicalities of the dispute. Showed him Pollack's tentative ideas. He seemed impressed. Spent about an hour going over the features of our variable voltage speed drives, stressing our static regulators for accurate speed control and our portable control panels. Left him a mountain of literature, including the Albany Fabricators' testimonial letter. Spent $30 on lunch with Mainwaring and his assistant, Hughes. Told Hughes about a good place to buy a boat. Mainwaring denied that his people and engineering were having a hassle; the problem seemed to be that nobody had a clear understanding of what was needed. He added that "maybe the preliminary specs will give us a few ideas." He seemed to feel that engineering would draw up specs with whatever features his operations people wanted. Made a mental note to concentrate my sales efforts on Mainwaring After lunch I went over the same ground with Mainwaring and Hughes that I covered with Gibson, only in more detail. They both seemed concerned with reliability: "down-time kills you." I reminded them that Lawford, being a neighbor, so to speak, was in the best position to provide prompt and regular service. They agreed. Left them with the testimonial letter, a mountain of literature, and a copy of Pollack's proposal. At home that evening I formulated my strategy. Decided to concentrate on Mainwaring at first, emphasizing our service capability and product reliability. After Lawford had passed the preliminary bid stage, I would shift my major effort to Lorenz in order to get a crack at influencing the final specs. Gibson would be "kept on board" throughout. February 17, 1978 Stopped by to check progress with Gibson. Nothing new from him, so I spent some time talking about our mutual activities in Rotary. Arranged a lunch with him, Lorenz, Mainwaring, and my boss, Fred Webster, for the middle of next month. Went to see Mainwaring, but he was out for the day. Hughes and I discussed some developments in systems design that improve reliability. Spent about an hour with the foreman on the cutting floor. He seemed to want a line that would allow fine tolerances in cutting accuracy. Talked to him about the advantages of the Lawford regulator systems as aids in controlling tolerances, due to their high-speed response capabilities. Discovered that two of their four slitting lines are powered by Lawford drive systems, one by a Kennedy system, and one by an A.G. The two Lawford systems were the oldest and the newest. Checked with several operators and they were unanimous in their praise of the Lawford machinery, although one man liked the A G because of the case steel motor enclosure. When I pointed out that this feature made the motor bulky and harder to secure access for service, he remarked that he didn't have to service it but he "sure liked a big, heavy motor." Bought him a Coke and we parted friends.March 14, 1978 Webster bought us all-Lorenz, Mainwaring, Gibson, Hughes, and myself-a magnificent lunch at the country club and made a great pitch about Lawford quality and service. This was the first time that I had met Lorenz-he joined Bayfield less than six months ago. He seemed a sour individual, but he loosened up after the second martini. After lunch I got Gibson aside and asked him about new developments. He now believed, as Mainwaring had previously indicated, that the difficulty seemed to center on uncertainty as to what was needed in the drive system, and not on a dispute about features. He indicated that engineering had stopped working on the specs until after Bayfield had had a chance to look over the preliminary bids. April 10, 1978 Spent the morning with Mainwaring discussing the trade-off between the inertia in a heavy machine, which can provide for an even feed, and the speed of response in a light machine, which allows more precise cutting tolerances. Left him with some additional literature describing Lawford's latest developments in regulator systems, and a paperweight [a scale model of an experimental automobile powered by a Lawford electric motor]. Stopped by to see Gibson and closed a $2,500 order for circuit breakers. May 19, 1978 Spent the day with Pollack working out the details of our tentative bid. His idea, based on my input, was a complete drive system that would include d. c. adjustable voltage drive motors and control equipment, a. c. motors, a static d. c. constant potential power supply, and a static master regulator system. All components would be Lawford-made-a servicing advantage to Bayfield-and would include a one-year warranty and a service contract. Judging by the Magna line specs, I thought that the system offered a perfect compromise between even feed and cutting precision. Webster approved the pricing of $895,000, and I mailed out the bid later that week. May 30, 1978 Checked with Gibson, who grinned when I asked him how our bid looked. He said not to bother him until after July 17. We both laughed and I left for a brief visit on the cutting floor with the foreman. Found him grumbling about the regulatory instability on the older Lawford slitting line drive system. Good-naturedly reminded him that regulators are temperature sensitive and that a drive system of that age deserves congratulations, not criticism. He laughed and said that maybe we should replace it with another. I said that if he meant that Bayfield should replace it with another Lawford, I would take it up immediately with Mainwaring. He laughed again and said that the machine was O.K.; he was only pulling my leg. On the way out I saw my old friend, the A G booster, and I bought him another Coke. July 17, 1978 Gibson telephoned and said that a letter was in the mail inviting Lawford to bid on the final specifications. The other firms invited to bid are Kennedy, A G, and Hamilton. I dug