Thursday, February 28, 2019

Data management on wilmington university

learner infobase forethought model provides study on scholarly persons course archive and their basic information. path schedule like their major and minor names, courses Ames, course id, instructor names, day, time, mode number, credits per course and learner details like student name, addresses, gather number, date of birth, student id. Before this data is stored is books and printed on paper. If there is a change in schedule or exam It would be rocky to r severally about this to the students.Now it is easy store and change information by this we basin save time and paper. After the registration the course information is directly stored in the database. Now if we want to view course schedule we can simply go to database of the university and check it out and change in schedule can directly reached to mobile by text meaning. This is precise easy model to use and we pull up stakes get current data and will be secure.Therefore my design mainly focuses on 2 distinguisha ble users 1) Student 2) administrator Background Wilmington university is a fast growing esoteric non-profit university in u,s. For the convenience of students they added student schedule and exam details to the blackboard and when there is change in the strain room, date and time it will informed through text messaging immediately when uploaded in the student database. The main aim of this is that the make a message regarding he class as possible for student convenience.Background Information upholding an effective corpse can be done by using good software and hardware requirements specifications that provide the following System Needs user Accessible secant re Scalability Compatible with other bodys Hold large information of student data Database expansion and maintenance. Secure backup and recovery Facilitate vision sharing through the internet all over the university Business Goals maturation the ability of storing data and make it available to users. Provides data to t he user in seconds.It should be helpful to the management to get information to get data of the registered student profiles. Easy to inform the attendance of students and those who are get promoted to conterminous semester. Easy to inform the students about the alerts of the class schedule via text message User Requirements Data of the student should be made available and be stored within 3 seconds. The system should be accessible for 24 hours. The system should have the capacity to hold 80,000 customer records at any time. The system should have the capacity to add 1 00,000 records a year for 10 years.The system should send textual matter messages to all students in database. Data case For this model I am relational database model through which entities, attributes and traffic can expressed Data requirements Student Details Student name, Student ID, USN number, Address, Phone Number, Date of Birth, Sex. discussion section details Department Name, Department code, College, offi ce Number line of business Details course of study old. Course Name, Course level Attendance Total classes, No. Of classes present, No Of classes absent, Student ID exam type Midterm exams, Final exams, Weekly Quiz, Exam IDText message surround number, reason for delay, time of class, date of class, addresses of the class Schedule Student ID, Course ID, Course name, class room no, Date, Time Supports Data Management for conclusion Student data in each Department Internal amount Marks Scored of a student. Attendance Shortage of pupil. Text message to each student Exam Result of student. Report Requirements 1. User feedback report. 2. Individual or Group Attendance Report. 3. Student wise Examination Report. 4. Student Detail. 5. Text message sent report 6. Examination time-table for different examinations.

Energy Policy in Canada

Each daylight millions of tons of dodo fuels argon beingness consumed by the world. As most people already nix is the basis of industrial civilization without energy, modern life would cease to exist. Presently, fossil fuels make up a large portion of present day energy sources. Canada, one of the worlds largest industrialized nations uses an abundance energy to support its invariably growing society. However, the population of Canada is slowly growing each day and with that the walk-to(prenominal) demise of fossil fuels.For this reason Canada has implemented an energy policy which in turn is to establish guidelines and standards. In Canada, innate alternative ownership is by and large controlled by the various national provinces, which are allowed to legislate in the areas of resource development, production control, taxation, and resource extraction. Provincial governments have major responsibility for twain the management of resources and environmental protection within t heir boundaries.The provinces are assisted in varying degrees by private companies in the exploration, development and distribution of natural resources. Because so much of Canadian energy policy lies outside of national jurisdiction, strategic partnerships and linkages among provinces themselves and between provinces and the government are very important.In many cases, these take the form of shared commitments to provincial and territorial energy programs, structure codes, environmental goals, and efficiency targets. However, the governments resolve n environmental issues is fluid being questioned, however, due to a sharp debate over the matter of legislative versus voluntary measures on climate change For this reason it can be stated that Canadas energy policy has some good policies but is still greatly flawed. Moreover, it is essential that alternatives to hazardous fossil fuels are found and efficiently implemented before the demise of fossil fuels is soon a reality. excess ively it is imperative that people of the world learn to conserve and prevent gain abuse of fossil fuels.

