Critical Thinking Case Study: Wal-Mart’s Global Strategies

/0 Comments/in /by

In Chapters 8 and 9, we reviewed several types of global expansion strategies a company can undertake when entering new markets. For this assignment, you will read Walmart’s Global Strategies case study and then respond to the following questions and make decisions based on those questions.
1. What was Walmart’s early global expansion strategy? Was this a good strategy for Walmart? Why or why not? 2. What cultural problems did Walmart face in some of the international markets it entered?
Now, assume the role as the Director of Walmart’s global strategic planning team and you have been tasked to explore the benefits and
challenges of expansion into one of the following regions. Choose one of the following regions and describe the opportunities and challenges in
that region. Summarize the cultural environment, choose an entry strategy from the text, and describe how you would implement this entry strategy. Make sure you are very detailed in your explanation.
Regions:
● Latin America ● European Union ● Southeast Asia ● Russia ● Middle East

Employee at Will (Case of Casias vs. Wal-Mart )

/0 Comments/in /by

Read the case Casias vs. Wal-Mart and summarize:

  • Background
  • Considerations by CEO
  • Considerations by Casias’ Attorney
  • Conclusion

PESTEL and VRIO Company Analysis (Case Study of Lululemon Company)

/0 Comments/in /by

Write A Report With the Following Guidelines
Assignment is on the Company Lululemon

  • 7 page report of their company and its strategic situation and recommended possible course of action to address course of action.
  • The report will be in APA format,
  • use a minimum of 3 credible sources (each source must be cited in-text within the paper as well as listed at the end).
  • .  A great source of information on this report, in addition to the information below, is the class textbook and pages 528-533  (Rothaermel, 4th ed.) which provides tips on doing case analysis.

Additionally, write the report with the following headers:

  • Company Name and Industry:
  • Mission statement: (direct quote expected)
  • Vision statement: (if available and as direct quote)
  • Basic facts: Year of founding, annual revenues, number of employees, major products and/or services
  • Company Background: this portion will be the beginning of the company’s narrative, as told in the student’s own words.  Quotes may be sparingly used, paraphrasing should be the norm.  The background should go back at least 5 -10 years, but be aware longer time frames may be relevant. especially for long-standing, “brick and mortar” businesses (WalMart, Target, IBM, etc.).

Part 2
Your Report Should Also Include:

  • A Qualitative Analysis (see page 529 of Rothaermel, 4th ed):
    Students should include in the narrative any relevant PESTEL external factors that appear in the research as impacting the company as well as internal competencies under VRIO framework and make note of them for the reader.  One short case study showing the use of VRIO analysis is in Chapter 4 of the text, detailing the rise and fall  of Groupon.
  • Business and corporate-level strategies. For more specifics, see items 1,2, and 3 on page 529.
  • Major Strategic Issues and Challenges:  This is the second part of the narrative that zeroes in on struggles for the company and its leadership.   Issues could come from PESTEL-related factors or ones internal to the company (alleged corruption, sexual harassment scandals, lack of innovation, etc.).
  • Part 3
  • recommendations of possible courses of action that the company should take to address their strategic challenges.
  • The recommendations should be informed after thoughtful consideration of subject matter from the course textbook as well as insights gleaned from your own research.

