Amazon case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Amazon case study - Essay Example Since July 1995 when it began, Amazon.com has enjoyed a 30 percent increase in business every month. Industry analysts believe the company is grossing up to $12 million a year. This was in spite of the fact that up until recently Amazon.com was not turning a profit. (Horvitz 1997: 37) Bezos believed the power of the Internet lay in continuous communication and word of mouth, which made branding even more important. As a result he chose to name his site after the world’s largest river, believing Amazon.com would become the biggest bookstore in the world. (Stockport & Ivory 2004: 648) He was somewhat mistaken. Now amazon.com has not only become one of the largest bookstores in the world but it is also one of the largest on-line retailers for just about everything both new and used worldwide. As mentioned previously one of the main driving forces for Amazon.com’s strategic intent in the marketplace was to be the biggest provider of goods and services to the largest amount of customers. This required a great deal of planning and certain focus to bring it all together. A central tenet of Amazon.com’s strategy, therefore, had been the customer-focused innovation designed to improve the convenience of the online shopping experience. This had included offering the world’s biggest collection of goods and services in a vast array of categories (Stockport & Ivory 2004: 648) They achieved this by paying very close attention to the needs of their customers and putting in place the strategic technologies and the support services necessary to do so. They completed this strategy but a great deal more was needed in order to keep up with the technological changes that were happening in leaps and bounds as well as keeping pace with the changing marketplace around them. They experienced ‘first mover’ growth between 1994 and 1997, but the competition was soon piling up, companies such as Barnes & Nobel as well as E-bay

Questions on strategic management Research Paper

Questions on strategic management - Research Paper Example In addition, understanding the business environment through research and other relevant actions ensures identification of strategic factors (Cherunilam 55). This move only makes sure that the international firms will be able to learn more about the business environment. And once they do, it would be easy for them to embrace some changes having the bottom line within the formulation of actual strategic actions. Knowing the business environment is important because this is one appropriate move in order to know the necessary actions the international firms need to initiate. Multiculturalism for instance is a core value that needed to be integrated especially among corporations having business activities in the international setting. 2. Compare and contrast trend extrapolation with the writing of scenarios as techniques. (Support your answer with an example). Trend extrapolation is quantitative in nature. Information can either be represented in a quantitative format or with numerical va lue. Graphs and other quantitative representations can be used for this purpose (Cornish 86). The writing of scenarios on the other hand is qualitative in its form, as this could also turn out historical. Although both trend extrapolation and writing scenarios are techniques that could turn out historical in nature, for they involve the need to look into past events or data. However, they vary in their actual presentation for it would be easy to interpret data transformed into information presented in graphical forms. For example, understanding the past trend of sales generated by a certain product offering could be both implemented through trend extrapolation and writing scenarios techniques. Both are actually capable of presenting the necessary and relevant information. However, for the convenience of using and interpreting information, there is a good way to find it more possible with trend extrapolation. On the other hand, trend extrapolation may be complex enough as this techni que unlike the writing scenarios, requires mathematical implementation. Trend extrapolation may be complex, for it would also require the right number of data in order for the obtained information to be statistically relevant. 3. How might a firm’s management decide whether it should continue to invest in familiar technology or in new but untested technology? What factors might encourage or discourage such a shift? (Support your answer with an example). There are many factors associated with making this decision, but one of them include efficiency. Firms are looking forward to efficient output in order to maximize opportunity and to generate revenue and eventually profit. The next consideration is productivity. Productive output today requires the use of technology, in order to hit the required volume of production necessary to help the entire business operation to continue operate. On the other hand, there is also a need to achieve competitive advantage so there is also a ne ed to consider whether to embrace new but untested technology or remain with the most familiar one. There are familiar technologies nowadays that could continue to provide firms with the achievement of the above mentioned factors at a higher remarkable cost saving. So for this reason, a company would be able to choose

Reviewing a Redundancy Decision

