AIB Case Study Academy of International Business (AIB) was an association of scholars and experts who were concerned with international business and related policy matters. It had its headquarters in Michigan in United States and the Secretariat used to conduct its day-to-day operations from there. The stakeholders of AIB were mainly the individual members from United States, United Kingdom and Japan whose membership contributions formed a major part of the total revenue. The members were also required to pay conference fee in order to attend the annual summer conferences.
Furthermore, AIB had local sponsors who used to fund some of the activities of the seminar like the gala festival, which used to be held at the end of each convention (Cinty, 2012). The stakeholders’ main interest was on international business and they focused mainly on the ways to improve it. In the planned June 2011 conference they aimed to facilitate a forum on how international business community would provide solutions to global issues of concern like terrorism, poverty and climate change among others. Their interest on international business is evidenced in their priorities especially after the Tsunami hit Japan where the venue for the convention was scheduled to be.
Despite the inherent risk that existed in having the venue in Nagoya, Japan the AIB executive board continued with the idea of not changing the venue or postponing the conference. They feared losing the local sponsorship and incurring heavy loss if they changed the venue or postponed the conference. They were also concerned with protecting their goodwill among the public especially the host university hence they did not want to disappoint them. All this shows that their priority was on the success of the event that was tied to their goal on international business, their reputation and avoiding making loss.
The priorities of the AIB executive committee had a big influence on the decisions they were making after the fear of release of radioactive elements in Fukushima and its surrounding. They upheld the decision of holding the conference in Nagoya despite the many challenges and difficulties they faced. Many universities had announced their cancellation of their academic funding to activities in Japan and many local companies were unwilling to fund the event probably because of self-restraint to mourn.
The members who were to attend the conference from Japan had also started cancelling their attendance because of their security concern. The board did not see all this impossibilities because they were mainly concerned on their priorities. On April 13 2011, a day after the Fukushima nuclear accident was raised to level 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, Yamada who was the program chair and his board had to make a decision on the way forward.
This was because of the uncertainty that prevailed since some members felt it was time they relocated the venue but others feared the decision would be immature. Yamada was required to make a decision on whether to stick to the initial venue or relocate. If I was in his position I would have relocated the venue to Hong Kong since it would give the members confidence. The only loss would be the local sponsorship and the amount that had already been paid for the various venues, which would be better than losing everything if the conference was to be cancelled. The leadership of AIB generally had a difficult time organizing the 2011 conference because of the effects of the Tsunami that had occurred in Japan.
They were required to make a decision which would be the most favorable to all interested parties but the decision making process faced many uncertainties. Reference Cinty, L. (2012). AIB Nagoya conference 2011: After the March 11 earthquake. London. : Ivey Publishing