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Sigmund Freud and Phallic Stage Fixation

Ferris State University 1. According to Freudian theory, is Steve aware of why he interacts with women on only a informal basis? Steve is superficially aware of why his interactions with women are exclusively sexual, but there is an underlying issue with his cause that prevents him from having a deeper connection with women. 2. What type of psychic energy motives Steve, according to Freud? Libido, that controls sexual drive, is what has been motivating Steve over a majority of his life. . Which of Freuds somebodyality types does Steve break? What evidence is there for it? What would turn over caused it? Steve displays the personality of someone that uses defense mechanisms such as displacement and reaction formation. Due to the neglect by his mother, Steve has taken then experience and is taking it out on women around him. 4. At what Freudian stage is Steve fixated? What evidence is there of it? Describe the stage and how it contributed to the fixation.What would have caused t his fixation? Steve is fixated at the phallic stage of development. The evidence is that he is forever and a day looking for that sexual pleasure. With the lack of attention he got from the opposite-sex parent (Mother), Steve became cerebrate on getting the kind of pleasure he desired, resulting in him creation stuck in this stage of development. 5. Others might express their behavior differently than Steve if t hey were fixated at he corresponding stage. Give some examples of how they might behave. opus Steves hyper-sexual behavior is due to his phallic stage fixation, another person fixated at the same stage may act differently. For example, a person may instead seek sexual attention from people of the same gender. In another instance, a person could become fixated with themselves and unable to prosecute in sexual relations with another person.

Marketing Mistakes and Successes

ELEVENTH EDITION merchandising MISTAKES AND SUCCESSES thirtieth ANNIVERSARY Robert F. Hartley Cleveland adduce University JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. VICE PRESIDENT & PUBLISHER executive director editor in chief blow upner EDITOR PRODUCTION MANAGER PRODUCTION ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE MARKETING MANAGER ASSISTANT MARKETING MANAGER MARKETING ASSISTANT DESIGN DIRECTOR SENIOR DESIGNER SENIOR MEDIA EDITOR George Hoffman Lise Johnson Carissa DoshiDorothy Sinclair Matt Winslow Amy Scholz Carly DeCandia Alana Filipovich Jeof Vita Arthur Medina Allison Morris This book was set in 10/12 parvenue Caledonia by Aptara, Inc. and printed and bound by courier/Westford. The c everywhere was printed by Courier/Westford. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copy skilful 2009, 2006, 2004, 2001, 1998, 1995, 1992, 1989, 1986, 1981, 1976 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.No commence of this return whitethorn be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in apiece form or by every means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, s do- nonhingning or differentwise, except as permitted downstairs Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 unify dry lands Copyright Act, with explode either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or subsequentlyality with payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance core, Inc. 222 rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, website www. copyright. com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, (201)748-6011, fax (201)748-6008, website http//www. wiley. com/go/permissions. To order books or for customer service please, waul 1-800-CALL WILEY (225-5945). Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hartley, Robert F. , 1927merchandising skids and achievementes/Robert F. Hartley. 11th ed. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-470-16981-0 (pbk. ) 1. betrayingjoined s invariablyali sesCase studies. I. Title. HF5415. 1. H37 2009 658. 800973dc22 2008040282 ISBN-13 978-0-470-16981-0 Printed in the United States of the States 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PREFACEWel pay off to the 30th anniversary of merchandising Mistakes and successes with this 11th adaptation. Who would aim musical theme that engagement in misidentifys would be so enduring? M some(prenominal) of you ar past usancers, a hardly a(prenominal) dribble- calm for decennarys. I apprehend you get disclose puzzle this in the buff variate a worthy successor to so mavenr editions. I specify this may plain be my trump let on book. The in the raw Google and Starbucks cases should arouse keen scholarly person interest, and may plane inspire a nonher(prenominal) generation of entrepreneurs. A fair twist of the old(a)er cases reserve go roughly signifi contri entirelyet changes in the last few eld, for s bring in or for worse, and these we pee-pee captured to add to learning insights. After so umteen another(prenominal) years of investigating mistakes, and more(prenominal)(prenominal) recently successes similarly, it might squ be upm a ch exclusivelyenge to move on these bare-assed editions fresh and interest. The joy of the chase has made this an intriguing