Reviewing a Redundancy Decision It is well established that when reviewing a redundancy decision the Authority  or Court will look at two factors. They are the genuineness of the redundancy and the  procedure by which it was carried out. The enquiry into each factor is carried out  separately (Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660 (CA)). Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) requires an  employer must, before dismissing an employee, raise its concerns, allow the employee  an opportunity to respond and consider the response with an open mind  (ss.103A(3)(b) to (d)). That these requirements remain in the form of a consultation process in a  redundancy setting is confirmed by s.4(1A)(c) of the Act. The relationship was  confirmed by the Court in Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 102. The Court recently affirmed in Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Davidson1 that it is not for the Court (or the Authority) to substitute its own view as to whether a position should be considered redundant (or not). Rather the inquiry should be in accordance with the statutory requirements, that is: whether what was done (the dismissal and the substantive reasons for it), and how it was done (the process undertaken), was what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time of the dismissal.2 Section 103A Employment Relations Act 2000 Substantive Justification for dismissal is addressed in s.103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), which states: S103A Test of Justification i. For the purposes of section 103(1) (a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by applying the test in subsection (2). ii. The test is whether the employers actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. [63] The Test of Justification requires that the employer acted in a manner that was substantively and procedurally fair. An employer must establish that the dismissal was a decision that a fair and reasonable employer could have made in all the circumstances at the relevant time. [64] In the Employment Law case Michael Rittson-Thomas T/A Totara Hills Farm v Hamish Davidson1 Unrep [2013] NZEmpC 39 20 March 2013 (Rittson) his Honour Chief Judge Colgan considered that the Court cannot impose or substitute its business judgment for that of the employer taken at the time, however: [54] à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the Court (or the Authority) must determine whether what was done and how it was done, were what a fair and reasonable employer would (now could) have done in all the circumstances at the time. So the standard is not the Courts (or the Authoritys) own assessment but rather, its assessment of what a fair and reasonable employer would/could have done and how. Those are separate and distinct standards. It is well established that when reviewing redundancy decisions the Authority or Court will look at two factors. They are the genuineness of the redundancy and the procedure by which it is carried out. The inquiry into each factor is carried out separately (Coutts Cars Ltd v. Bageley [2001] ERNZ 660 (CA)). - [27] Regarding the justifiability of a dismissal on grounds of redundancy, the starting point is to enquire whether the decision to make a position redundant was made for proper business purposes so as to ensure a purported redundancy is not an attempt to legitimize a dismissal where the predominate reason for termination of employment is for other reasons. [28] As with any allegation of unjustified dismissal, the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that its decision to terminate an employees employment was justified.3 Section 103A Employment Relations Act 2000 [29] In Rittson-Thomas [2013] NZEmpC 39 the Employment Court recently stated: It will be insufficient under s.103A, where an employer is challenged to justify dismissal or a disadvantage in employment, for the employer to say that this was a genuine business decision and the Court (or Authority) is not entitled to enquire into the merits of it.4 [60] The Court of Appeal statement of the law regarding the genuineness of a redundancy in GN Hale Son Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 151 (Hale) was that: An employer is entitled to make his business more efficient, as for example by automation, abandonment of unprofitable activities, reorganisation or other cost-saving steps, no matter whether or not the business would otherwise go to the wall. A worker does not have a right to continued employment if the business can be run more efficiently without him. [61] However since Hale was decided, justification for dismissal is now as stated in the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), which at s 103A of the Act sets out the Test of Justification as being: S103A Test of Justification i. For the purposes of section 103(1) (a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by applying the test in subsection (2). ii. The test is whether the employers actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. [62] The Test of Justification requires that the employer acted in a manner that was substantively and procedurally fair. An employer must establish that the dismissal was a decision that a fair and reasonable employer could have made in all the circumstances at the relevant time. [63] The Employment Court has issued recent decisions in this area which have reexamined the statement of the law in Hale in light of s 103A of the Act. [64] In Michael Rittson-Thomas T/A Totara Hills Farm v Hamish Davidson Unrep [2013] NZEmpC 39 20 March 2013 (Rittson) the Court referred to Hale and its previous comments about Hale in Simpsons Farms Limited v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825,842 . His Honour Chief Judge Colgan considered that the Court