 
Page 529 from Rothaermel, 4th ed
How to Conduct a Case Analysis
THE CASE STUDY is a fundamental learning tool in strategic management. We carefully wrote and chose the cases in this book to expose you to a wide variety of key concepts, industries, protagonists, and strategic problems.
In simple terms, cases tell the story of a company facing a strategic dilemma. The firms may be real or fictional in nature, and the problem may be current or one that the firm faced in the past. Although the details of the cases vary, in general they start with a description of the challenge(s) to be addressed, followed by the history of the firm up until the decision point, and then additional information to help you with your analysis. The strategic dilemma is often faced by a specific manager, who wonders what he or she should do. To address the strategic dilemma, you will use the AFI framework to conduct a case analysis as well as the strategic management tools and concepts provided in this textbook. After careful analysis, you will be able to formulate a strategic response and make recommendations about how to implement it.
Why Do We Use Cases?
Strategy is something that people learn by doing; it cannot be learned simply by reading a book or listening carefully in class. While those activities will help you become more familiar with the concepts and models used in strategic management, the only way to improve your skills in analyzing, formulating, and implementing strategy is to practice.
We encourage you to take advantage of the cases in this text as a “laboratory” in which to experiment with the strategic management tools you have been given, so that you can learn more about how, when, and where they might work in the “real world.” Cases are valuable because they expose you to a number and variety of situations in which you can refine your strategic management skills without worrying about making mistakes. The companies in these cases will not lose profits or fire you if you miscalculate a financial ratio, misinterpret someone’s intentions, or make an incorrect prediction about environmental trends.
Cases also invite you to “walk in” and explore many more kinds of companies in a wider array of industries than you will ever be able to work at in your lifetime. With this strategy content, you will find MiniCases (i.e., shorter cases) about athletes (Michael Phelps), mass media and entertainment (Disney), technology (Apple), and entertainment (Cirque du Soleil), among others, as well as longer cases with complete financial data about companies such as Facebook, Tesla, McDonald’s, to name just a few. Your personal organizational experiences are usually much more limited, defined by the jobs held by your family members or by your own forays into the working world. Learning about companies involved in so many different types of products and services may open up new employment possibilities for you. Diversity also forces us to think about the ways in which industries (as well as people) are both similar and yet distinct, and to critically examine the degree to which lessons learned in one forum transfer to other settings (i.e., to what degree are they “generalizable”). In short, cases are a great training tool, and they are fun to study.
You will find that many of our cases are written from the perspective of the CEO or general manager responsible for strategic decision making in the organization. While you do not need to be a member of a top management team to utilize the strategic management process, these senior leaders are usually responsible for determining strategy in most of the organizations we study. Importantly, cases allow us to put ourselves “in the shoes” of strategic leaders and invite us to view the issues from their perspective. Having responsibility for the performance of an entire organization is quite different from managing a single project team, department, or functional area. Cases can help Page 529you see the big picture in a way that most of us are not accustomed to in our daily, organizational lives. We recognize that most undergraduate students and even MBAs do not land immediately in the corporate boardroom. Yet having a basic understanding of the types of conversations going on in the boardroom not only increases your current value as an employee, but also improves your chances of getting there someday, should you so desire.
Finally, cases help give us a long-term view of the firms they depict. Corporate history is immensely helpful in understanding how a firm got to its present position and why people within that organization think the way they do. Our case authors (both the author of this book and authors of cases from respected third-party sources) have spent many hours poring over historical documents and news reports in order to recreate each company’s heritage for you, a luxury that most of us do not have when we are bombarded on a daily basis with homework, tests, and papers or project team meetings, deadlines, and reports. We invite you not just to learn from but also to savor reading each company’s story.
STRATEGIC CASE ANALYSIS
The first step in analyzing a case is to skim it for the basic facts. As you read, jot down your notes regarding the following basic questions:

  • ▪What company or companies is the case about?
  • ▪Who are the principal actors?
  • ▪What are the key events? When and where do they happen (in other words, what is the timeline)?

