Instructions

Write a post for the Discussion Question on this topic, 1–2 paragraphs in length.

The product that i am marketing is about Nike shoes.

Part 1: Current Status

What are the global implications for the product or service you are marketing? What are the global implications of your marketing strategy and recommendations?

You should consider whether there are any global factors related to the marketing environment in which you operate, your targeting and segmentation strategy, and any aspect of the marketing mix: product, price, place (distribution), promotion.

The documentary, Final Offer follows collective bargaining negotiations between General Motors and the Canadian branch of the United Auto

Workers (UAW) union.

1. Describe the 3 most interesting/surprising aspects of the firm (and why you found them interesting or surprising). Each response should be at least 3-4 sentences

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Question 1. What corporate values did ThyssenKrupp refer to when deciding to terminate the mechanic? What are the health and safety issues involved here? Do you think an informal work environment is leading towards a lack of strict health & safety policy at the workplace?

Question 2. Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?

Question 3. Are there any Tort issues involved here? What other legal issues are involved here? Explain

Question 4. Did the Ontario Labour Relation Board (OLRB) accept the defense that organizational culture contributed to the employee behaviour? Explain their reasoning. Considering the company’s work environment, what factors need to be considered while updating the company’s health & safety policy?

Each question may be answered in about 150 to 200 words.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Question 5. If this case goes to court, what arguments the Plaintiff’s Lawyer, representing the fired worker, would present before the court?

Question 6. What would be the line of Defense for the Lawyer of Thyssen Krupp Elevator?

Each question may be answered in about 150 to 200 words.

Scenario

You are an information technology (IT) intern working for Health Network, Inc. (Health Network), a fictitious health services organization headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Health Network has over 600 employees throughout the organization and generates $500 million USD in annual revenue. The company has two additional locations in Portland, Oregon and Arlington, Virginia, which support a mix of corporate operations. Each corporate facility is located near a co-location data center, where production systems are located and managed by third-party data center hosting vendors.

Company Products

Health Network has three main products: HNetExchange, HNetPay, and HNetConnect.

HNetExchange is the primary source of revenue for the company. The service handles secure electronic medical messages that originate from its customers, such as large hospitals, which are then routed to receiving customers such as clinics.

HNetPay is a Web portal used by many of the company’s HNetExchange customers to support the management of secure payments and billing. The HNetPay Web portal, hosted at Health Network production sites, accepts various forms of payments and interacts with credit-card processing organizations much like a Web commerce shopping cart.

HNetConnect is an online directory that lists doctors, clinics, and other medical facilities to allow Health Network customers to find the right type of care at the right locations. It contains doctors’ personal information, work addresses, medical certifications, and types of services that the doctors and clinics offer. Doctors are given credentials and are able to update the information in their profile. Health Network customers, which are the hospitals and clinics, connect to all three of the company’s products using HTTPS connections. Doctors and potential patients are able to make payments and update their profiles using Internet-accessible HTTPS Web sites.

Information Technology Infrastructure Overview

Health Network operates in three production data centers that provide high availability across the company’s products. The data centers host about 1,000 production servers, and Health Network maintains 650 corporate laptops and company-issued mobile devices for its employees.

Threats Identified

Upon review of the current risk management plan, the following threats were identified:

• Loss of company data due to hardware being removed from production systems
• Loss of company information on lost or stolen company-owned assets, such as mobile devices and laptops
• Loss of customers due to production outages caused by various events, such as natural disasters, change management, unstable software, and so on
• Internet threats due to company products being accessible on the Internet
• Insider threats
• Changes in regulatory landscape that may impact operations

Management Request

Senior management at Health Network has determined that the existing risk management plan for the organization is out of date and a new risk management plan must be developed. Because of the importance of risk management to the organization, senior management is committed to and supportive of the project to develop a new plan. You have been assigned to develop this new plan.

Additional threats other than those described previously may be discovered when re-evaluating the current threat landscape during the risk assessment phase.

The budget for this project has not been defined due to senior management’s desire to react to any and all material risks that are identified within the new plan. Given the company’s annual revenue, reasonable expectations can be determined.

