No, I do not agree with the ruling of this case. For one reason that “Section 504 of the

2 1 PLEASE SHOW WHICH PART IS QUESTION 1 AND WHICH PART

2

1

PLEASE SHOW WHICH PART IS QUESTION 1 AND WHICH PART IS QUESTION 2 SO ON.

Looking ahead to the next 5 years, give us 2 competing scenarios (2 futures) that you feel describe the future of a sector in Canada (retail, healthcare, education, environment, finance, and technology). Then select one of your classmate’s most likely scenario and explain why.

2. Identify a problem related to the negative impact of globalization, and speculate, using the tools we have learned about design thinking, what innovative approach or solutions might be applied to that problem and to the problems suggested by your classmates.

3.What do you feel you did (or did not?) “take away” from our course. Do you anticipate that you might apply design thinking in your own life?

Case Study # 2

Adapted from: Project Management, Second Edition

By: Harold Kerzner, Ph.D. (2006)

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

Greyson Corporation

Greyson Corporation was formed in 1940 by three scientists from the University of California. The major purpose of the company was research and development for advanced military weaponry. Following World War II, Greyson became a leader in the field of research and development. By the mid-1950s, Greyson employed over 200 scientists and engineers.

The fact that Greyson handled only R&D contracts was advantageous. First of all, all of the scientists and engineers were dedicated to R&D activities, not having to share their loyalties with production programs. Second, a strong functional organization was established. The project management function was the responsibility of the functional manager whose department would perform the majority of the work. Working relationships between departments were excellent.

By the late 1950s Greyson was under new management. Almost all R&D programs called for establishment of qualification and production planning as well. As a result, Greyson decided to enter into the production of military weapons as well, and capture some of the windfall profits of the production market. This required a major reorganization from a functional to a matrix structure. Personnel problems occurred, but none that proved major catastrophes.

In 1964 Greyson entered into the aerospace market with the acquisition of a subcontract for the propulsion unit of the Hercules missile. The contract was projected at $200 million over a five-year period, with excellent possibilities for follow-on work. Between 1964 and 1968 Greyson developed a competent technical staff composed mainly of young, untested college graduates. The majority of the original employees who were still there were in managerial positions. Greyson never had any layoffs. In addition, Greyson had excellent career development pro- grams for almost all employees.

Between 1967 and 1971 the Department of Defense procurement for new weapons systems was on the decline. Greyson relied heavily on their two major production programs, Hercules and Condor II, both of which gave great promise for continued procurement. Greyson also had some thirty smaller R&D contracts as well as two smaller production contracts for hand weapons.

Because R&D money was becoming scarce, Greyson’s management decided to phase out many of the R&D activities and replace them with lucrative production contracts. Greyson believed that they could compete with anyone in regard to low-cost production. Under this philosophy, the R&D community was reduced to minimum levels necessary to support in-house activities. The director of engineering froze all hiring except for job-shoppers with special talents. All nonessential engineering personnel were transferred to production units.

In 1972, Greyson entered into competition with Cameron Aerospace Corporation for development, qualification, and testing of the Navy’s new Neptune missile. The competition was an eight-motor shoot-off during the last ten months of 1973. Cameron Corporation won the contract owing to technical merit. Greyson Corporation, however, had gained valuable technical information in rocket motor development and testing. The loss of the Neptune Program made it clear to Greyson’s management that aerospace technology was changing too fast for Greyson to maintain a passive position. Even though funding was limited, Greyson increased the technical staff and soon found great success in winning re- search and development contracts.

By 1975, Greyson had developed a solid aerospace business base. Profits had increased by 30 percent. Greyson Corporation expanded from a company with 200 employees in 1964 to 1,800 employees in 1975. The Hercules Program, which began in 1964, was providing yearly follow-on contracts. All indications projected a continuation of the Hercules Program through 1982.