Second, go back and reread the case in greater detail, this time with a focus on defining the problem. Which facts are relevant and why? Just as a doctor begins by interviewing the patient (“What hurts?”), you likewise gather information and then piece the clues together in order to figure out what is wrong. Your goal at this stage is to identify the “symptoms” in order to figure out which “tests” to run in order to make a definitive “diagnosis” of the main “disease.” Only then can you prescribe a “treatment” with confidence that it will actually help the situation. Rushing too quickly through this stage often results in “malpractice” (that is, giving a patient with an upset stomach an antacid when she really has the flu), with effects that range from unhelpful to downright dangerous. The best way to ensure that you “do no harm” is to analyze the facts carefully, fighting the temptation to jump right to proposing a solution.
The third step, continuing the medical analogy, is to determine which analytical tools will help you to most accurately diagnose the problem(s). Doctors may choose to run blood tests or take an X-ray. In doing case analysis, we follow the steps of the strategic management process. You have any and all of the following models and frameworks at your disposal:

  1. Perform an external environmental analysis of the:
    • ▪Macro-level environment (PESTEL analysis).
    • ▪Industry environment (e.g., Porter’s five forces).
    • ▪Competitive environment.
  2. Perform an internal analysis of the firm using the resource-based view:
    • ▪What are the firm’s resources, capabilities, and competencies?
    • ▪Does the firm possess valuable, rare, costly to imitate resources, and is it organized to capture value from those resources (VRIO analysis)?
    • ▪What is the firm’s value chain?
  3. Analyze the firm’s current business-level and corporate-level strategies:
    • ▪Business-level strategy (product market positioning).
    • ▪Corporate-level strategy (diversification).
    • ▪International strategy (geographic scope and mode of entry).
    • ▪How are these strategies being implemented?
  4. Analyze the firm’s performance:
    • ▪Use both financial and market-based measures.
    • ▪How does the firm compare to its competitors as well as the industry average?
    • ▪What trends are evident over the past three to five years?
    • ▪Consider the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (internal and external).
    • ▪Does the firm possess a competitive advantage? If so, can it be sustained?

Case Brief Assignment (Law paper)

/0 Comments/in /by

Instructions
Step 1: Go to this webpage: http://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings-alpha
Select one case in which there are many related documents provided. Here is an example of one that contains enough information to get started on your paper: http://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-american-bar-association Try to select a more recent case because you are likely to find more information online regarding the case.
Step 2: Read the case documents and do some independent research for other information or perspectives on the case. For example, google it to find news reports and journal articles.
Step 3: Write a paper on the case (4-5 pages, double-spaced) in MICROSOFT WORD. Any submissions not written in Microsoft Word will receive a score of zero. Your paper will be organized to include the following sections; put a title on your paper, the legal name of the case (Ex. U.S. v. American Bar Association), your name, and each of these number sections. You should abbreviate the section headings (for example, Section 1. Overview of the Case.):
1. Overview of the case: including a description of the alleged illegal business practice(s) and who were the participants in the case.
2. A summary of the legal accusations in the case.
3. A summary of any analysis relevant to the case.
4. Explain the outcome of the case (what was the final ruling or decision in the case).
5. Provide two or three concluding paragraphs on your own thoughts about the case.
6. Make sure you use proper citations/references to give proper credit to your sources of information including the case chapter and the book I told you to use. Any accepted, consistent citation/references methodology may be used.

People, Management, and Organization (PMO) Individual Assignment (Case Study)

/0 Comments/in /by

PMO Individual Assignment (Case Study)
Read the case study ‘Managing change at Cox’s Container Company’. The case or a link to
the case can be found on Blackboard and the full reference for this case study is:
Corbett, J. M. (1994) Critical cases in organisational behaviour (Palgrave/Macmillan), pp.
154-155 (Case 33).
Answer the following question:
Outline and analyse the problems confronting CCC in the short and long term and offer
recommendations for their resolution.
Further guidance:
Please note that you should draw upon material from any or all sections of the OB unit as
appropriate. This is a case that says a lot about organizational structures and cultures and
processes of managing change (as well as motivations and power) and which also invites
you to examine these issues in some depth (although choices about how much breadth and
depth to go into will inevitably have to be made due to the word limit).
For further detailed guidance, please make sure you read very carefully the attached A1 Case Study
Guidelines, which sets out at the end how the case study will be marked. Your answer should use the
case study format outlined in that guide and should be 2,000 words in length (+/- 10% and excluding
references).

