Berkely case assignment December 9, Berkely case assignment Gap Analysis The UC Berkeley, its who submitted their applications for the Fulbright award, the department of education, and Federal Express are the major stakeholders to the case. The UB Berkeley received applications from its students and contracted Federal Express to mail the applications to the department of education. With agreement on expected time of delivery, Federal Express should have picked the applications and delivered them before the deadline. Alternatively, the University should have taken measures to ensure timely delivery once they suspected delay from the courier.
Provision for allowance for delay would have also been necessary to allow for adjustments should a contracted courier fail to collect mails at the contracted time. This was however not the case as the University arranged to mail the applications on the last day. While the contracted courier failed to collect the mail, the university did not respond in time to ensure delivery of the applications within the deadline. Measures such as contacting the courier to confirm reasons for the delay and considering alternative delivery options were necessary but were not considered (Murphy, 2004).
Possible Actions at Different Times At 3 PM of the final mailing date, I would contact the courier company to confirm their planned delivery of the university’s mail. The call would also confirm the courier’s availability to deliver the planned service and ability to meet the delivery deadline and the latest time at which the courier would pick the mail. I would also raise concern over possible rejection of the applications should they be delivered late. At 4 PM, I would contact the contracted courier and affirm the need to have the deliveries on time.
I would want to know reasons for delay and ask the company for alternative measures to the delivery. Such measures would include use of a different vessel or person should there be a complication with the previous assigned party and vessel for the delivery. I would also be keen to receive a commitment that a solution would be developed in the next hour. At 5 PM, and assuming that the courier company has neither responded or collected the mails, I would contact it again and ask for emergency measures such as airlifting of the mail for timely delivery. At 6 PM, it would be apparent that the courier would fail to deliver the mails on time.
I would make a final contact with the courier company and informed them of their failure. I would then conduct a cost benefit analysis over use of the university’s resources to airlift the applications for timely delivery. If net benefits exist, especially economic benefits, then I would contract for air delivery and inform the courier company of the move and possible legal implications.
Possible Action had I not been in my Department on the Delivery Day until the following Day This would mean realizing the problem after the deadline. I would seek legal advice on possible strategies for ensuring that the Department of Education accepts the late applications, whether legal or moral. If no remedy exists for making late applications then I would seek legal advice for redress against Federal Express for their failure to make the timely delivery. Negligence against the courier company would be the most viable claim with the objective of securing alternative research awards for the applicants.
Apology to the students and an explanation of circumstances into the failure would also be necessary. Legal or Ethical Issue in the Case and Possible action Negligence is the major legal issue in the case. This defines a party’s failure to exercise a duty of care that it owes to another party, with the failure leading to a loss. Federal Express owed the university and the applicants a duty of care in the delivery. It however failed to make the delivery and this led to loss of award that the student would have won, owing to the fact that the university’s students win the awards each year.
The legal issue also extends to breach of contract by the Federal Express (Gibson and Fraser, 2013). Most Effective Person Dr. Robert Berdahl, the university’s chancellor is the most effective person in the case. This is because he takes active measures to resolve the issue when it reaches his attention. This further suggests that had he leant of the problem early enough, he would have ensured a solution (Murphy, 2004). Least Effective Person The least effective person is the manager of the mail department because of his failure to detect the problem and develop mitigation measures (Murphy, 2004).
References Gibson, A. and Fraser, D. (2013). Business law 2014. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Higher Education AU. Murphy, D. (2004). Missed pickup means 30 college students lose chance at fellowship. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http: //www. nytimes. com/2004/02/05/education/05DELI. html.