cannot impose or substitute its business judgment for that of the employer taken at the time, however: [54] à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the Court (or the Authority) must determine whether what was done and how it was done, were what a fair and reasonable employer would (now could) have done in all the circumstances at the time. So the standard is not the Courts (or the Authoritys) own assessment but rather, its assessment of what a fair and reasonable employer would/could have done and how. Those are separate and distinct standards. [65] In that case, the Court was critical of the lack of information provided to the employee, and held that the employer had not adequately explained why the money saved by the disestablishment of the employees position justified the position being made redundant. The Court found upon analysis that the employer had been mistaken in concluding that there would be a wage saving of 10% per annum, when in fact it was 6%. This threw into doubt the genuineness of and, therefore, the justification for, the dismissal. [66] In Brake v Grace Team Accounting Limited [2013] NZEmpC 81 13 May 2013 (Brake) Travis J firmly endorsed Rittson, finding in that case that although the employer claimed that its financial position had deteriorated over the six months the employee had been employed requiring a reduction in salaries, in fact analysis by the Court concluded that the employers figures were incorrect and there had been no sudden deterioration. [67] On this basis it was held that the employers justification for the dismissal was mistaken, with the consequence that the dismissal of the employee was unjustified. [68] In Catherine Tan v Morningstar Institute of Education Ltd T/A Morningstar Preschool Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 82 16 May 2013 the Court adopted a similar approach. As in the case of the employee in Brake, Ms Tan had been provided with factually incorrect information about the employers financial position. She had been misled into thinking that the redundancy of her position was inevitable when it was not; the cost savings were relatively minor and insufficient to have satisfied the employers requirements. [26] In its submissions, Checkmate refers to a decision of the Authority BodePatterson v Hammond-Smith and Smith t/a I Love Merino Limited [2013] NZERA Auckland 294 ( Member Anderson ). In that decision, the Authority sets out an excellent summary of the law in respect to redundancy and for the purposes of the present decision, the analysis in Bode-Patterson is adopted without amendment. [27] For present purposes, it is enough to say that the law requires the Authority to enquire into the genuineness of a redundancy so as to ensure that the redundancy is being activated for proper business purposes and not being undertaken for base motives. [28] Further, it is important to note that it is not enough for a business owner to simply claim the necessity to make structural changes; they must be prepared to demonstrate that necessity to the satisfaction of the Authority. [29] In broad terms then, there are two enquiries that the Authority must make to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the redundancy. The first is to establish whether the evidence supports the employers contention that there were genuine business reasons for the redundancy and the second is to ensure that there is no base motive underpinning the decision to dismiss for redundancy such as, for instance, a conviction on the part of the employer that the business would be better off without the incumbent of the role to be made redundant. Attached as it were to that last consideration is an examination of whether there is evidence of mixed motives. [30] Dealing first with the underlying genuineness of the decision to declare redundancy, it is appropriate to remember Chief Judge Colgans observations in Michael Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Hamish Davidson [2013] NZEmpC 39 (Rittson-Thomas) wherein His Honour had this to say: It will be insufficient under s.103A, where an employer is challenged to justify a dismissal or disadvantage in employment, for the employer to say that this was a genuine business decision and the Court (or Authority) is not entitled to enquire into the merits of it. The Court (or Authority) will need to do so to determine whether the decision, and how it was reached, were what a fair and reasonable employer would/could have done in all the relevant circumstances. Procedure [67] An employer who is proposing to restructure its business or any part of its business must not only have genuine reasons for undertaking the restructuring, but must follow a fair procedure in respect of affected employees. [68] Provisions of the Act govern questions of justification for dismissal and, in particular, dismissal by reason of redundancy. Section 4 of the Act addresses the requirement for parties to the employment relationship to deal with each other in good faith. Section 4(1A)(c) in particular is relevant to a redundancy situation and requires an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of an employee to provide to the employee affected: (i) access to information, relevant to the continuation of the employees employment, about the decision; and (ii) an opportunity to comment on the information to their employer before a decision is made. s4 (1A)(i) and (ii). [69] In a redundancy situation a fair and reasonable employer must, if challenged, be able to establish that he or she has complied with the statutory obligations of good faith dealing in s4 of the Act. His Honour Chief Judge Colgan in Simpsons Farms Limited v Aberhart2 [2006] ERNZ 825,842 noted that this compliance with good faith dealing includes consultation as the fair and reasonable employer will comply with the law Turning to process. Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) requires an employer must, before dismissing an employee, raise its concerns, allow the employee an opportunity to respond and consider the response with an open mind (ss.103A(3)(b) to (d) of the Act). That these requirements, in the form of a consultation process, remain in the redundancy setting is expressly confirmed by s.4(1a)(c) of the Act and the relationship between the two sections is confirmed by the Court in Jinkinson v. Oceanagold (NZ) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 102. The Court of Appeal in Aoraki Corp v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601 stated at page 619, the following proposition. What is crucial, however, is to recognise that the remedy can relate only to the particular wrong, to what has been lost or suffered as a result of the particular breach or failure. In this case the personal grievance is not that the employment was terminated, but that the manner of implementation of the decision to terminate was procedurally unfair. - Consultation In Simpsons Farms Limited v Aberhart6 Simpsons Farms Ltd and Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825   the Chief Judge noted Consultation does not require agreement between the parties however genuine efforts must be made to reasonably accommodate the views of the employees and there should be a tendency to achieve consensus7 . - [37] Section s.4(1A)(c) of the Employment Relations Act places an obligation on an employer proposing to make a decision that may affect an employees ongoing employment, to provide to a potentially affected employee access to information relevant to its decision and an opportunity to comment on that information before making a final decision. [38] Further, where an employer is contemplating dismissal on grounds of redundancy, good faith requires an employer to consult with a potentially affected employee about the possibility of redundancy5 . Simpsons Farms Ltd and Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 [39] The requirements for an employer to provide information, and to act in good faith also assists the Authority in its assessment as to whether the employers decision was what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. - Provide information [55] It is a truism that employers in a restructuring environment are obligated to provide affected staff with access to information, relevant to the continuation of the employees employment, about the decision; and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ an opportunity to comment on the information to their employer before the decision is made: s.4(1A)(c) of the Act. [56] Those precepts were emphasised in a decision of the Full Bench of the Employment Court in Vice Chancellor of Massey University v. Martin Wrigley Ors [2011] NZEmpC 37 (Wrigley). [57] In para.[48] of the judgment, the Court says: When a business is restructured, the employer will, in most cases, have almost total power over the outcome. To the extent that affected employees may influence the employers final decision, they can do so only if they have knowledge and understanding of the relevant issues and a real opportunity to express their thoughts about those issues. In this sense, knowledge is the key to giving employees some measure of power to reduce the otherwise overwhelming inequality of power in favour of the employer. [58] And again at para.[55] of the judgment, the Court says: The purpose of s.4(1A)(c) is to be found in para.(ii) which requires the employer to give the employees an opportunity to comment before the decision is made. That opportunity must be real and not limited by the extent of the information made available by the employer. [emphasis added] Consultation [77] The law on consultation in a redundancy setting is well settled. An employer contemplating a restructure which affects an employee or employees must engage with those employees in good faith such that the employee has a straightforward opportunity to engage in the process, be aware of the issues driving the employer, and, amongst other things, suggest alternatives that the employer may not have thought of or may not have fully worked up. - Good faith [38] Even if a redundancy is decided upon for genuine business reasons if the justification for the redundancy is challenged by an employee the employer must be able to prove to the Authority that the decision made and how it was reached was what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in the circumstances that existed at the time3 Section 103A Employment Relations Act 2000.. In applying the tests under s.103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), Chief Judge Colgan of the Employment Court has recently explained that: [54] It will be insufficient under section 103A, where an employer is challenged to justify a dismissal or disadvantage in employment, for the employer simply to say that this was a genuine business decision and the Court (or the Authority) is not entitled to enquire into the merits of it. The Court (or the Authority) will need to do so to determine whether the decision, and how it was reached, were what a fair and reasonable employer would/could have done in all the relevant circumstances. 