Enron Scandal (Case Study)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Enron Corporate Scandal Case
The story of Enron Corporation depicts a company that reached dramatic heights only to face a
dizzying fall. The fated company’s collapse affected thousands of employees and shook Wall
Street to its core. At Enron’s peak, its shares were worth $90.75; when the firm declared
bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, they were trading at $0.26. To this day, many wonder how
such a powerful business, at the time one of the largest companies in the United States,
disintegrated almost overnight. Also difficult to fathom is how its leadership managed to fool
regulators for so long with fake holdings and off-the-books accounting.
Enron was formed in 1985 following a merger between Houston Natural Gas Company and
Omaha-based InterNorth Incorporated. Following the merger, Kenneth Lay, who had been the
chief executive officer (CEO) of Houston Natural Gas, became Enron’s CEO and chairman. Lay
quickly rebranded Enron into an energy trader and supplier. Deregulation of the energy markets allowed companies to place bets on future prices, and Enron was poised to take advantage. In
1990, Lay created the Enron Finance Corporation and appointed Jeffrey Skilling, whose work as
a McKinsey & Company consultant had impressed Lay, to head the new corporation. Skilling was
then one of the youngest partners at McKinsey.
Skilling joined Enron at an auspicious time. The era’s minimal regulatory environment allowed
Enron to flourish. At the end of the 1990s, the dot-com bubble was in full swing, and the Nasdaq
hit 5,000. Revolutionary internet stocks were being valued at preposterous levels and,
consequently, most investors and regulators simply accepted spiking share prices as the new
normal.
One of Skilling’s early contributions was to transition Enron’s accounting from a traditional
historical cost accounting method to mark-to-market (MTM) accounting method, for which the
company received official SEC approval in 1992. MTM is a measure of the fair value of accounts
that can change over time, such as assets and liabilities. Mark-to-market aims to provide a
realistic appraisal of an institution’s or company’s current financial situation, and it is a legitimate
and widely used practice. However, in some cases, the method can be manipulated, since MTM
is not based on “actual” cost but on “fair value,” which is harder to pin down. Some believe MTM
was the beginning of the end for Enron as it essentially permitted the organization to log
estimated profits as actual profits.
Enron created Enron Online (EOL) in October 1999, an electronic trading website that focused
on commodities. Enron was the counterparty to every transaction on EOL; it was either the buyer
or the seller. To entice participants and trading partners, Enron offered its reputation, credit, and
expertise in the energy sector. Enron was praised for its expansions and ambitious projects, and it was named “America’s Most Innovative Company” by Fortune for six consecutive years
between 1996 and 2001.
One of the many unwitting players in the Enron scandal was Blockbuster, the former juggernaut
video rental chain. In July 2000, Enron Broadband Services and Blockbuster entered a
partnership to enter the burgeoning VOD market. The VOD market was a sensible pick, but
Enron started logging expected earnings based on the expected growth of the VOD market,
which vastly inflated the numbers.
By mid-2000, EOL was executing nearly $350 billion in trades. When the dot-com bubble began
to burst, Enron decided to build high-speed broadband telecom networks. Hundreds of millions of
dollars were spent on this project, but the company ended up realizing almost no return.
When the recession hit in 2000, Enron had significant exposure to the most volatile parts of the
market. As a result, many trusting investors and creditors found themselves on the losing end of
a vanishing market cap.
By the fall of 2000, Enron was starting to crumble under its own weight. CEO Jeffrey Skilling hid
the financial losses of the trading business and other operations of the company using mark-tomarket accounting. This technique measures the value of a security based on its current market
value instead of its book value. This can work well when trading securities, but it can be
disastrous for actual businesses.
In Enron’s case, the company would build an asset, such as a power plant, and immediately
claim the projected profit on its books, even though the company had not made one dime from
the asset. If the revenue from the power plant was less than the projected amount, instead of
taking the loss, the company would then transfer the asset to an off-the-books corporation where the loss would go unreported. This type of accounting enabled Enron to write off unprofitable
activities without hurting its bottom line.
The mark-to-market practice led to schemes that were designed to hide the losses and make the
company appear more profitable than it really was. To cope with the mounting liabilities, Andrew
Fastow, a rising star who was promoted to chief financial officer in 1998, developed a deliberate
plan to show that the company was in sound financial shape despite the fact that many of its
subsidiaries were losing money.
Fastow and others at Enron orchestrated a scheme to use off-balance-sheet special purpose
vehicles (SPVs), also known as special purposes entities (SPEs), to hide its mountains of debt
and toxic assets from investors and creditors. The primary aim of these SPVs was to hide
accounting realities rather than operating results.
The standard Enron-to-SPV transaction would be the following: Enron would transfer some of its
rapidly rising stock to the SPV in exchange for cash or a note. The SPV would subsequently use
the stock to hedge an asset listed on Enron’s balance sheet. In turn, Enron would guarantee the
SPV’s value to reduce apparent counterparty risk.
Although their aim was to hide accounting realities, the SPVs were not illegal. But they were
different from standard debt securitization in several significant—and potentially disastrous—
ways. One major difference was that the SPVs were capitalized entirely with Enron stock. This
directly compromised the ability of the SPVs to hedge if Enron’s share prices fell. Just as
dangerous as the second significant difference: Enron’s failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
Enron disclosed the SPVs’ existence to the investing public—although it’s certainly likely that few
people understood them—it failed to adequately disclose the non-arm’s-length deals between the company and the SPVs.
Enron believed that their stock price would continue to appreciate—a belief similar to that
embodied by Long-Term Capital Management, a large hedge fund, before its collapse in 1998.
Eventually, Enron’s stock declined. The values of the SPVs also fell, forcing Enron’s guarantees
to take effect.
INSTRUCTION:
This is 1997. Your firm has been employed as an independent consultant to the board of
directors of JAX; a company in similar core businesses as ENRON. This company is seen as
very innovative and also one of the majors of the energy industry. A preliminary independent
audit has revealed that JAX is guilty of similar unethical practices as ENRON. Your job is to give
recommendations based on the limited information available. Your recommendation should be
relevant to the key issues at stake, have reasonable basis, and should be actionable.
QUESTIONS:
a. What are the key issues in this case?
a. Who do these issues affect the most?
b. Who is responsible for these issues?
b. What is likely to be the root cause of these issues?
c. What conditions would a good solution fulfill?
d. What are some alternative ways in which the problem(s) can be solved?
e. Which of these actions/combinations of actions represents the best solution? Why? Why not the others?
f. What are the possible problems/limitations of this solution?
g. How would the solution be implemented?
a. Timing
b. Resource Requirements
c. Stakeholder buy-in

