ISMS BBA EXAM CASE STUDY ANSWERS PROVIDED WHATSAPP 91 9924764558

ISMS BBA EXAM CASE STUDY ANSWERS PROVIDED WHATSAPP 91 9924764558

CONTACT

DR. PRASANTH BE BBA MBA PH.D. MOBILE / WHATSAPP: +91 9924764558 OR +91 9447965521 EMAIL: prasanththampi1975@gmail.com WEBSITE: www.casestudyandprojectreports.com

Bachelors Program in Business Management (BBA) Year-II

 Specialization: - Business Administration

Note :-

(i) Attempt any four Cases
(ii) All Cases carry equal marks.

Case 1 :-

“ Left or Right?”

Rajinder Kumar was a production worker at Competent Motors Limited (CML), which made components and accessories for the automotive industry. He had worked at CML for almost seven years as a welder, along with fifteen other men in the plant. All had received training in welding, both on the job and through company-sponsored external programmes. They had friendly relations and got along very well with one another. They played volleyball in the playground regularly before retiring to the quarters allotted by the company. They ate together in the company canteen, cutting jokes on each other and making fun of anyone who dared to peep into their privacy during lunch hour. Most of the fellows had been there for quite some time, except for two men who had joined the ranks only two months back.

          Rajinder was generally considered to be the leader of the group, so it was no surprise that when the foreman of the department was transferred and his vacancy was announced, Rajinder applied for the job and got it.

          There were only four other applicants for the job, two from mechanical section and two from outside. When there was a formal announcement of the appointment on a Friday afternoon, everyone in the group congratulated Rajinder. They literally carried him snacks and celebrated the event enthusiastically.

          On Monday morning, Rajinder joined duty as Foreman. It was company practice for all foremen to wear blue jacket and a white shirt. Each man’s coat had his name badge sewn onto the left side pocket. The company had given two pairs to Raijnder. He was proud to wear the coat to work on Monday.

          People who saw him from a distance went upto him and admired the new blue coat. There was a lot of kidding around calling Rajinder as ‘Hero’, ‘Raja Babu’ and ‘Officer’ etc. One of the guys went back to his locker and returned with a long brush and acted as though he were removing dust particles on the new coat. After about five minutes of horseplay, all of the men went back to work.

          Rajinder went back to his office to get more familiar with his new job and environment there.

          At noon, all the men broke for lunch and went to the canteen to eat and enjoy fun as usual. Rajinder was busy when they left but followed after them a few minutes, later. He bought the food coupon, took the snacks and tea and turned to face the open canteen. Back in the left side corner of the room was his old work group; on the right hand side of the canteen sat all the other foremen in the plant all observed in their blue coats.

          At that point of time, silence descended on the canteen. Suddenly both groups looked at Rajinder anxiously, waiting to see which group he would eat with.

QUESTIONS:

1.       Whom do you think Rajinder will eat with? Why?

2.       If you were one of the other foremen, what could you do to make Rajinder’s transition easier?

3.       What would you have done if you were in Rajinder’s shoes? Why?

Case 2 :-

“Naughty Rule”

Dr. Reddy Instruments is a medium-sized the Industrial Estate on the outskirts of Hyderabad. The company is basically involved with manufacturing surgical instruments and supplies for medical professionals and hospitals.

          About a year ago, Madhuri, aged 23, niece of the firm’s founder, Dr. Raja Reddy, was hired to replace Ranga Rao quality control inspector, who had reached the age of retirement. Madhuri had recently graduated from the Delhi College of Engineering where she had majored in Industrial Engineering.

          Balraj Gupta, aged 52, is the production manager of the prosthesis dept., where artificial devices designed to replace missing parts of the human body are manufactured. Gupta has worked for Dr. Reddy Instruments for 20 years, having previously been a production line supervisor and, prior to that, a worker on the production line. Gupta, being the eldest in his family, has taken up the job quite early in life and completed his education mostly through correspondence courses.

