MEMO TO: Leon Lassiter FROM: Elbay Aliyev SUBJECT: Midsouth Chamber of Commerce (B): Cleaning Up an Information Systems Debacle One of the first mistakes on behalf of MSCC was the fact that nothing was learned from past mistakes and the company relied on DMA too much. Even though any company can go through financial difficulties, much larger organizations could have a big capability of handling such difficulties and provide long-term support of a product for their clients. Another major source of the problems within the MSCC has come from negligent decision making of Gramen. The company has made the decision to move on from UNITRAK once Gramen was hired to replace Kovecki. The reason why Gramen was not a good candidate for a position is that he was extremely familiar with HP system, whereas the currently operating systems have been running on IBM AS/400.
Under this situation, if the other members just conform blindly for the fear of being left alone by others, the out-of-date food sold in the market might hurt the health of the consumers and negatively harm the company’s long term benefit in the end. On the other hand, there is also another reason why we should avoid conformity that is because to conform blindly to the former conclusion might limit the process of innovation. Think about all the great inventions in human history, none of them is result of conformity but instead they are the result inventor’s innovation and the result of breaking the stereotype. Only by getting rid of conformity can we increase the speed of a society’s
The integral part of the problem was also identified in poor differentiation of “non-sell” and “selling” time. The company also used sales per hour ratio as the leading factor in performance evaluation and work compensation. This performance indicator was not properly balanced by other factors, such as customer satisfaction, in actual work compensation. My suggestions for designing a motivation program for Nordstrom would include a system to reward the employees for the work they do and not hurt them for time spent in meetings and shelving. They should set up a system that encourages the employees to “go the extra mile” without penalizing them on their hours.
We thought that Product Innovation was the most important key success factor along with quality, and global strategy. We didn’t think that cost competitiveness was that important because Nike, Under Armour, and Adidas aren’t a best cost provider in fact they seem to be a differentiated provider. We believed that Under Armour was better than the other companies in product innovation because of all their advanced moisture-wicking fabric. Global strategy was also really important to us because that company has to focus on other countries besides the one that it is in. And with Under Armour struggling with their sales revenue in foreign countries we gave them a nine compared to Nike that we felt was a ten because a lot of their revenue comes from other countries.
The company was unable to maintain and manage the bonus incentive plan that they had in place before the crisis. The employees started to complain about the company’s policies and its situation also by underperforming, which in turn leads to low productivity. The manager Ron Bent had to figure out a way to address these problems, and come up with solutions so that the company can continue operating and supplying its clients. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant was facing the problem of not being able to keep their employees motivated in both good and bad times. The bonuses were perceived as being part of their regular paycheck, not rewards for high performance, which in long-term lead to de-motivation.
Because of the lack of passion, the middle or center most position will never garner the enthusiasm that fuels the fiery rhetoric and mass protests that the more polar positions wield. But I believe that by far, the most productive and sustainable legislation and business practices always come from the center. Therefore it is my recommendation that the public at large look at the lessons of the past and see that neither a pro-business nor a pro-regulatory climate is the most beneficial one. I believe that the best answer, the best solution, the most sustainable outcome will be the one closest to the center. Bibliography Alan Nevins, study in power: John D Rockefeller (New York: Scribner, 1953) p. 443 Business government and society a managerial perspective 13th edition, Steiner
Break Breaker Inc. to some extent obey with some legal rules, but failed to comply with principles of morality and community, contribute to the society by producing honest high quality services, and account the consequence of damaging their reputation. I think that Solomon’s argument is fairly accurate, but everyone’s views are different on this. Some actions may be acceptable to some but unacceptable to others. Ethics provides the bigger picture in the business life and it must be understood. In my opinion, nothing is more dangerous to a business than a bad public image caused by being unethical.
Because implementing time-logistics was the sales decline that resulted from “deloading the channel” which could lead to false sense of expected sales and anticipatory inventory. Another defect of time-based logistics is the investment in technology. This investment was not a one-time deal which means the company needs to reinvest to upgrade technology has remained constant from the start. Especially locally owned stores and start-ups did not want it because of the initial investment. 2.
The management lacks policies and visible support for quality standards. Although they have recently hired Hank Kolb to oversee their quality program, which is a good decision, the lack of support from senior management for quality is very apparent. It was evident in launching the Greasex line to gain market share without testing the processes involved in making the product as well as ensuring safety requirements are achieved. They saw quality as only a secondary added value. The personnel department is the first department to be interviewed.
In their study, Cassell et al. (2001) found that few of the owners/managers of SMEs do not believe in the appropriateness and potential of benchmarking because the expected outcomes are not immediate and considerable time and resources are needed for completion of the activity. The survey conducted by Adebanjo et al. (2010) in both LEs and SMEs context reported that the organizations do not use benchmarking due to lack of resources, unavailability of suitable benchmarking partners, lack of understanding and technical knowledge of benchmarking activity, high cost and time duration, inability to assess the benefits of benchmarking, lack of top management interest and support. Panwar et al.