Questions
4. A private-label bottler of soft drinks asks each of 60 members of a tasting panel...

4. A private-label bottler of soft drinks asks each of 60 members of a tasting panel (who are regarded as a random sample from millions of potential customers) to rate each of two possible formulations of a cola drink on a 100-point scale; higher scores are desirable. Formulation G is less expensive and will be used unless there is a clear evidence that formulation R is preferred. From the data, the bottler obtains the difference (R-G) in the ratings for each panelist. After conducting appropriate statistical tests on the mean of the differences in the ratings, the management of the private-label bottler concluded that the difference in the ratings is negligible. Consequently, they have decided to use formulation G which is less expensive. The data on the panelist’s ratings they have used is in the Excel data file named ‘Cola Ratings’. Using the same data and at 10% level of significance, please conduct the test you think the management’s decision must have been based on. Based on your results, do you agree with the management’s conclusion? Does your conclusion change at 5% level of significance?

G R
57 62
46 58
85 81
80 88
95 84
31 54
56 44
40 65
52 37
26 51
93 76
54 43
67 64
42 59
29 51
81 70
35 49
59 61
44 57
84 97
34 55
49 44
73 86
74 89
44 52
41 49
72 61
60 48
48 69
92 87
64 77
52 47
58 66
84 80
60 50
49 38
96 74
20 49
42 19
36 58
69 48
44 56
37 59
57 29
31 62
74 51
85 79
19 52
33 76
48 80
88 84
72 64
45 58
36 42
64 85
77 75
28 22
93 87
45 48
50 40

In: Statistics and Probability

CASE STUDY The Alcatel-Lucent Merger—What Went Wrong? It did not take long after the merger for...

CASE STUDY
The Alcatel-Lucent Merger—What Went Wrong?
It did not take long after the merger for things to start going wrong for Alcatel-Lucent CEO Patricia Russo, who opted to leave the vendor last month after admitting she could no longer work with fellow board resignee chairman Serge Tchuruk.
It seems that this deal was not meant to happen. The original merger negotiation between Alcatel of France, the communications equipment maker based in Paris, and Lucent Technologies, the U.S telecommunication giant, tool place in 2001. However, the final detailed deal collapsed on May 29, 2001, after the two companies could not agree on how much control the French company would have, Lucent’s executive apparently wanted the deal as a ‘‘merger of equals’’ rather than a takeover by Alcatel.
The failed deal was regarded as a severe blow to Lucent’s image Industry watchers questioned how Lucent would be able to survive this most recent blow. Although it was not clear which company initiated the negotiations, it was reported that Lucent ended them after much of the senior management detected that the proposed deal would not be a merger of equals.
In 2006, however, renewed negotiations took place, resulting in the transatlantic relationship being consummated; shareholders in France approved the merger of telecommunication equipment makers. Alcatel and Lucent on September 7, 2006. However, Alcatel investor still has concern about the leadership and financial health of their new American partner. Alcatel’s chief executive. Serge Tchuruk, tried to reassure the 1,500 shareholders gathered in Paris to back the merger, saying the company- to be called Alcatel-Lucent- is ‘‘truly global and has no equivalent today and won’t in the future. Mr. Tchuruk had agreed in April 2006 to pay 10.6 billion euro ($13.5 billion then) for Lucent, in a deal to create the world’s biggest telephone equipment maker although industry watchers considered the bid as financially inadequate for Alcatel investors. The stock swap was valued at one Alcatel American depository share for every five Lucent shares. Tchuruk said the combined company would realize 1.4 billion euro ($1.8 billion) in cost savings over the following three years, in part by cutting 9,000 jobs, about 10 percent of the combined workforce. He noted that Alcatel-Lucent’s revenue would be spread almost equally across Europe, the United States and Asia, offering greater long term stability. Alcatel does most of its business is also endorsed the deal. ‘We are another step closer to creating the first truly global communications solution provider with the broadest wireless, wireline and services portfolio in the industry” said the chief executive of Lucent, Patricia F Russo, who was to retain that role in the combined company. At that time, the company had combined sales of $25 billion. Amid concerns, about the potential for cross-cultural conflicts, Tchuruk said that, while cultural