          From their first meeting, it looked as though Gupta and Madhuri could not get along together. There seemed to be an underlying animosity between them, but it was never too clear what the problem was.

          Venkat Kumar, age 44, is the plant manager of Dr. Reddy instruments. He has occasionally observed disagreements between Madhuri and Gupta on the production line, Absenteeism has risen in Gupta’s department since Madhuri was hired as quality control inspector. Venkat secretly decided to issue a circular calling for a meeting of all supervisory personnel in the production and twelve quality control departments. The circular was worked thus:    

 

Attention: All Supervisors Production Quality Control Departments

 A meeting is schedule on Monday, Feb 20, at 10 a.m. in room 18. The purpose is to sort out misunderstanding and differences that seem to exist between production and QC personnel.

                                                                                                                                                     Sd. Venkat Kumar

                                                                                                                                                           Plant Manager      

 

 Venkat starred the meeting by explaining why he had called it and then asked Gupta for his opinion of the problem. The conversation took the following shape:

Gupta: That Delhi girl you recruited is a ‘fault finding machine’ in our dept. Until she was hired, we hardly even stopped production. And when we did, it was only because of a mechanical defect. But Madhuri has been stopping everything even if ‘one’ defective part comes down the line.

Madhuri: That’s not true. You have fabricated the story well.

Gupta: Venkat, our quality has not undergone any change in recent times. It’s still the same, consistently good quality it was before she came but all she wants to do is to trouble us.

Madhuri: May I clarify my position at this stage? Mr. Gupta, you have never relished my presence in the company. I still remember some of the derisive remarks you used to make behind my back. I did take note of them quite clearly!

Suresh (another quality control supervisor): I agree with Madhuri Venkat. I think that everyone knows that the rules permit quality control to stop production if rejections exceed three an hour. This is all Madhuri has been doing.

Gupta: Now listen to me. Madhuri starts counting the hour from the moment she gets the first reject. Ranga Rao never really worried about absolute reject rule when he was here. She wants to paint my department in black. Is not that true Riaz Ahmed?

Ahmed (another production supervisor): It sure is Gupta. Every time Maduri stops production, she is virtually putting the company on fire. The production losses would affect our bonuses as well. How long can we allow this ‘nuisance’ to continue?

          Thirty minutes later Madhuri and Gupta were still lashing out at each other. Venkat decided that ending the meeting might be appropriate under the circumstances. He promised to clarify the issue, after discussion with management, sometime next weel.

QUESTIONS:

1.       Should Venkat have called a meeting to sort out this problem? Why or Why not?  

2.       What do you say about the rule calling for production to halt if there are more than three rejects in an hour? Should it have been enforced? Explain.

3.       What do you feel is the major problem in this case? The solution?

Bachelors Program in Business Management (BBA) Year-I

Note :- Solve any 4 case study

            All case carries equal marks

Case No : 1

PUBLIUS

Although many people believe that the World Wide Web is anonymous and secure from censorship, the reality is very different.  Governments, law courts, and other officials who want to censor, examine, or trace a file of materials on the Web need merely go to the server (the online computer) where they think the file is stored.  Using their subpoena power, they can comb through the server’s drives to find the files they are looking for and the identify of the person who created the files.

            On Friday June 30, 2000, however, researches at AT & T Labs announced the creation of Publius, a software program that enables Web users to encrypt (translate into a secret code) their files – text, pictures, or music – break them up like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and store the encrypted pieces on many different servers scattered all over the globe on the World Wide Web.  As a result, any one wanting to examine or censor the files or wanting to trace the original transaction that produced the file would find it impossible to succeed because they  would  have to examine the contents of dozens of different servers all over the world, and the files in the servers would be encrypted and fragmented in a way that would make the pieces impossible to identify without the help of the person who created the file.  A person authorized to retrieve the file, however, would look through a directory of his files posted on a Publius – affiliated website, and the Publius network would reassemble the file for him at his request.  Researchers published a description of Publius at www.cs.nyu.edu/waldman/publius.