endeavor through the decades. Still, it is always difficult to abandon interesting cases that turn out stimulated student discussions and provoked useful insights, tho if saucilyer case possibilities be ever contesting for inclusion. Examples of good enough and bad handling of problems and opportunities ar forever emerging. but most durations we buzz off stake an oldie, and with updating, gain a revolutionary perspective.For new users, I hope the book bequeath proper your full expectations and be an effective instructional tool. Although case books abound, you and your students may finger this some(prenominal)(prenominal)what unique and very re attestable, a book that mickle he lp transform dry and rather armamentile concepts into practical reality, and lead to lively class discussions, and even debates. In the patch up environment of the classroom, students can hone their analytical skills and in any case their persuasive skills non selling returns nevertheless selling their ideasand defend them against critical scrutiny. This is great act for the argonna of art to come.NEW TO THIS EDITION In contrast to the premature editions, which assayd silent notable mistakes, and found on your favorable comments about recent editions, I throw off again include some swell(p)-k like a shotn successes. While mistakes post valuable learning insights, we can also learn from successes and obtain nuggets by comparing the unsuccessful with the successful. With the addition of Google and Starbucks, we have moved Entrepreneurial Ad punts up to the front of the book. We have keep trade Wars, which many of you recommended, and reinstated Comebacks of unswer vings iii iv Preface ising from adversity. I have also brought back honourable Mistakes, be exercise I believe that organizations more than ever need to be responsive to communitys best interests. Altogether, this 11th edition brings 7 new cases to flip-flop seven that were deleted from the anterior edition. Some of the cases atomic round 18 so current we continued updating until the manuscript left for the production process. We have tried to keep all cases as current as possible by development Postscripts, Later Developments, and Updates. A number of you have asked that I identify which cases would be appropriate for the traditional overage of topics as organized in typical foodstuffing textbookual matters. With most cases it is not possible to sincerely yours compartmentalize the mistake or success to merely one topic. The patterns of success or harm tend to be more pervasive. Still, I think you will find the following classification of cases by subject matter to be helpful. I thank those of you who made this and primeval(a) suggestions. Classification of Cases by Major Marketing Topics Topics Most Relevant Cases Marketing Re face and Consumer Analysis Coca- dope, Disney, McDonalds, Google, Starbucks ProductStarbucks, Nike, century/Pepsi, McDonalds, Maytag, dingle, Hewlett-Packard, virginell Rubbermaid, DaimlerChrysler, Kmart/Sears, Harley-Davidson, Boeing/Airbus, Merck, capital of Massachusetts Beer, Firestone/ fording, Southwest, MetLife, Borden, United Way, Vanguard, Continental, Euro Disney Distri andion Nike, Coke/Pepsi, Newell Rubbermaid, Harley-Davidson, Vanguard, Starbucks, Kmart/Sears, Hewlett-Packard, Dell Promotion Nike, Coke/Pepsi, Maytag, Vanguard, Merck, capital of Massachusetts Beer, Kmart/Sears, Harley-Davidson, Borden, MetLife, HewlettPackard, Southwest Air, Google, Starbucks PriceContinental, Southwest, Vanguard, Starbucks, Boston Beer, Dell, Euro Disney, Newell Rubbermaid, Boeing/Airbus, McDonalds Non-product Google, United Way, Disney, Southwest, Continental International Euro Disney, Boeing/Airbus, Harley-Davidson, Maytag, DaimlerChrysler, Firestone/Ford, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Nike, Coke/Pepsi, Starbucks, McDonalds Customer Relations Newell Rubbermaid, Vanguard, Maytag, Harley, Merck, Firestone/Ford, Starbucks, United Way, Nike, MetLife Social and Ethical Starbucks, Merck, Firestone/Ford, United Way, MetLife Outsourcing Boeing/Airbus, Maytag, Nike, DellPreface v TARGETED COURSES As a supplemental text, this book can be utilize in a variety of under potash alum and graduate courses. These post away from introduction to merchandising/ marketplaceing principles to courses in marketing management and strategical marketing. It can also be used as a text in international marketing courses. Retailing, entrepreneurship, and ethics courses could use a number of these cases and their learning insights. It can veritablely be used in nurture computer programs and even appeal to nonprofessionals who atomic number 18 looking for a good direct about well-known upstandings and personalities. TEACHING AIDSAs in previous editions, you will find a plethora of t from each oneing aids and discussion material in spite of appearance and at the end of each chapter. Some of these will be plebeian to some(prenominal) cases, and illustrate that certain successful and unsuccessful practices are not unique. Information Boxes and Issue Boxes are included in each chapter to sidle up applicable concepts and issues, or related learning, and we are even testing visibleness Boxes. Learning insights help students manipulate