Cameron Corporation, on the other hand, had found 1975 a difficult year. The Neptune Program was the only major contract that Cameron Corporation maintained. The current production buy for the Neptune missile was scheduled for completion in August 1975 with no follow-on work earlier than January 1976. Cameron Corporation anticipated that overhead rates would increase sharply prior to next buy. The cost per motor would increase from $55,000 to $75,000 for a January procurement, $85,000 for a March procurement, and $125,000 for an August procurement.

In February 1975, the Navy asked Greyson Corporation if they would be interested in submitting a sole-source bid for production and qualification of the Neptune missile. The Navy considered Cameron’s position as uncertain, and wanted to maintain a qualified vendor should Cameron Corporation decide to get out of the aerospace business.

Greyson submitted a bid of $30 million for qualification and testing of thirty Neptune motors over a thirty-month period beginning in January 1976. Current testing of the Neptune missile indicated that the minimum motor age life would extend through January 1979. This meant that production funds over the next thirty months could be diverted toward requalification of a new vendor and still meet production requirements for 1979.

In August 1975, on delivery of the last Neptune rocket to the Navy, Cameron Corporation announced that without an immediate production contract for Neptune follow-on work it would close its doors and get out of the aerospace business. Cameron Corporation invited Greyson Corporation to interview all of their key employees for possible work on the Neptune Requalification Program.

Greyson hired thirty-five of Cameron’s key people to begin work in October 1975. The key people would be assigned to ongoing Greyson programs to become familiar with Greyson methods. Greyson’s lower-level management was very un- happy about bringing in these thirty-five employees for fear that they would be placed in slots that could have resulted in promotions for some of Greyson’s people. Management then decreed that these thirty-five people would work solely on the Neptune Program, and other vacancies would be filled, as required, from the Hercules and Condor II programs. Greyson estimated that the cost of employing these thirty-five people was approximately $150,000 per month, almost all of which was being absorbed through overhead. Without these thirty-five people, Greyson did not believe that they would have won the contract as sole-source procurement. Other competitors could have “grabbed” these key people and forced an open-bidding situation.

Because of the increased overhead rate, Greyson maintained a minimum staff to prepare for contract negotiations and document preparation. To minimize costs, the directors of engineering and program management gave the Neptune program office the authority to make decisions for departments and divisions that were without representation in the program office. Top management had complete confidence in the program office personnel because of their past performances on other programs and years of experience.

In December 1975, the Department of Defense announced that spending was being curtailed sharply and that funding limitations made it impossible to begin the qualification program before July 1976. To make matters worse, consideration was being made for a compression of the requalification program to twenty-five motors in a twenty-month period. However, long-lead funding for raw materials would be available.

After lengthy consideration, Greyson decided to maintain its present position and retain the thirty-five Cameron employees by assigning them to in-house pro- grams. The Neptune program office was still maintained for preparations to sup- port contract negotiations, rescheduling of activities for a shorter program, and long-lead procurement.

In May 1976, contract negotiations began between the Navy and Greyson. At the beginning of contract negotiations, the Navy stated the three key elements for negotiations:

Maximumfundingwaslimitedtothe1975quoteforathirty-motor/thirty- month program.

The amount of money available for the last six months of 1976 was limited to $3.7 million.

The contract would be cost plus incentive fee (CPIF).

After three weeks of negotiations there appeared a stalemate. The Navy con- tended that the production man-hours in the proposal were at the wrong level on the learning curves. It was further argued that Greyson should be a lot “smarter” now because of the thirty-five Cameron employees and because of experience learned during the 1971 shoot-off with Cameron Corporation during the initial stages of the Neptune Program.

Since the negotiation teams could not agree, top-level management of the Navy and Greyson Corporation met to iron out the differences. An agreement was finally reached on a figure of $28.5 million. This was $1.5 million below Greyson’s original estimate to do the work. Management, however, felt that, by “tightening our belts,” the work could be accomplished within budget.

The program began on July 1, 1976, with the distribution of the department budgets by the program office. Almost all of the department managers were furious. Not only were the budgets below their original estimates, but the thirty-five Cameron employees were earning salaries above the department mean salary, thus reducing total man-hours even further. Almost all department managers asserted that cost overruns would be the responsibility of the program office and not the individual departments.

