Study Case :
Donna Dubinsky &
Apple Computer, Inc.
Buku : Managing Change; Case &
Concept, Todd D. Jick, McGraw Hill,
second edition, p.286-299
Donna Dubinsky
 Dubinsky, a yale graduate and MBA from
Harvard.
 In 1981, started as customer support liaison
in departmen distribution,service and
support group .
 April 1985, became director of distribution
and sales administration.
 Her management style, caring and honest
relationship with her subordinated.
Company Background
 Founding in 1976
 1977, release Apple II, a home and educational
computer.
 In 1983, Cofounder, Steve Jobs, hired John
Sculley as presidency at Apple
 In 1984, Macintosh first introduced
 By 1985, Apple II sales failed to reach projected
planning levels, causing profitability problems.
 Tension were mounting between Apple II
 Apple attempted to create and solidify a sense of
identity by developing a statement basis of basic
value
Apple Value









Empathy for customers
Achievement / Aggressiveness
Positive Social Contribution
Innovation/vision
Individual Performance
Team Spirit
Quality/excellence
Individual rewards
Good management
Product Distribution At Apple
 Donna Dubinsky in 1984 became distribution
manager with responsibility 6 fields warehouses
and sales adm., inventory control, and customer
relations.
 Because Apple’s operation was primarily design
and assembly, warehousing control for parts, work
in process and finished good were potentially
costly and critical to Apple profits.
 Planning and analysis were luxuries for product
distribution in Apple.
The Distribution Conflict ; September
to December 1984
 The conflict began in September 1984, when Dubinsky
and her boss, Weaver presented the distribution,
services and support for 1985’s plan.
 Jobs, the president complaining that he not receive a
good explanation for current distribution, service and
support cost levels and structure.
 A few later, Jobs meet Fred Smith, CEO of
Federal Express. They talked about Just in Time (JIT)
distribution which been used by IBM for their computer
components.
 Jobs saw a potential for reducing cost in this JIT, which
could eliminate the need for Apple’s warehouse, carrying
costs and extensive inventory.
 JIT projects was been investigated by Job
and Debi Coleman, Director of
manufacturing that JIT could efficiently in
corporate the distribution function.
 The project is more attractive to Jobs
because Macintosh sales were down.
 Dubinsky, however, believed the change
proposed by Jobs was a mistake. She and
Weaver had diffuculty taking this new
distribution idea seriosly.
The Distribution Task Force, January
– April 1985
 The conflict sharpened when Coleman would be
presenting her distribution proposal in executive meeting
in Pajoro Dunes.
 That meeting is messed up, The disagreements grew
between Jobs and Sculley and Jobs was pressuring
Sculley to accept Coleman’s proposal.
 The conflict was resolved by entrust the distribution
problem to task force composed of the parties involved
and a few “neutral” individuals.
 This form of task force disappointed Dubinsky, she still
believe that distribution is her job and Coleman’s
proposal is not just simply suggested improvements, but
it was total change in distribution and manufacturing
strategy, taking Apple from supply driven to demand
driven procedures and reducing the distribution and
warehouse centers from six to zero.
The Ultimatum;
April 19, 1985
 In April 1985, Dubinsky meet Campbell, in
their meeting she acknowledge her previous
blind spot, and she asked for 30 days to get
her own distribution strategy, but without the
interference of task force.
 Campbell doesn’t agree about no
interference by task force.
 Dubinsky give ultimatum: If Campbell did not
agree to her terms, she would leave Apple.
 Campbell was frustrated because he knew
that Jobs was pushing Sculley to accept
Coleman’s plan and Campbell had no
alternative plan from his group to offer
Sculley.
 The task force group made finally report
that they agree that JIT concept was the
best direction for Apple to pursue, but it
had not agreed on feasible implementation
plan.
 This report was reject by Dubinsky