issues could arise, ‘‘everything is under way to make sure this human factor is dealt with,’’ he said, adding that Alcatel already opened as an international company with a wide mix of nationalities; English is the official language of the company. After the shareholders of both
Continued...
companies endorsed the deal, regulatory hurdles was cleared in both the EU and the U.S. An Alcatel-Lucent merger provided the combined company a strong position in several categories of equipment sold to the major telecommunications carrier: wireless telecommunications equipment, wireline equipment, wireless infrastructure, Internet routers, equipment for carrying calls over the Internet, etc.
However, success was illusive. Overall, it seemed that ‘the difficulties of integrating a French company with an American one dominated during Russo’s tenure, as the corporate culture of Lucent clashed with alcatel’s French business model. One source close to the company saw little evidence of cooperation between the two factions from the outside. In July 2008, the Alcatel- Lucent CEO Patricia Russo resigned, citing the inability to get along with Serge Tchuruk, her fellow board member, subsequently he too resigned. Much of the resentment came from Alcatel management because the overall leadership had been handed to the target company. Lucent, an unusual decision; in addition, it became clear that it was a poor decision to appoint leaders based, as she struggled to bring together the different cultures of the two companies. As the first woman to run a company listed on the CAC 40, she had to make her way in the clubby, male-dominated world where French business and politics overlap. In addition, the combined, but still rather weak companies, faced low-cost competition from now Chinese rivals and Internet technology was changing beyond recognition. Worse, demand has been weakening across the industry.
A Barron’s article in August 2008 noted that ‘‘while it might have been helpful if outgoing CEO Patricia Russo had spoken French, that’s not why she and Chairman Serge Tchuruk failed to make a go of the 2006 merger of Alcatel and Lucent Technologies. They were pushed into each other’s arms out of desperation as the industry began a painful, necessary consolidation.... the telephone-equipment business is brutal and likely to see more attrition. The marriage didn’t avert six straight quarterly losses.’’ The series of quarterly losses ($7 billion loss since the merger) led to a bombardment of negative comment an Alcatel-Lucent initiated restructuring and cut around 16,500 job. In September the new chief’s were announced- a French chairman, who lives in America, and a Dutch chief executive, who will be based in Paris. Both Philippe Camus and Ben Verwaayen were considered to have the personality and experience that cold iron out the beleaguered telecoms group’s problems. Mr. Verwaayen accepted the new job only when he found he could get along with Mr. Camus, who had already agreed to be chairman. ‘‘We share

the same sense of humour.’’ he says. ‘‘You need to have complete understanding at the top of the house.’’ ‘‘We must deliver on the merger.’’ Ben Verwaayen the former head of BT. who was appointed to succeed Patricia F, Russo as chief executive, said at a meeting with journalists. Acknowledging that there remained ‘‘a divided Alcatel-Lucent.’’ Mr. Verwaayen speaks fluent French and English. Alcatel-Lucent operates in 130 countries, and like many global enterprises, its language of business is English. He was quoted in The Economist as saying that he ‘‘sees his job as removing barriers wihtin the company and unleashing its talents.’’ But perhaps his biggest advantage in rescuing a failed Franco-American merger is that he is neither French nor American.

QUESTIONS:

1. What conditions and negotiations pushed forth the merger in 2006 that were not present in 2001?

2. Evaluate the comment that the merger is “a giant transatlantic experiment in multicultural diversity.” What evidence is there that the company has run into cross-cultural problems since the merger took place in 2006?

3. What are some of the international challenges that Alcatel-Lucent faces as it moves forward as a

its a case study and there is three questions to be answered. pls help me

In: Operations Management

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were...

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were caused by the keyboard (Genessey v. Digital Equipment Corporation). The jury awarded about $3.5 million for pain and suffering, but the court then set aside that award as being unreasonable compensation. In making this determination, the court identified a "normative" group of 27 similar cases and specified a reasonable award as one within 2 standard deviations of the mean of the awards in the 27 cases. The 27 award amounts (in thousands of dollars) are in the table below.

39 60 75 115 135 140 149 150
236 290 340 410 600 750 750 750
1050 1100 1139 1150 1200 1200 1250 1572
1700 1825 2000

What is the maximum possible amount that could be awarded under the "2-standard deviations rule"? (Round all intermediate calculations and the answer to three decimal places.)
(in thousands of $)

In: Math

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were...

