Consultancy Management Techniques - Assignment Example

nsultаnсy Маnаgеmеnt Тесhniquеs Customer inserts His/her name Customer inserts his/her number Customer inserts Grade/Course Customer inserts Tutor’s name (15, 06, 2016) Question 1: Heuristic are often correct general decisions that people or managers make using very limited available information. They are mainly regarded as shortcuts that reduce the cognitive burden that accompanies decision making process. When individuals use categories as their bases for making decisions about something they are employing representative heuristic. It offers an option to scrutinize fewer alternatives in decision making. One significant heuristic is the representative heuristic that is mainly economically oriented. It is considered as a mental shortcut that assists in making decision by comparing information to our mental prototypes. This method helps us to make quick decisions that save time and energy. However, the main weakness of this method is its stereotyping mechanism that generalizes decision making process. Availability heuristic regards how easily an idea can be brought to mind. Availability heuristic acts as the most base for most of our decisions and judgments. For instance if people are asked to read a list and after identify names from the list, majority of the names identified are those of famous individuals that are familiar to the person. Many of the missed medical diagnosis present in health sectors are attributed to heuristic. Scholars in the medical arena appreciates the cognitive economical importance of heuristic, but cautions clinicians and practitioners in establishing where heuristic requires to override heuristic in favor for more comprehensive decision making mechanisms (Goodwin & Wright 2014). Lexicographic heuristic on the hand is a more comprehensive decision making mechanism that is mainly grouped into three phases. The first phase is the search rule that entails looking for attributes in order of validity. The second stage is the stopping rule that stops the search once the first attribute discriminates between alternatives. The last phase is the decision stage where entails selecting the alternative that the attribute favors. In this method the buyer assesses a product attributes in relation to ranked priorities and will settle for the brand that best satisfies the highest priority. For example, a buyer who ranks the price of a car most, followed by efficiency of fuel consumption, braking and headroom may buy the car with most headroom between two cars that are satisfying in terms of price, fuel efficiency and braking. However, low ranked attributes such as color won’t sway the decision (Gigerenzer, Todd, & the ABC Research Group 1999). The minimalist involves the use of cues based on the inference in the direction the cue points. Minimalist looks for cues randomly and takes advantage of recognition heuristic in instances where both objects are recognized or the cue is not correlated to the criterion. In the case where one of the cues is recognized predict it as having the higher value on criterion, but when none is recognized one should guess and if both are recognized one should proceed to the next level that entails a random search involving drawing the cue randomly without replacement and looking at the value of the two objects. If one of the objects is found to have a positive cue value and the other does not have either a positive or a negative, one should go to stage 3 which is the stopping rule or decision rule. Here there is a prediction that the one with a positive cue has a higher value on the criterion. In decision making one should take the object based on the direction the cue point, but not on how valid the clue is. The minimalist theory is used in designing instructions mainly training materials for computer users. It stresses on the importance of building upon the learners experience (Carroll 1998). Question 2 and 3: Calculating attribute weights ATTRIBUTE ORIGINAL WEIGHTS NORMALIZED WEIGHTS Engineering 100 37 Quality 80 30 Production 50 18 Logistics 40 15 Total 270 100 At this point we have established two important parameters that will assist in the analysis process. One, the measure of how well each attribute performs on each attribute and secondary the weights that enable in the comparison of the values allocated to one attribute with the values allocated to the others. This indicates that it is now possible to find out how well each supplier performs overall by combining the four value scores allocated to each supplier. To establish it, each value is multiplied with weight attached to that attribute. The resulting products are summed and divided by 100 to obtain the overall value benefit of each supplier. ATTRIBUTE Abbeyfield Values WEIGHT Value x weight Engineering 100 37 3700 Quality 80 30 2400 Production 0 18 0 Logistics 100 15 1500 7600 Aggregate value for Abbeyfield is 7600/100= 76 ATTRIBUTE Barrow’s Values WEIGHT Value x weight Engineering 50 37 1850 Quality 60 30 1800 Production 40 18 720 Logistics 50 15 750 5120 Aggregate value for Abbeyfield