Project Part 2 Task 2: Business Continuity Plan (BCP)

After having reviewed and being impressed by your business impact analysis (BIA), senior management at Health Network has decided that your team must also develop a BCP. Management has allocated all funds for a BCP and your team has their full support, as well as permission to contact any of them directly for participation or inclusion in your BCP plan. You have been assigned to develop this new plan.

Winter storms on the East Coast have affected the ability of Health Network employees to reach the Arlington offices in a safe and timely manner. However, no BCP plan currently exists to address corporate operations. The Arlington office is the primary location for business units, such as Finance, Legal, and Customer Support. Some of the corporate systems, such as the payroll and accounting applications, are located only in the corporate offices. Each corporate location is able to access the other two, and a remote virtual private network (VPN) exists between each Production data center and the corporate locations.

The corporate systems are not currently being backed up and should be addressed in the new plan. The BCP should also include some details regarding how the BCP will be tested.

You may refer to the following additional resources to help you and your team develop a BCP, and you may use a BCP template if found during your research.

References:

• Guide to Business Continuity Management: Frequently Asked Questions (Protiviti, 2013),
  http://www.protiviti.com/en-US/Documents/Resource-Guides/Guide-to-BCM-Third-Edition-Protiviti.pdf
• Business Continuity Plan (Ready.gov), http://www.ready.gov/business/implementation/continuity

Evaluation Criteria and Rubrics (Ask these questions to yourself)

• Did I develop a BCP that could recover business operations while efforts are ongoing to restart pervious operations?
• Did I completely fill out a BCP template if found during their research?
• Did I completely understand BCP concepts presented in class?
• Did I develop a BCP test plan with correct processes?
• Did I create a professional, well-developed report with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation?

Project Part 2 Task 3: Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP)

Your project on risk management, the BIA, and the BCP have been well received by senior management at Health Network. They now want you to develop a DRP in order to overcome any mishaps that might occur in the future. You may research and use National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) templates to develop a DRP plan for the company.

Evaluation Criteria and Rubrics (Ask these questions to yourself)

• Did I develop a DRP that could recover business operations while efforts are ongoing to restart pervious operations?
• Did I completely fill out the template found in their research?
• Did I completely understand the DRP constructs presented in class?
• Did I create a professional, well-developed report with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation?

what you think might cause somebody to literally emerge from a situation as the leader… Any thoughts on this?

Reflect and assess your leadership skills: use inventories from class as well as others you’ve taken, feedback you have received from various individuals, etc. to identify your strengths and weaknesses

In a Cost-Plus Incentive Fee contract, the target cost is $200,000 and the target fee is $9000. The seller and buyer agree to share the saving/loss with 70% to the buyer and 30% to the seller.

Target cost = $200,000

Target fee = $9000

Calculate the final fee and final price if the project is over and

a) the buyer has agreed that the costs are in fact $240,000.

b) the buyer has agreed that the costs are in fact $170,000.

Jo Anna will bake some brownies for the next Work day.

She will make two different kinds: oatmeal and chocolate chip. Everyone knows

that the chocolate is a crowd favorite, so she wants the number of chocolate chip

cookies to be twice as much the number of oatmeal cookies. Additionally, she

needs at least eight dozen cookies. She estimates she will spend $0.25 per

oatmeal cookie and $0.35 per chocolate chip cookie. Additionally, she has

limited amount of butter, sugar, and flour in her kitchen and she does not have

time to go back to the grocery store. She estimates the amount of material

required for each cookie and measures her available material:

                 Amount Required in grams                    Availability in grams

                        oatmeal           chocolate

     Butter          9.46                  6.31                                            700

      Sugar            8.33                 5.55                                            1000

      Flour             5.00                10.00                                            850

(she is comfortable with the Standard!)

a. (Linear Programming) How many cookies of each type she should bake to

minimize her cost?

b. (Integer Programming) If she has to batch her cookies as a dozen, how

many dozen of each type she should bake?

Please show in exel show formulas and use solver

Why a company would consider going public? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages?

ATTENTION: Please answer in the form of paragraph, no bullet points or numerical and I will rate. Thank you in advance!

Describe how we can use Markov analysis to make future predictions.

200-250 word response

What became of the idealism of the 1960s? in at least 250 words please