Enron Scandal (Case Study)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Enron Corporate Scandal Case
The story of Enron Corporation depicts a company that reached dramatic heights only to face a
dizzying fall. The fated company’s collapse affected thousands of employees and shook Wall
Street to its core. At Enron’s peak, its shares were worth $90.75; when the firm declared
bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, they were trading at $0.26. To this day, many wonder how
such a powerful business, at the time one of the largest companies in the United States,
disintegrated almost overnight. Also difficult to fathom is how its leadership managed to fool
regulators for so long with fake holdings and off-the-books accounting.
Enron was formed in 1985 following a merger between Houston Natural Gas Company and
Omaha-based InterNorth Incorporated. Following the merger, Kenneth Lay, who had been the
chief executive officer (CEO) of Houston Natural Gas, became Enron’s CEO and chairman. Lay
quickly rebranded Enron into an energy trader and supplier. Deregulation of the energy markets allowed companies to place bets on future prices, and Enron was poised to take advantage. In
1990, Lay created the Enron Finance Corporation and appointed Jeffrey Skilling, whose work as
a McKinsey & Company consultant had impressed Lay, to head the new corporation. Skilling was
then one of the youngest partners at McKinsey.
Skilling joined Enron at an auspicious time. The era’s minimal regulatory environment allowed
Enron to flourish. At the end of the 1990s, the dot-com bubble was in full swing, and the Nasdaq
hit 5,000. Revolutionary internet stocks were being valued at preposterous levels and,
consequently, most investors and regulators simply accepted spiking share prices as the new
normal.
One of Skilling’s early contributions was to transition Enron’s accounting from a traditional
historical cost accounting method to mark-to-market (MTM) accounting method, for which the
company received official SEC approval in 1992. MTM is a measure of the fair value of accounts
that can change over time, such as assets and liabilities. Mark-to-market aims to provide a
realistic appraisal of an institution’s or company’s current financial situation, and it is a legitimate
and widely used practice. However, in some cases, the method can be manipulated, since MTM
is not based on “actual” cost but on “fair value,” which is harder to pin down. Some believe MTM
was the beginning of the end for Enron as it essentially permitted the organization to log
estimated profits as actual profits.
Enron created Enron Online (EOL) in October 1999, an electronic trading website that focused
on commodities. Enron was the counterparty to every transaction on EOL; it was either the buyer
or the seller. To entice participants and trading partners, Enron offered its reputation, credit, and
expertise in the energy sector. Enron was praised for its expansions and ambitious projects, and it was named “America’s Most Innovative Company” by Fortune for six consecutive years
between 1996 and 2001.
One of the many unwitting players in the Enron scandal was Blockbuster, the former juggernaut
video rental chain. In July 2000, Enron Broadband Services and Blockbuster entered a
partnership to enter the burgeoning VOD market. The VOD market was a sensible pick, but
Enron started logging expected earnings based on the expected growth of the VOD market,
which vastly inflated the numbers.
By mid-2000, EOL was executing nearly $350 billion in trades. When the dot-com bubble began
to burst, Enron decided to build high-speed broadband telecom networks. Hundreds of millions of
dollars were spent on this project, but the company ended up realizing almost no return.
When the recession hit in 2000, Enron had significant exposure to the most volatile parts of the
market. As a result, many trusting investors and creditors found themselves on the losing end of
a vanishing market cap.
By the fall of 2000, Enron was starting to crumble under its own weight. CEO Jeffrey Skilling hid