By November 1976, Greyson was in trouble. The Neptune Program was on target for cost but 35 percent behind for work completion. Department managers refused to take responsibility for certain tasks that were usually considered to be joint department responsibilities. Poor communication between program office and department managers provided additional discouragement. Department man- agers refused to have their employees work on Sunday.

Even with all this, program management felt that catch-up was still possible. The thirty-five former Cameron employees were performing commendable work equal to their counterparts on other programs. Management considered that the potential cost overrun situation was not in the critical stage, and that more time should be permitted before considering corporate funding.

In December 1976, the Department of Defense announced that there would be no further buys of the Hercules missile. This announcement was a severe blow to Greyson’s management. Not only were they in danger of having to lay off 500 employees, but overhead rates would rise considerably. There was an indication last year that there would be no further buys, but management did not consider the indications positive enough to require corporate strategy changes.

Although Greyson was not unionized, there was a possibility of a massive strike if Greyson career employees were not given seniority over the thirty-five former Cameron employees in the case of layoffs.

By February 1977, the cost situation was clear:

The higher overhead rates threatened to increase total program costs by $1 million on the Neptune Program.

Because the activities were behind schedule, the catch-up phases would have to be made in a higher salary and overhead rate quarter, thus in- creasing total costs further.

Inventory costs were increasing. Items purchased during long-lead funding were approaching shelf-life limits. Cost impact might be as high as $1 million.

The vice president and general manager considered the Neptune Program critical to the success and survival of Greyson Corporation. The directors and division heads were ordered to take charge of the program. The following options were considered:

Perform overtime work to get back on schedule.

Delay program activities in hopes that the Navy can come up with additional funding.

Review current material specifications in order to increase material shelf life, thus lowering inventory and procurement costs.

Begin laying off noncritical employees.

Purchase additional tooling and equipment (at corporate expense) so that schedule requirements can be met on target.

On March 1, 1977, Greyson gave merit salary increases to the key employees on all in-house programs. At the same time, Greyson laid off 700 employees, some of whom were seasoned veterans. By March 15, Greyson employees formed a union and went out on strike.

School of Science and Technology Diploma in Professional Practice (DIPP) and Sandwich

No, I do not agree with the ruling of this case. For one reason that “Section 504 of the Law Assignment Help School of Science and Technology

Diploma in Professional Practice (DIPP) and Sandwich (SW) degree

Assessment Requirements

In order to qualify for a sandwich degree and the Diploma in Professional Practice, you must complete the following assessments to a satisfactory standard:

An approved placement of at least 24 weeks

A Placement Portfolio consisting of:

Placement Diary

Reflective Report

A Placement Presentation

Further information on each of these requirements is given below.

Approved Placement

All placements must be approved by the Placements Office. Placements must be of at least 24 working weeks duration; however the normal length of a sandwich placement is 1 year.

Your performance on placement will be assessed twice during the placement by your manager and your visiting tutor. Satisfactory performance is required in order to qualify for the SW degree and DIPP.

Placement Portfolio

The Placement Portfolio should be submitted to the Placement drop box on NOW on the first day of term following the placement year.

This is assessment is graded and feedback will be given to inform future work.

Placement Diary

Most people find it difficult to recall in detail what they did over a particular time span at work but it can be useful as part of future job applications. Keeping a written record will help you to recall the detail of your placement and articulate what you have learnt. The diary’s contents can help you prepare your CV and give you ideas for how you can talk about work experience at interviews.

The Placement Diary should begin with a detailed daily log of activities and develop into weekly/monthly updates as recurrent themes and activities are identified. The diary should cover roles, responsibilities, technology, projects, critical incidents, training courses, organisational issues or meetings. It should identify problems, solutions, techniques and skills and highlight new or significant activities/developments. It should also include comments on linkages to academic study and reflections on personal development. The information recorded in the placement diary will form the basis of the reflective report.

The format of your placement diary is up to you, however you may find it useful to incorporate a simple weekly or monthly “skills tracker” into your placement diary to show your acquisition and development of skills.