            Although many people welcomed the way that the new software would enhance freedom of speech on the Web, many others were dismayed.  Bruce Taylor, an antipornography activist for the National Law Center for Children and Families, stated : “It’s nice to be anonymous, but who wants to be more anonymous than criminals, terrorists, child molesters, child pornographers, hackers and e-mail virus punks.”  Aviel Rubin and Lorrie Cranor, the creators of Publius, however, hoped that their program would help people in countries where freedom of speech was repressed and individuals were punished for speaking out.  The ideal user of Publius, they stated, was “a person in China observing abuses of human rights on a day – to – day basis.”

Questions :

1.   Analyze the ethics of marketing Publius using utilitarianism,         rights, justice, and caring.  In your judgement, is it ethical to       market Publius ?  Explain.

2.  Are the creators of Publius in any way morally responsible for any           criminal acts that criminals are able to carry out and keep secret     by relying on Publius ?  Is AT & T in any way morally       responsible     for these ?  Explain your answers.

3. In your judgment, should governments allow the implementation of Publius ?  Why or why not ?

Case NO. 2

A JAPANESE BRIBE

In July 1976, Kukeo Tanaka, former prime minister of Japan , was arrested on charges of taking bribes ($ 1.8 million) from Locjheed Aircraft Company to secure the purchase of several Lockheed jets.  Tanaka’s secretary and serial other government officials were arrested with him.  The Japanese public reacted with angry demands for a complete disclosure of Tanaka’s dealings. By the end of the year, they had ousted Tanaka’s successor, Takeo Miki, who was widely believed to have been trying to conceal Tanaka’s actions.

            In Holland that same year, Prince Bernhard, husband of Queen Juliana, resigned from 300 hundred positions he held in government, military, and private organizations.  The reason : He was alleged to have accepted $ 1.1 million in bribes from Lockheed in connection with the sale of 138 F – 104 Starfighter jets.

            In Italy , Giovani Leone, president in 1970, and Aldo Moro and Mariano Rumor, both prime ministers, were accused of accepting bribes from Lockheed in connection with the purchase of $ 100 million worth of aircraft in the late 1960s.  All were excluded from government.

            Scandinavia , South Africa , Turkey , Greece , and Nigeria were also among the 15 countries in which Lockheed admitted to having handed out payments and at least $ 202 million in commissions since 1970.

            Lockheed Aircraft’s involvement in the Japanese bribes was revealed to have begun in 1958 when Lockheed and Grumman Aircraft (also an American firm) were competing for a Japanese Air Force jet aircraft contract.  According to the testimony of Mr. William Findley, a partner in Arthur Young & Co. (auditors for Lockheed), in 1958 Lockheed engaged the services of Yoshio Kodama, an ultra right – wing war criminal and reputed underworld figure with strong political ties to officials in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.  With Kodama’s help, Lockheed secured the Government contract.  Seventeen years later, it was revealed that the CIA had been informed at the time (by an American embassy employee) that Lockheed had made several bribes while negotiating the contract.

           

            In 1972, Lockheed again hired Kodama as a consultant to help secure the sale of its aircraft in Japan .  Lockheed was desperate to sell planes to any major Japanese airline because it was scrambling to recover from a series of financial disasters.   Cost overruns on a government contract had pushed Lockheed to the brink of bankruptcy in 1970.  Only through a controversial emergency government loan guarantee of  $ 250 million in 1971 did the company narrowly avert disaster.  Mr. A. Carl Kotchian, president of Lockheed from 1967 to 1975, was especially anxious to make the sales because the company had been unable to get as many contracts in other parts of the world as it had wanted.