is 5120/100= 51.2 ATTRIBUTE CFC Values WEIGHT Value x weight Engineering 0 37 0 Quality 0 30 0 Production 50 18 900 Logistics 70 15 1050 1950 Aggregate value for Abbeyfield is 1950/100= 19.5 ATTRIBUTE CFC Values WEIGHT Value x weight Engineering 90 37 3330 Quality 100 30 3000 Production 100 18 1800 Logistics 0 15 0 8130 Aggregate value for Abbeyfield is 8130/100= 81.3 Values and weights for the four suppliers ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT Abbeyfield Barrow’s CFS Dalton’s Engineering 37 100 50 0 90 Quality 30 80 60 0 100 Production 18 0 40 50 100 Logistics 15 100 50 70 0 Aggregate Values 76 51.2 19.5 81.3 It is seen that Dalton’s has the highest value for benefits and CFS the lowest, however it is not possible to make conclusions on the best option of the three since there has been no relations established between the value for benefits in relation to the costs associated with the suppliers (Goodwin & Wright 2014). Costs 24 22 21.5 24.1 Aggregate Value 76 51.2 19.5 81.3 The cost scale has been turned round, according to the graph. The higher a supplier appears on the benefit scale and the further to the right on the cost scale indicates, the more attractive the supplier is. The choice of the supplier on the efficient of frontier will depend on the relative weight of the management attachment to costs and benefit. If the management is more orientated towards benefits he chooses the supplier with most benefits and if wants to keep his cost down prefers the one with minimal cost. For our case both If we compare Dalton’s and Abbeyfield, who are the highest rated in terms of cost and benefits, Dalton’s is a more preferred supplier because he has more benefits and is more economical to engage 81.3 and 76 respectively. Therefore the multifunctional team should settle for Dalton’s since has excelled in both the cost and benefit than the others. By settling on Dalton’s rather than Abbeyfield who are most rated, the company is in a position to save £ 0.3 and increase its benefits by 5.3. Corporate social responsibility entails the activities that corporate engage in to promote societies where they operate. They help in enhancing their relationship with the society in which they operate. Social responsibility requires addressing immediate issues affecting the communities where the company operates as well as focus on potential concerns for future generations. The main focus for future generation is the environmental concerns that affect the present generation and can impact future generations. In essence, corporate social responsibility is the move where corporate voluntarily integrates social and environmental concerns for communities’ within their business operations. It has been observed that operations of organizations affects external environmental and it is the responsibility of the accounting department to report the extent of the impacts in order for important stakeholders to be informed of the likely impact and invest appropriate to curb the consequences. According to some scholars such as Milton Friedman, it is not in the best interest for corporate organizations to engage into non-profit activities which directly reduces dividends or the market performance of the stock. However, Bhatnagar (2004) state that every large firm should be considered as a social enterprise that the public can justify in how they serve the public. In addition, Bhatnagar (2004) state that businesses take into account the legal, ethical and economical expectations the public has at any instantaneous time. It is common that the activities that corporate engage will affect it and also upon the external environment it resides. The environment entails business environment, local community environment as well as the global environment. The effects can range from; competition from rival firms, use of natural resources in their production process, uplifting the economic performance of locals through offering employment opportunities, changes of the landscape because of material extraction and waste disposal and most importantly, the adverse climatic impacts it creates as a result of enhanced emission of greenhouse gases. It is therefore clear that an organization can have great impacts on the external environmental and has the capacity to transform positively and negatively the external environment through its activities. Because of the uncertainty that surround the nature of corporate social responsibility activity, it is very complex to define it and be sure about any such undertaking. However, there are three main principles that govern corporate social responsibility which are; Sustainability, accountability and transparency. Sustainability is concerned with immediate actions taken presently and their potential effect in future. For example, the extraction and utilization of natural resources presently means that they will not be available in future and this is a great concern if the resources are limited in quantity. For instance, extraction of raw materials such as gold, diamond or coal which are finite in quantity will mean if the process