Example of a Skills Tracker

Recording information and examples in terms of your key employability skills is invaluable. As these are the specific areas employers look at, being able to categorise your experiences in this way will give you a head start on the competition in the graduate jobs market.

The table below is just an example – you should choose a set of skills appropriate to you and your placement. The skills table in Appendix A may help to prompt you about new things you may have learnt or skills or qualities you have developed or enhanced.

SKILL TRACKER – WK COMMENCING……………………………………………………..

SKILL

EXAMPLES

Communication

Numeracy

Learning how to learn

Working with others

Use of Information Technology

Reflective Report

We suggest the Reflective Report should consist of three sections and the overall report should be approximately 2500 words, supported by images, diagrams, tables etc. as appropriate.

Introduction

This section should give a clear, concise introduction to the company/institute/organisation in which you worked. It should demonstrate awareness of organisational context (e.g. customers, competitors, markets etc.) which should be quantified where possible. It should also provide an overview of the placement role and explain how the role contributed to the business/organisation. Avoid plagiarising company literature/web content.

Activities

It would not be possible to cover all the work done on placement in a report of this length; hence you should select 2 or 3 significant activities or pieces of work to focus on. You may wish to discuss this with your visiting tutor during visits/contacts.

Achievements

This section should reflect on the changes in your technical/scientific, professional and personal skills as a result of your placement. It should demonstrate self-awareness by acknowledging mistakes made and showing evidence of attempts to overcome deficiencies. It should identify growth as well as areas for future development.

Confidentiality

If necessary, the report should be completed and checked by the employer prior to submission, which allows the supervisor to assess the report and check it for confidentiality. Students must respect confidentiality and must not include information that the employer regards as commercially sensitive. If there are confidentiality issues, these can be discussed with the supervisor and the visiting tutor. Please also make sure that the Placement Office is informed.

Recorded Placement Presentation

You should produce a PowerPoint presentation with an audio track commentary. Presentations should be no more than 10 minutes duration.  There is considerable flexibility within the presentation. You should spend the first minute giving an overview of the firm/institute/organisation where you were employed, and the primary role of the placement provider. Thereafter the presentation may encompass breadth, depth or elements of both. Many successful presentations in the past have been based on a selected aspect of the work undertaken on placement. It is not really practicable to include every aspect of the placement in the presentation. 

Updated CV

Your CV is the main way of presenting your skills and experience to prospective employers. Once you have completed your placement you will need to update your CV in readiness for graduate or postgraduate applications. This is unlikely to be just a case of adding your new work experience and skills – your new CV will still need to conform to the 2-page standard, so may need quite a bit of re-writing.

Please note that, as this is not part of the graded assessment, it is perfectly acceptable, indeed encouraged, for you to seek CV advice from a Careers Consultant.

Appendix A – Examples of General and Specific Skills

You may find it useful to consider the following examples of general and specific skills. This list is by no means complete. It is up to you to select the skills most relevant to your placement (and to include others which you feel are appropriate). Some of these are quite advanced skills and there would be no opportunity for many students to develop them.