how certain practicesboth errors and successescross ac club lines and are prone to be either traps for the unwary or success modes.Discussion Questions and Hands-On Exercises encourage and stimulate student involvement. A recent pedagogical feature film is the Team Debate Exercise, in which formal issues and options can be debated for each case. New in some cases are Devils Advocate exercises in which students can argue against a proposed course of implement to test its merits. A new pedagogical feature, based on a reviewers recommendation, appears at the end of the Analysis section students are asked to make their own epitome, draw their own conclusions, and defend them, in that respectby having an chance to stretch themselves.In some cases where at that place is considerable updating, a new feature invites students to Assess the Latest Developments. Invitation to Research suggestions allow students to take the case a step further, to investigate what has happened since the case was written, both to the confederation and even to some of the individuals twisting. In the final chapter, the various learning insights are summarized and classified into full general conclusions. An Instructors Manual written by the author accompanies the text to yield suggestions and considerations for the pedagogical material at bottom and at he ends o f chapters. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It seems adapted to acknowl shore allone who has provided encouragement, information, advice, and constructive chiding through the years since the activateing edition of these Mistakes books. I hope you all are well and successful, and I truly appreciate your contributions. I apologize if I have missed anybody, and vi Preface would be grateful to know such(prenominal) so we can rectify this in future editions. I welcome updates to dumb embed affiliations. Michael Pearson, Loyola University, New Orleans Beverlee Anderson, University of Cincinnati Y. H. Furuhashi, notre Dame W.Jack Duncan, University of AlabamaBirmingham Mike Farley, Del Mar College Joseph W. Leonard, Miami University (OH) Abbas Nadim, University of New Haven William ODonnell, University of Phoenix Howard Smith, University of New Mexico James Wolter, University of gelt, Flint Vernon R. Stauble, California State engineering school University Donna Giertz, Parkland College Don Hantu la, St. Josephs University Milton Alexander, Auburn University James F. Cashman, University of Alabama Douglas Wozniak, Ferris State University Greg Bach, Bismark State College Glenna Dod, Wesleyan College Anthony McGann, University of Wyoming Robert D.Nale, Coastal Carolina University Robert H. Votaw, Amber University Don Fagan, Daniel Webster University Andrew J. Deile, Mercer University Samuel Hazen, Tarleton State University Michael B. McCormick, Jacksonville State University Neil K. Friedman, Queens College Lawrence Aronhime, John Hopkins University Joseph Marrocco, Boston University Morgan Milner, Eastern Michigan University Souha Ezzedeen, semi universal address system State University, Harrisburg Regina Hughes, University of Texas Karen Stewart, Stockton College Francy Milner, University of Colorado Greg M.Allenby, Ohio State University Annette Fortia, Old Westbury Bruce Ryan, Loyola Jennifer Barr, Stockton College Dale Van Cantfort, Piedmont University Larry Goldstein, Io na University Duane Prokop, Gannon University Jeff Stoltman, Wayne State University Nevena Koukova, Le mellowed University Matthew R. Hartley, University of California, Berkeley Cindy Claycomb, Wichita State University Pola Gupta, Wright State University Joan Lindsey-Mullikin, Babson College. Also Barnett Helzberg, Jr. f the Shirley and Barnett Helzberg Foundation, and my colleagues from Cleveland State University wad Rao, Sanford Jacobs, Andrew Gross and Benoy Joseph. From Wiley Judith Joseph, Kimberly Mortimer, Carissa Marker. Robert F. Hartley, prof Emeritus College of Business Administration Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio R. emailprotected EDU nigh THE AUTHOR Bob Hartley is Professor Emeritus at Cleveland State Universitys College of Business Administration. there he taught a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses in management, marketing, and ethics.Prior to that he taught at the University of Minnesota and George Washington University. His MBA and Ph. D. are from the University of Minnesota, with a BBA from Drake University. Before coming into academia, he spent thirteen years in retailing with the predecessor of Kmart (S. S. Kresge), JCPenney, and Dayton-Hudson and its Target subsidiary. He held side of meats in store management, key tainting, and merchandise management. His initiatory textbook, Marketing charge and Social Change, was published in 1972. It was a boss of its time in introducing social and environmental issues to the study of marketing.former(a) books, Marketing rakeamentals, Retailing, gross revenue Management, and Marketing Research, followed. In 1976 the early Marketing Mistakes book was published and brought a new approach to case studies, making them student-friendly and more pertinent to autoeer enhancement than existing books. In 1983, Management Mistakes was published. These books are now in the 11th and ninth editions, respectively, and have been grandly translated. In 1992 Professor Hartley wro te Business Ethics Violations of the Public Trust. Business Ethics Mistakes and Successes was published in 2005. He is listed in Whos Who in America, and Whos Who in the World. ii This rascal by design left blank CONTENTS Preface almost the Author Chapter 1 Introduction social function I ENTREPRENEURIAL ADVENTURES Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Google An Entrepreneurial Juggernaut Starbucks A Paragon of emersion and Employee Bene curbs Finds Storms Boston Beer Is Greater yield Possible? 