            This bleak situation all but dictated a strong push for sales in the biggest             untapped market left-Japan.  This push, if successful, might well bring in    revenues upward of $ 400 million.  Such a cash inflow would go a long way             towards helping to restore Lockheed’s fiscal health, and it would, of      course, save the jobs of thousands of firm’s employees. (Statement of Carl Kotchian)

            Kodama eventually succeeded in engineering a contract for Lockhed with All – Nippon Airways, even beating out McDonnell Douglas, which was actively competing with Lockheed for the same sales.  To ensure the sale, Kodama asked for and received from Lockheed about $9 million during the period from 1972 to 1975.  Much of money allegedly went to then – prime minister Kukeo Tanaka and other government officials, who were supposed to intercede with All – Nippon Airlines on behalf of Lockheed.

            According to Mr. Carl Kotchian, “ I knew from the beginning that this money was going to the office of the Prime Minister.”   He was, however, persuaded that, by paying the money, he was sure to get the contract from All-Nippon Airways.  The negotiations eventually netted over $1.3 billion in contracts for Lockheed.

            In addition to Kodama, Lockheed had also been advised by Toshiharu Okubo, an official of the private trading company, Marubeni, which acted as  Lockheed’s official representative.  Mr. A. Carl Kotchian later defended the payments, which he saw as one of many “Japanese business practices” that he had accepted on the advice of his local consultants.  The payments, the company was convinced, were in keeping with local “ business practices.”

            Further, as I’ve noted, such disbursements did not violate American laws.          I should also like to stress that my decision to make such payments            stemmed from my judgment that the (contracts) …… would provided   Lockheed workers with jobs and thus redound to the benefit of their          dependents, their communities, and stockholders of the corporation.  I should like to emphasize that the payments to the so-called “ high           Japanese government officials” were all requested y Okubo and were not      brought up from my side.  When he told me “ five hundred million yen is necessary for such sales,” from a purely ethical and moral standpoint I       would have declined such a request.  However, in that case, I would most    certainly have sacrificed commercial success….. (If) Lockheed had not remained competitive by the rules of the game as then played, we would       not have sold (our planes) ……… I knew that if we wanted our product to have a chance to win on its own merits, we had to follow the functioning           system.  (Statement of A. Carl Kotchian)

            In August, 1975, investigations by the U.S. government led Lockheed to admit it had made  $ 22 million in secret payoffs.  Subsequent senate investigations in February 1976 made Lockheed’s involvement with Japanese government officials public.  Japan subsequently canceled their billion dollar contract with Lockheed.

            In June 1979, Lockheed pleaded guilty to concealing the Japanese bribes from the government by falsely writing them off as “marketing costs”.  The Internal Revenue Code states, in part.  “ No deduction shall be allowed….. for any payment made, directly or indirectly, to an official or employee of any government …. If the payment constitutes an illegal bribe or kickback.’  Lockheed was not charged specifically with bribery because the U.S. law forbidding bribery was not enacted until 1978.  Lockheed pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and four counts of making false statements to the government.  Mr. Kotchian was not indicated, but under pressure from the board of directors, he was forced to resign from Lockheed.  In Japan , Kodama was arrested along with Tanaka.

Questions :

1.  Fully explain the effects that payment like those which Lockheed             made to the Japanese  have on the structure of a market.  

2.  In your view, were Lockheed’s payments to the various Japanese            parties “bribes” or “extortions” ?  Explain your response fully.

3.  In your judgment, did Mr. A. Carl Kotchian act rightly from a       moral   point of view ?  (Your answer should take into account the effects of the payments on the welfare of the societies affected, on          the right and duties of the various parties involved, and on the         distribution of benefits and    burdens among the groups involved.)        In your judgment, was Mr. Kotchian morally responsible for         his       actions ?  Was he, in the end, treated fairly ?

4.   In its October 27, 1980, issue, Business Week argued that every             corporation has a corporate culture – that is, values that set a     pattern for its employee’s activities, opinions and actions and that           are instilled in succeeding generations of employees (pp.148-60)         Describe, if you can, the corporate culture of Lockheed and relate that culture to Mr. Kotchian’s actions.  Describe some strategies            for changing that culture in ways that    might make foreign    payments less likely.