1. KNOWLEDGE OF SELF

5. COMMUNICATION SKILLS

9. IT SKILLS

Analysis of strengths & weaknesses

Setting personal goals

Developing personal style

Vision of the future

Proactivity – initiative

Energy to work

Enthusiasm for new ideas

Coping with change

Learning skills

Intuition

Letters & memoranda

Minutes of meetings

Report writing

Telephoning

Interviewing

Contributing to meetings

Presentations

Use of visual aids

Verbal communication

Keyboard skills

Setting up spreadsheets

Using word-processing packages

Database manipulation

Use of Software packages

Using Computer facilities

2. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS

6. RESEARCH SKILLS

10. PROJECT SKILLS

Analysis of strengths & weaknesses

Sensitivity to situations

Persuasion & Motivation

Negotiation

Questioning skills

Effective listening

Questionnaire design

Sample selection

Sources of information

Investigation skills

Statistical analysis

Presentation of data

Drawing conclusions

Making recommendations

Defining the problem

Defining objectives

Selection of methods

Information collection

Information analysis

Evaluation techniques

Implementation

Control & review

Project management

3. GROUP WORKING SKILLS

7. POLITICAL & PR SKILLS

11. COMMERCIAL SKILLS

Definition of objectives

Understanding team roles

Taking functional roles

Chairmanship & Leadership

Group processes

Handling team morale

Handling conflict

Supervision

Liaison roles

Sensitivity to politics

Sense of presence

Knowledge of the media

Accentuating the positive

Writing a press release

Handling a media interview

Financial analysis

Commercial awareness

Entrepreneurship

Sensitivity to opportunities

Dealing with difficulties

Evaluation of risk

Commercial negotiation

Vision & Originality

4. SOCIAL SKILLS

8. MANAGERIAL SKILLS

Awareness of what is appropriate

Non-verbal communication

Knowledge of special interest groups

Business ethics & morals

Entertaining

Accountability

Planning

Organising

Controlling

Empathy

Vision

Efficiency and effectiveness

You are a Director of the Ethics and Compliance Office at XYZ

You are a Director of the Ethics and Compliance Office at XYZ Corporation. XYZ is a US-based for-profit management health care company. As of 2020, it was ranked #5 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest US corporations by total revenue.

You have been contacted by various supervisors to resolve the following issues:

1.    An intern applicant posted negative remarks on Facebook about an internship at the Controller’s office at XYZ for which she had applied. The negative comments were focused on the policy for professional dress as an intern. Should she receive an internship at XYZ? Consider both legal and ethical implications.

2.    An current employee of XYZ posted negative comments about his job at XYZ regarding the cleanliness of the foodservice at the office’s pantry. Food is cooked and served to both employees and customers. Are such actions sufficient to amount to termination? Of not, what other actions will you suggest? Consider both legal and ethical implications.

3.    You received numerous complaints from supervisors that many staff members are on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter frequently during the work day. Supervisors are concerned about the loss of employee work time and productivity as employees use work computers and time to send personal e-mails, play games, shop, in addition to visiting social media sites. Can supervisors monitor employee Internet use at work? Can they place a limit?  What should be the consequences if employees do not cooperate? Consider both legal and ethical implications.

Assignment:

a.    Identify issues presented

b.    Research 3-4 Fortune 500 Large Corporations – Compare the companies’ Code of Professional Conduct

c.     Draft a memo addressing three issues presented above. Consider both legal and ethical consequences.

d.    Draft a segment to be added to XYZ Company’s Code of Professional Conduct to prevent the issues presented above by establishing company policy.

1 Discussion (Rubric) Balancing Cost and Quality is often listed under the

1 Discussion (Rubric)

Balancing Cost and Quality is often listed under the category of Trade-Off Analysis in most companies. Increasingly, companies and individuals are faced with some difficult decisions when trying to find the right balance of cost and quality that will satisfy both business and customer needs and requirements. Identify and discuss two current challenges companies face in your industry in balancing cost vs. quality.

2 Discussion (Rubric)

Modern communication technology enables project teams to communicate effectively, whether they are working out of the same office or dispersed around the world. While communication technologies are a great benefit, accurate, timely, and effective communication is still a matter that requires planning, organization, and consistency. For this discussion, research which technologies seem to be most appropriate for your team project. If your project is of a global scale or includes the requirement of remote teams or team members, address which communications platforms or methods you would suggest are best for global operations.

3 Discussion:

What are some ways to identify project stakeholders? Which stakeholders do you think are often not identified when they should be? What can be done to ensure that all appropriate stakeholders are communicated with and involved, and what may happen if someone is left out?

Assignment (Rubric)

Using Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Project, or another project management software tool, create a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for a project of interest, such as developing a website, building a house, or planning an event. Break down the individual tasks into small enough parts that a worker could easily follow and complete them. Determine within your WBS different task relationships, the order in which they must be done, which can be done in tandem, and an estimation of how long each task will take to complete.