the financial losses of the trading business and other operations of the company using mark-tomarket accounting. This technique measures the value of a security based on its current market
value instead of its book value. This can work well when trading securities, but it can be
disastrous for actual businesses.
In Enron’s case, the company would build an asset, such as a power plant, and immediately
claim the projected profit on its books, even though the company had not made one dime from
the asset. If the revenue from the power plant was less than the projected amount, instead of
taking the loss, the company would then transfer the asset to an off-the-books corporation where the loss would go unreported. This type of accounting enabled Enron to write off unprofitable
activities without hurting its bottom line.
The mark-to-market practice led to schemes that were designed to hide the losses and make the
company appear more profitable than it really was. To cope with the mounting liabilities, Andrew
Fastow, a rising star who was promoted to chief financial officer in 1998, developed a deliberate
plan to show that the company was in sound financial shape despite the fact that many of its
subsidiaries were losing money.
Fastow and others at Enron orchestrated a scheme to use off-balance-sheet special purpose
vehicles (SPVs), also known as special purposes entities (SPEs), to hide its mountains of debt
and toxic assets from investors and creditors. The primary aim of these SPVs was to hide
accounting realities rather than operating results.
The standard Enron-to-SPV transaction would be the following: Enron would transfer some of its
rapidly rising stock to the SPV in exchange for cash or a note. The SPV would subsequently use
the stock to hedge an asset listed on Enron’s balance sheet. In turn, Enron would guarantee the
SPV’s value to reduce apparent counterparty risk.
Although their aim was to hide accounting realities, the SPVs were not illegal. But they were
different from standard debt securitization in several significant—and potentially disastrous—
ways. One major difference was that the SPVs were capitalized entirely with Enron stock. This
directly compromised the ability of the SPVs to hedge if Enron’s share prices fell. Just as
dangerous as the second significant difference: Enron’s failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
Enron disclosed the SPVs’ existence to the investing public—although it’s certainly likely that few
people understood them—it failed to adequately disclose the non-arm’s-length deals between the company and the SPVs.
Enron believed that their stock price would continue to appreciate—a belief similar to that
embodied by Long-Term Capital Management, a large hedge fund, before its collapse in 1998.
Eventually, Enron’s stock declined. The values of the SPVs also fell, forcing Enron’s guarantees
to take effect.
INSTRUCTION:
This is 1997. Your firm has been employed as an independent consultant to the board of
directors of JAX; a company in similar core businesses as ENRON. This company is seen as
very innovative and also one of the majors of the energy industry. A preliminary independent
audit has revealed that JAX is guilty of similar unethical practices as ENRON. Your job is to give
recommendations based on the limited information available. Your recommendation should be
relevant to the key issues at stake, have reasonable basis, and should be actionable.
QUESTIONS:
a. What are the key issues in this case?
a. Who do these issues affect the most?
b. Who is responsible for these issues?
b. What is likely to be the root cause of these issues?
c. What conditions would a good solution fulfill?
d. What are some alternative ways in which the problem(s) can be solved?
e. Which of these actions/combinations of actions represents the best solution? Why? Why not the others?
f. What are the possible problems/limitations of this solution?
g. How would the solution be implemented?
a. Timing
b. Resource Requirements
c. Stakeholder buy-in