up price lists and specs on our competitors' systems and took them home to study that evening. The Kennedy product line is almost identical to Lawford's. Felt that Kennedy's has about a 5% price advantage over Lawford, item for item. But, on the other hand, their reputation for quality andservice is not as good as Lawford's. Unlike both Kennedy and Lawford, A G and Hamilton don't manufacture all their own components. Lacking unit responsibility, neither of these two companies can offer an extensively field-tested, integrated package. A G could offer more capacity in its regulator system than any of the other companies. This incremental capacity, however, would come at considerable additional cost to Bayfield. I felt that Bayfield would need add-on benefits only if they found themselves in the unlikely circumstance of buying another shearing line. Hamilton equipment I consider over-priced. July 19, 1978 Stopped by to see Gibson. He suggested that our tentative bid was "a little high." Assured him that Lawford would be "rock bottom" once we had the final specs to bid on. Asked him about the committee's thinking on regulator capacity, and he told me to go see Lorenz, but reminded me that supplier personnel could not bother anyone else in the engineering section. Lorenz was free, and I spent about an hour with him talking about our components. He did not seem as concerned about add-on capacity in the regulator system as he did about the systems stability. He said that the operating people were concerned about temperature sensitivity. Since this feature is one of Lawford's strong points, I went into considerable detail with him about our temperature stability. Left him some additional highly technical literature to supplement the literature I had left with Gibson and Mainwaring, which apparently had found its way to Lorenz's desk. August 2, 1978 Gibson told me over the phone that the committee had made no progress on the specs, nor did he expect any progress during August because of vacation schedules. He suggested that I check back after Labor Day. September 12, 1978 Had lunch with Gibson and Lorenz. Both men agreed now that the committee had been in a bind over the specs. From the considerable experience that Bayfield personnel had had with drive systems for smaller lines, such as the slitters, the committee had proceeded on the belief that this experience would be transferable and would therefore make a decision about a drive system for the shearing line relatively easy, despite the increased size and complexity of the operation. Apparently the problem had been a lack of criteria upon which the specs could be developed. Mainwaring had finally recognized this fact after the tentative bids had been opened. Implicit in all the tentative proposals were assumptions about criteria that were, in turn, manifested in a variety of specs. Accordingly, Mainwaring had requested technical assistance from Magna engineers to develop criteria for Bayfield's installation. Mainwaring had just made a two-day visit to Magna headquarters, and had brought these criteria back with him. Bayfield operating and engineering personnel were just beginning to study them. Lorenz expected the final specs to be ready by early November. This news elated me, because I felt that I was now in a position to go to work on Lorenz. I wanted to make sure that the specs included certain features standard with our constant potential power supply and our control panels. Incorporating these features into the final specs would, I felt, give Lawford a big price advantage in the bidding. Since Lorenz was busy that afternoon, I made an appointment to see him the following week.September 20, 1978 Had lunch with Lorenz and spent two more hours with him that afternoon. Covered thoroughly all aspects of our system, with heavy emphasis on standard features in our power supply sets and control panels that reduce the incidence of generator breakdown and control component failure. He listened attentively throughout and asked very few additional questions. He seemed sold on the Lawford benefits. October 4, 1978 Had lunch with Hughes, who told me that Mainwaring had left Bayfield for another job and that he had been promoted to Mainwaring's former position as plant superintendent. Neither Hughes nor Gibson, with whom I talked later that afternoon, cared to go into details. Discussed with Hughes the reliability features that I had discussed with Lorenz, only this time I stressed the benefits from the user's point of view, instead of the cost savings. Over dessert and coffee we discussed the merits of our respective boats. After lunch Gibson and I talked price, but he managed to talk a lot without telling me much. Got the feeling that the operations vice president, Vogel, was upset about "some of the trimmings" that the engineers wanted to write into the specs. November 6, 1978 Received final specs for the drive system in the mail from Gibson. Also got an invitation to make a formal presentation on our bid to Vogel, Lorenz, Hughes, and Gibson on December 27. The specs were a surprise. Bayfield has gone along with our power supply and control features., but is also specifying some special wiring, which is no problem, and a significant amount of additional capacity in the master regulator-which could be a problem. I put Pollack to work drawing up the final proposal and arranged for him and Webster to participate in the formal presentation. November 8, 1978 Called Gibson on the phone to verify the December 27 presentation date. Lawford is to be given one hour for a presentation, as are our three competitors. The alphabet gives us a break; ours will be the last presentation on that day. All four suppliers are expected to hand in their bids at the conclusion of their respective