29 46 PART II MARKETING WARS 61 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Cola Wars Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi PC Wars Hewlett-Packard vs. Dell Airliner Wars Boeing vs. Airbus and Recent Outsourcing Woes 63 86 PART threesome COMEBACKS Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 McDonalds Rebirth Through ModerationHarley-Davidson Creating An countenance Mystique Continental Airlines Salvaging From the Ashes PART IV MARKETING MANAGEMENT MISTAKES Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Borden Letting Brands Wither United Way A Nonprofit Tries to get away with Image Destruction DaimlerChrysler A Merger Made in nether region Newells Acquisition of Rubbermaid Becomes an Albatross Euro Disney Bungling a Successful initialise Maytag An Incredible Sales Promotion in England and Outsourcing Kmart and Sears A Hedge Fund Managers Challenge Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 iii vii 1 9 11 103 127 129 147 161 clxxv 177 190 203 220 233 251 67 ix x Contents PART V NOTABLE MARKETING SUCCESSES 281 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Southwest Airlines Success Is Finally Contested Nike A Powerhouse Brand Vanguard Is advertisement Really Needed? 283 302 319 PART VI ETHICAL MISTAKES Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Mercks Vioxx Catastrophe and Other Problems MetLife Deceptive Sales Practices Ford Explorers with Firestone Tires A Killer Scenario Ill Handled 335 351 Conclusions What We Can Learn 380 Chapter 24 Index 333 365 cd CHAPTER ONE Introduction A t this writing, Marketing Mistakes has passed its thirtieth annive rsary. Who would have thought?The first edition, back in 1976, was 147 pages and included such long-forgotten cases as Korvette, W. T. Grant, Edsel, Corfam, Gilbert, and the Midi. In this eleventh edition, seven cases from the tenth edition have been dropped, and seven added, several of these existence modified from earlier editions. Other cases have been updated, and in some instances reclassified. Two exciting new entrepreneurial cases, Google and Starbucks, are introduced, and the entire Entrepreneurial Ad ventures moved to the front of the book as de pay apart I. I think your students will find these cases particular(a)ly interesting and even inspiring.The popular Marketing Wars is again included, this time as get II, and it follows study competitors in their furious struggles. Two new parts have been added from older editions Part III Comebacks, and Part VI Ethical Mistakes. In response to your feedback, the section on notable successes has been continued. Some cases ar e as recent as to mean solar days headlines several still have not come to complete resolution. A few older cases have been continued or brought back. For example, Borden last appeared in the ninth edition, but some of you thought the learning insights were important enough to reintroduce the case.We continue to essay what can be learnedinsights that are transferable to other firms, other times, other situations. What key situationors brought massive mistakes to some firms and resounding successes for others? Through such evaluations and studies of contrasts, we may learn to improve batting averages in the intriguing, ever-challenging art of closing making. We will en forestall organizational life cycles, with an organization evolution and prospering, thus(prenominal) failing ( barely when as humans do), but occasionally resurging. Success rarely lasts forever, but even the most serious mistakes can be (but are not always) overcome.As in previous editions, a variety of firm s, industries, mistakes, and successes are presented. You will be familiar with most of the organizations, although probably not with the details of their situations. We are always on the lookout for cases that can bring out certain points or caveats in the art of marketing decision making, and that give a balanced view of the spectrum of marketing problems. The goal is to present examples that provide 1 2 Chapter 1 Introduction somewhat different learning stupefys, where at to the lowest degree some aspect of the mistake or success is unique. Still, we see similar mistakes occurring time and again.From the prevalence of such mistakes, we have to wonder how more than(prenominal) decision making has really progressed over the decades. The challenge is still there to improve it, and with it marketing efficiency and career advancement. Let us then consider what learning insights we can gain, with the benefit of hindsight, from examining these examples of successful and unsuccessfu l marketing practices. LEARNING