4 Michael Rittson-Thomas trading as Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [2013] NZEmpC 39 [39] Genuine consultation with an affected employee is required. Remedies Section 123(1)(a) to (c) of the Act provides as follows: (1) Where the Authority or the court determines that an employee has a personal grievance, it may, in settling the grievance, provide for any 1 or more of the following remedies: (a) reinstatement of the employee in the employees former position or the placement of the employee in a position no less advantageous to the employee: (b) the reimbursement to the employee of a sum equal to the whole or any part of the wages or other money lost by the employee as a result of the grievance: (c) the payment to the employee of compensation by the employees employer, including compensation for- (i) humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to the feelings of the employee; and (ii) loss of any benefit, whether or not of a monetary kind, which the employee might reasonably have been expected to obtain if the personal grievance had not arisen. Contribution Section 124 of the Act, requires that where the Authority has determined that an employee has a personal grievance, the Authority must consider the extent to which the actions of the employee contributed towards the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance and remedies are to be withheld or reduced where there has been contribution or fault on the part of the employee. - Loss of rem Section 123(1)(b) provides that an employee dismissed unjustifiably may be reimbursed a sum equal to the whole or any part of the wages or other money lost by the employee as a result of the grievance. In Aoraki Corporation v McGavin9 the Court of Appeal held that in the absence of a contractual stipulation, the general practice as to the period of notice does not support fixing notice in excess of one month. If a redundancy is found to be genuine as I have in this matter, and a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal is upheld on grounds of procedural unfairness, remedies are confined to the distress caused by the way the redundancy was handled, rather than the loss of the job itself - Reimbursement of Lost Wages [52] Employees are under a duty to mitigate their loss and in this case there was insufficient evidence presented to the Authority to support the fact that Ms Whaanga had made a real effort to mitigate her loss. As Chief Judge Colgan made clear in Allen v Transpacific Industries Group Ltd (t/a Mediasmart Ltd) (2009) 6 NZELR 530, par 78: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ dismissed employees are not only under an obligation to mitigate loss but to establish this in evidence if called upon. This will require, in practice, a detailed account of efforts made to obtain employment including dates, places, names, copies of correspondence and the like. [53] Ms Whaanga has not established evidence to support her efforts to mitigate her loss and in these circumstances I find that there is no compensation for lost wages is payable to her.

Classical Greek Architecture Essay -- Greece Greek Essays

Classical Greek Architecture The reuse of older art works in contemporary times is not an uncommon occurrence, and many examples can be seen throughout the day as one goes from place to place. Even when one is browsing through the World Wide Web can many uses of older art and architecture be seen, as with the example shown. This image was found on the internet at the American Express homepage (http://www.americanexpress.com/student/), which functions as a resource for college students to find access to many commercial advertisements about discounts and products relevant for students. This homepage caters mostly to students, as non-students would not apply to the majority of the goods or services available. The picture itself is not exemplary of any one classical Greek building, but contains many elements of classical Greek architecture and design. The columns are what stand out the most in the architecture of this picture. The original Greek columns came in three different styles, or orders: Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. All Greek columns consist of both a shaft and a capital, and sometimes there is a base as well. The shaft is made from round drums stacked one on top of the other. The main difference among the orders comes from the differences in the capitals. The Doric capitals are usually very simple and look like the weight of the roof is flattening them out. The Ionic capitals are a little fancier with a large volute, which looks like rams horns rolling off of the shaft. The Corinthian capital is much more complex with smaller volutes and many stylized acanthus leaves and rosettes, accompanied by a boss on the top of each side. All three types of columns rest on the floor of the b uilding, which is often a temple. The fl... ... draw a connection between the ability of a large Greek temple to draw people to it and the large amount of people that can view this one graphic on the web page. The relationship is direct; one temple in ancient Greece is visited by many, and one web graphic is accessed by many. The temple in ancient Greek times gave its message symbolically an directly to a large group of people via sculpture and statues. This one web graphic relies on associations of ancient symbols to convey its message to a large group of people. Therefore we can say that although the function of the temple and graphic are different, the properties are the same: they are both meant to be looked upon by a large amount of people. Thus the connection between ancient art and modern use is evident when one looks at everyday life, and even the latest in technology still uses the creations of the past.