Team Performance Dynamics (Case Study)

/0 Comments/in /by

Team Performance Dynamics – Everest Case Study 
Instructions
This essay is based on a case study about what went wrong on an expedition to climb Mount Everest. Two conceptual areas will be talked about, Team Psychological Safety and Sunk Cost Fallacy. The essay will be about what those are and how they contributed to the disaster of the expedition. Examples and useful material provided.

Human Factors In Aviation (Culture Case Study)

/0 Comments/in /by

Human Factors In Aviation (Culture Case Study)
Instructions
Students shall choose an organization to research and analyze its corporate/safety culture. There is no constraint on which organization is chosen as long as sufficient research and analysis may be conducted to meet the assignment rubric.
 The assignment is due by the start of class on February 22nd.
 Students shall address either item 1A or 1B based on whether or not their chosen organization has a mission/value/vision/etc. statement.
 Students shall address either item #2 or #3.
 Students shall utilize APA format to include:
o Title page
o Abstract
o Main Body (4-6 pages)
o References
o Times New Roman, 12 pt font, double spaced
 Word document format preferred.
 File name format: CCS_YourLastName.doc
Items to be covered:
1A. Does your organization have a mission/vision/value statement?
a. Analyze this statement and how well your organization promotes and follows its vison.
1B. If your organization does not have a mission/vision/value statement, develop one.
a. How would you recommend management incorporate this change?
b. How do you think this would impact your organization’s effectiveness?
2. Analyze your organization based on the Five P’s of Corporate Culture.
a. Is it an actively or passively managed culture?
b. How well does your organization cultivate its core culture?
c. How aware of the core principles are the average employees?
d. Make three (3) recommendations for improvements.
3. Analyze your organization’s safety culture.
a. Is it an actively or passively managed culture?
a. How well does your organization cultivate its safety culture?
c. How aware of safety and safety principles are the average employees?
d. Make three (3) recommendations to improve your organization’s safety culture.

SWOT Analysis for Volkswagen

/0 Comments/in /by

Carry out a SWOT Analysis for Volkswagen. What are the key strategies that the company need to implement to overcome threats, minimize weaknesses, and exploit current opportunities (1,750 words)