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were caused by the keyboard (Genessey v. Digital Equipment Corporation). The jury awarded about $3.5 million for pain and suffering, but the court then set aside that award as being unreasonable compensation. In making this determination, the court identified a "normative" group of 27 similar cases and specified a reasonable award as one within 2 standard deviations of the mean of the awards in the 27 cases. The 27 award amounts (in thousands of dollars) are in the table below. 39 60 75 115 135 140 149 150 236 290 340 410 600 750 750 750 1050 1100 1139 1150 1200 1200 1250 1578 1700 1825 2000 What is the maximum possible amount that could be awarded under the "2-standard deviations rule"? (Round all intermediate calculations and the answer to three decimal places.)

In: Math

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were...

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were caused by the keyboard (Genessey v. Digital Equipment Corporation). The jury awarded about $3.5 million for pain and suffering, but the court then set aside that award as being unreasonable compensation. In making this determination, the court identified a "normative" group of 27 similar cases and specified a reasonable award as one within 2 standard deviations of the mean of the awards in the 27 cases. The 27 award amounts (in thousands of dollars) are in the table below.

37 60 75 115 135 140 149 150
234 290 340 410 600 750 750 750
1050 1100 1139 1150 1200 1200 1250 1574
1700 1825 2000

What is the maximum possible amount that could be awarded under the "2-standard deviations rule"? (Round all intermediate calculations and the answer to three decimal places.)

In: Math

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were...

In 1997 a woman sued a computer keyboard manufacturer, charging that her repetitive stress injuries were caused by the keyboard (Genessey v. Digital Equipment Corporation). The jury awarded about $3.5 million for pain and suffering, but the court then set aside that award as being unreasonable compensation. In making this determination, the court identified a "normative" group of 27 similar cases and specified a reasonable award as one within 2 standard deviations of the mean of the awards in the 27 cases. The 27 award amounts (in thousands of dollars) are in the table below.

39 60 75 115 135 140 149 150
238 290 340 410 600 750 750 750
1050 1100 1139 1150 1200 1200 1250 1574
1700 1825 2000

What is the maximum possible amount that could be awarded under the "2-standard deviations rule"? (Round all intermediate calculations and the answer to three decimal places.)
___________ (in thousands of $)

In: Math

a study was done on the type of automobiles owned by women and men the data...

a study was done on the type of automobiles owned by women and men the data are shown at a=0.10 is there a relationship between the type of automobile owned and the gender of the individual
men luxury 15, latge 9, middize 49, small 27
women 9, large 6 midsize 62,small 14

women

In: Statistics and Probability

In this problem, assume that the distribution of differences is approximately normal. Note: For degrees of...

In this problem, assume that the distribution of differences is approximately normal. Note: For degrees of freedom d.f. not in the Student's t table, use the closest d.f. that is smaller. In some situations, this choice of d.f. may increase the P-value by a small amount and therefore produce a slightly more "conservative" answer.

Are America's top chief executive officers (CEOs) really worth all that money? One way to answer this question is to look at row B, the annual company percentage increase in revenue, versus row A, the CEO's annual percentage salary increase in that same company. Suppose a random sample of companies yielded the following data:

B: Percent increase
for company		 8 4 6 18 6 4 21 37
A: Percent increase
for CEO		 30 27 18 14 -4 19 15 30

Do these data indicate that the population mean percentage increase in corporate revenue (row B) is different from the population mean percentage increase in CEO salary? Use a 5% level of significance. (Let d = B − A.)

(a) What is the level of significance?
State the null and alternate hypotheses.

(b) What sampling distribution will you use? What assumptions are you making?

What is the value of the sample test statistic? (Round your answer to three decimal places.)

(c) Find the P-value. (Round your answer to four decimal places.)

(d) Based on your answers in parts (a) to (c), will you reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis? Are the data statistically significant at level α?

(e) Interpret your conclusion in the context of the application.

In: Statistics and Probability

Following are three economic states, their likelihoods, and the potential returns: Economic State Probability Return Fast...

Following are three economic states, their likelihoods, and the potential returns: Economic State Probability Return Fast growth 0.26 60% Slow growth 0.37 27 Recession 0.37 -39 Determine the standard deviation of the expected return.(Do not round intermediate calculations and round your answers to 2 decimal places)

In: Finance

2. What are the methods of estimating fair value according to SFAS no 157(2006)? 3. Explain...

2. What are the methods of estimating fair value according to SFAS no 157(2006)?

3. Explain Securitization and its structures like:

Pass-through securitizations

Estimation of prepayment risk

Tranched securitizations

In: Accounting