presentations. Asked him a few questions about the specs, and he suggested that I see Lorenz. November 13, 1978 Spent two hours in the morning going over specs with Lorenz, who, it turned out, was a stickler for attention to small details. Gave him a brief pitch on every detail, and he seemed satisfied with my assurances that Lawford could deliver on all its promises. Stopped by to see Hughes, who was quite busy, so I left after ten minutes. Neither he, Gibson, nor Lorenz was available for lunch. December 27, 1978 Our presentation went very well. Webster did a great job on Lawford's reliability and service. Pollack covered thoroughly the technical aspects of our proposed drive system, matching them with all Bayfield's specifications. I concluded with a summary and handed the sealed bid to Vogel. The bid, which Pollack, Webster, and I had agonized over for hours,, was a "rock bottom" $871,000.Lawford Electric Company (Revised) SHO-124 February 2, 1979 After opening Gibson's letter and learning that A G had won the bid, I called Gibson on the phone. He said that all bids had been in the "plus or minus ten thousand dollar range" and that A G had just edged out Lawford. I asked him on what basis. He replied that Vogel, Lorenz, and Hughes had felt the A G system "fitted in better" with the new shearing operation, but each gave different reasons for thinking so. He strongly suggested that holding a post-mortem with the three men, either individually or collectively, would be a waste of time, since all Bayfield personnel concerned in the purchase were relieved that the decision was over and done with. He congratulated me on Lawford's showing and said that he hoped that I did not feel too bad about "coming in second."Exhibit 1 General Description of Magna Shearing Line Drive Machinery Requirements Entry System, consists of: Processor uncoiler, 100 kw., to operate as a drag generator. It is powered from a current-regulated static power supply. The motor field is controlled by a CEMF regulator. The combination of the two regulator systems will ensure constant horsepower control over the full range of coil diameter. Processor, 500 hp. motor powered from a voltage-regulated static power supply. The No. 1 Loop regular controls processor speed. No. 1 Finch Roll, two 30 hp. motors powered from a current-regulated static power supply. Side Trimmer, 250 hp. motor, and side trimmer Pinch Roll. 30 hp., powered from a voltage-regulated static power supply. No. 2 Pinch Roll, two 30 hp. motors powered from a voltage-regulated static power supply. The No. 2 Loop regulator controls the side trimmer and No. 2 Loop Pinch Roll speed. Temper Mill System, consists of: The No. I Bridle, three 120 hp. and one 200 hp. motor to be powered from a current-regulated static power supply. These motors are to operate as drag generators, with tachometer generator for speed indication. Temper Mill, Top-600 hp., Bottom-600 hp., powered from a speed-regulated static power supply. One tachometer generator for speed indication and another for speed regulation. No. 2 Bridle, one 200 hp., one 120 hp., two 250 hp., powered a static power supply which will be current-regulated if the temper mill is used, and speed-regulated when the temper mill is not used. A tachometer generator will provide the speed signal for regulation. A voltage-regulated static power supply will be used to power No. 3 Loop Pinch Roll, two 20 hp. motors when shearing. It will also be used to power a deflector roll, 7.5 hp., and an oiling machine, 20 hp., when the line is run for coiling. The No. 3 Loop regulator, used only when shearing, controls the entire mill system speed. The No. 1 Bridle is always used whether shearing or recoiling, and is current-regulated for tension control. The temper mill may be open or closed when either recoiling or shearing. If mill is closed, the No. 2 Bridle is current-regulated. If mill is open, the rolls will not touch the strip and the No. 2 Bridle is speed-regulated. If the mill is closed, it sets the speed of the mill system. If open, the No. 2 Bridle sets mill system speed.Lawford Electric Company (Revised) SH0-124 Exhibit 1 (continued) Tension Reel-Hallden Shear System consists of: Tension Reel, 500 hp. motor, powered from a current-regulated static power supply. The motor field is controlled by a CEMF Regulator. The two regulator combination will regulate for constant hp. through the entire coil buildup. Hallden Shear, 400 hp. motor, powered from the same static power supply as the tension reel, except that now it will be voltage-regulated. The speed signal provided by a tachometer generator, driven by the shear leveler,, will be the reference to the conveyor section. The maximum line of speed when shearing is 350 f.p.m." at a rated voltage. When recoiling, the system's line speed can be increased by field weakening on some of the drives from 500 f.p.m. to 1000 f.p.m., as outlined earlier. A selector switch on the main desk can preset the speed at 500 f.p.m. or 1000 f.p.m. Interlocking will be provided to prevent change while the line is running- When shearing, the Hallden Shear is the keynoter for the section beyond the shear. However, the line reference for the line as either a recoiling or shearing up to and through the shear is provided by the line reference motor-operated rheostat. Conveyor and Leveler System, consists of: The drives beyond the shear through Prime Pinch Roll (excluding the leveler), as shown on the single line, powered from a voltage-regulated semi-converter static power supply. The strip leveler, 400 hp. motor, powered from a speed-regulated static power supply. This section will have a fixed minimum speed of 75 f.p.m. The drives are geared at 400 f.p.m., with field weakening to 450 f.p.m. on all those drives beyond the Mckay Leveler