Quiz and Final Exam Study Guide Essay

The quizzes and final exam are â€Å"open book, open notes. † The maximum time you can spend on a quiz is 45 minutes. On the final you will have 3 hours and 30 minutes. If you have not clicked the â€Å"Submit For Grade† button by the end of the allotted time, you will be automatically exited from the exam. In the final exam environment, the Windows clipboard is disabled, so you will not be able to copy exam questions or answers to or from other applications. 2. You should click the â€Å"Save Answers† button in the exam frequently. This helps prevent connection timeouts that might occur with certain Internet Service Providers, and also minimizes lost answers in the event of connection problems. If your Internet connection does break, when you reconnect, you will normally be able to get back into your final exam without any trouble. Remember, though, that the exam timer continues to run while students are disconnected, so students should try to re-login as quickly as possible. If you lose your Internet connection during a quiz or the final exam, logon again and try to access it. If you are unable to enter it again, first contact the Help Desk and then your instructor. * You will always be able to see the time remaining in the quiz or final exam at the top right of the page. 5. There are multiple pages on the final exam. * Make sure you click the â€Å"Save Answers† button before advancing to the next page (we also suggest clicking on â€Å"Save Answers† while you are working). Complete all of the pages before submitting your Final Exam for instructor review. * Do NOT use your browser’s ‘Back’ and ‘Forward’ buttons during the final exam. * Please use the provided links for navigation. Submitting your quiz or final exam * When you are finished with a quiz or the final exam, click on the â€Å"Submit for Grade† button. * Please note: Once you click the â€Å"Submit for Grade† button, you will NOT be able to edit or change any of your answers. 7. Quiz and Exam Questions * On each quiz, there are 10 multiple-choice questions each worth 5 points and one essay question worth 10 points for a total of 30 points. On the final exam, there are 30 randomly selected multiple-choice questions each worth 5 points and 5 essay questions worth 30 points for a total of 300 points (150 multiple choice points, 150 essay points). * The final exam covers all course TCOs and Weeks 1-7. * The quizzes only cover the TCO’s for that week. * The final exam contains 3 pages, which can be completed in any order. You may go back and forth between the pages. * The quiz and final exam questions are pooled. This means that not everyone will have the same questions. Even if you do have some of the same questions, they may not be in the same order. These questions are distributed amongst the TCOs. * On the essay questions, your answers should be succinct, fully address each part of the question, and demonstrate your knowledge and understanding in a concise but complete answer. Most essay questions require answers that are a couple of paragraphs (not a couple of sentences) that directly speak to each part of the question. Some students opt to work on the essay questions first, due to their higher point value and length of time needed to adequately address each question, but this is entirely your choice. * Remember to always use proper citation when quoting other sources. This means that ANY borrowed material (even a short phrase) should be placed in quotation marks with the source (URL, author/date/page #) immediately following the end of the passage (the end quote). Changing a few words in a passage does NOT constitute putting it in your own words and proper citation is still required. Borrowed material should NOT dominate a student’s work, but should only be used sparingly to support your own thoughts, ideas, and examples. Heavy usage of borrowed material (even if properly cited) can jeopardize the points for that question. Uncited material can jeopardize a passing grade on the exam. As a part of our commitment to academic integrity, your work may be submitted to turnitin. com, an online plagiarism checking service. So please be VERY mindful of proper citation. 8. Some of the key study areas are below. While these are key areas, remember that the exam is comprehensive for all of the assigned course content and this study guide may not be all inclusive. The same goes for the quizzes: there may be material on the quiz that was part of the material for that week, but is not specifically listed here in the study guide.

Fundamental Factors Affecting Quality Essay

The nine fundamental factors (9 M’s), which are affecting the quality of products and services, are: markets, money, management, men, motivation, materials, machines and mechanization. Modern information methods and mounting product requirements. 1. Market: Because of technology advancement, we could see many new products to satisfy customer wants. At the same time, the customer wants are also changing dynamically. So, it is the role of companies to identify needs and then meet it with existing technologies or by developing new technologies. 2. Money: The increased global competition necessitates huge outlays for new equipments and process. This should be rewarded by improved productivity. This is possible by minimizing quality costs associated with the maintenance and improvements of quality level. 3. Management: Because of the increased complex structure of business organization, the quality related responsibilities lie with persons at different levels in the organization. 4. Men: The rapid growth in technical knowledge leads to development of human resource with different specialization. This necessitates some groups like, system engineering group to integrate the idea of full specialization. 5. Motivation: If we fix the responsibility of achieving quality with each individual in the organization with proper motivation techniques, there will not be any problem in producing the designed quality products. 6. Materials: Selection of proper materials to meet the desired tolerance limit is also an important consideration. Quality attributes like, surface finish, strength, diameter etc., can be obtained by proper selection of material. 7. Machines and mechanization: In order to have quality products which will lead to higher productivity of any organization, we need to use advanced machines and mechanize various operations. 8. Modern information methods: The modern information methods help in storing and retrieving needed data for manufacturing, marketing and servicing. 9. Mounting product requirements: Product diversification to meet customers taste leads to intricacy in design, manufacturing and quality standards. Hence, companies should plan adequate system to tackle all these requirements.