of extraction is not controlled they will not be available for use in future. Sustainability makes sure that resources are not exploited more than they can be regenerated to ensure they are available for future use. Over exploitation of resources have some immediate concern because as the resources becomes depleted, the cost of acquiring them becomes higher which raises the operational costs of firms. For example, the paper industry has a policy of replanting trees to replace those harvested which control the likelihood of increasing costs in future. Therefore, un-sustainability in future can be controlled through developing sustainable operations or planning for future lacking in resources currently required. Corporate mainly focus on less un-sustainability by increasing efficiency in the manner in which resources are utilized (Werther & Chandler 2010). Accountability is the consciousness organization possess that its action affects external environment and thereby assume responsibility for the effects of its action. This implies that the organization considers itself as part of a wider societal network and has responsibilities to that network, but not only to its shareholders. It is important to note that the external stakeholders have the power to affect the actions of organizations and justify and quantify its actions. Thus, accountability helps in development of appropriate environmental performances as well as assessing and reporting the actions of corporate. This assists organizations in developing, recording and reporting their environmental performance to establish the value for the social responsibilities undertaken (Stout & Pickel 2007). Transparency, the organization should ensure transparent when reporting the environmental effects of its action. Such information is imperative as external users lack important background details and knowledge that is available to internal users. Therefore, the managers should ensure they share such information to all stakeholders concerned. Milton Friedman has a different principle for business ethics and sates that the social responsibility of business is to enhance its profit as long as it operates within the confine of the law. According to Milton Friedman corporate engagement into social responsibility is distorting economic freedom because the shareholders are not in a position to decide how their money is spent. To him, corporate should concentrate on those activities that are directed in enhancing the profits of the company. However, one important element of his argument is the emphasis that corporate should adhere to the law and established ethical conducts as they pursue profits. However, they should not engage in charitable activities since he regards them as unprofitable. He does not regard corporate activities as good because of their ethical benefit, but because they have an economical advantage that is directed in enhancing the shareholders wealth (Milton 1970). To him, corporate executives are hired with one social responsibility of maximizing the shareholders returns. They should only focus on activities that are directed towards achieving this universal goal but not rob shareholders money by engaging in unrewarding charitable activities. Therefore, engaging in charitable activities is considered as unethical in the utilitarian point of view. One important point Milton Friedman fails to acknowledge is that engaging in corporate social responsibility can be a great marketing strategy. For instance, corporate can offer products and services that equals their ethical threshold and in the process adding consumers as well as shareholders value and ultimately avoiding market myopia. In summary, corporate should engage in social responsibilities because they have an ethical responsibility to control the impacts they bring to the communities where they operate. In addition, their engagement in corporate social responsibility can be interpreted as a bigger picture to win the confidence of its consumer. This can translate into a positive and rewarding initiative for both the shareholders and consumers List of References Bhatnagar, R. 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart as a catalyst for social activism. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal. Vol. 19, pp. 246-258. Carroll, J.M., 1998), Minimalism beyond the Nurnberg Funnel. MA: MIT Press : Cambridge. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., & the ABC Research Group, 1999, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press: New York. Gogoi, P. 2007, Wal-Mart’s Latest Ethics controversy; Business week, Free Press Goodwin, P. & Wright, G., 2014, Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. Prentice Hall: New York: Milton F., 1970, The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times. Stout, J. and Pickel, J. 2007, The Wal-Mart Waltz in Canada: Two steps forward one step back. The Connecticut Law Review. Vol.39, Iss.4, pp. 1495-1511. Werther, W. and Chandler, 2010, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment. 2nd Edition. SAGE Publishers, New York. Read More