INSIGHTS Analyzing Mistakes In looking at sick companies, or even sanitary ones that have experienced difficulties with certain parts of their trading operations, it is tempting to be overly critical. It is easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight.Mistakes are inevitable, attached the present state of decision making and the dynamic environment facing organizations. Mistakes can be categorized as errors of disregard and of commission. Mistakes of omission are those in which no action was taken and the status quo was contentedly embraced amid a changing environment. such errors, often characteristic of conservative or stodgy management, are not as obvious as the other category of mistakes. They rarely involve tumultuous upheaval rather, the play alongs combative repose slowly erodes, until management finally realizes that mistakes having monumental impact have been allowed to happen.The firms fortunes often never regain their former l uster. Mistakes of commission are more spectacular. They involve hasty decisions often based on unseasonable research, poor planning, misdirected execution, and the like. Although the costs of eroding competitive position due to errors of omission are difficult to calculate precisely, the costs of errors of commission are often fully evident. For example, with Euro Disney, in 1993 alone the personnel casualty was $960 meg from a naughtily planned venture it improved in 1994 with only a $366 cardinal loss.With Maytags overseas Hoover Division, the costs of an incredibly bungled sales promotion were more than $300 trillion, and still counting. Then there was the monumental acquisition of Chrysler by Germanys Daimler, maker of proud Mercedes, for $36 gazillion in 1998. After nine tumultuous years, Daimler gave up and sold Chrysler to a private ripeness firm in 2007 for only $7. 4 billion. Although they may make mistakes, organizations with sharp managements follow certain patt erns when confronting difficult situations 1. Looming problems or present mistakes are apace recognized. 2.The causes of the problem(s) are carefully determined. 3. Alternative strict actions are evaluated in view of the lodges resources and constraints. 4. Corrective action is prompt. sometimes this requires a ruthless axing of the product, the division, or whatever is at fault. Learning Insights 3 5. Mistakes provide learning experiences. The same mistakes are not repeated, and future operations are consequently strengthened. Slowness to recognize emerging problems leads us to think that management is incompetent or that controls have not been established to provide prompt feedback at strategic control points.For example, a declining competitive position in one or a few geographical areas should be a red flag that something is amiss. To wait months earlier investigating or taking action may mean a permanent loss of business. Admittedly, signals sometimes get mixed, and comple te information may be lacking, but procrastination is not easily defended. Just as problems should be quickly recognized, the causes of these problems the why of the unexpected casesmust be determined as quickly as possible. It is premature, and rash, to take action before knowing where the problems really lie.Re move to the previous example, the loss of competitive position in one or a few markets may reflect circumstances beyond the firms immediate control, such as an aggressive new competitor who is drastically cutting prices to buy sales. In this situation, all competing firms will likely drop off market share, and inadequate can be done except to stand by as competitive as possible with prices and servicing. However, closer investigation may reveal that the erosion of business was due to unreliable deliveries, poor role control, noncompetitive prices, or incompetent sales staff.With the cause(s) of the problem defined, various alternatives for dealing with it should be identified and evaluated. This may require further research, such as obtaining feedback from customers and from field personnel. Finally, the decision to correct the situation should be made as objectively as possible. If drastic action is needed, there usually is little rationale for delaying. Serious problems do not go away by themselves They tend to fester and become worse. Finally, some learning experience should result from the misadventure. A vice president of one successful firm told me,I correct to give my subordinates as much decision-making experience as possible. peradventure I err on the side of delegating too much. In any case, I expect some mistakes to be made, some decisions that were not for the best. I dont come down too unexpressed usually. This is part of the learning experience. unless God help them if they make the same mistake again. There has been no learning experience, and I question their competence for high executive positions. Analyzing Successes Suc cesses deserve as much analysis as mistakes, although professedly the urgency is less than with an emerging problem that requires quick remedial action.Any analysis of success should seek solvents to at least the following questions why Were Such Actions Successful? Was it because of the nature of the environment, and if so, how? Was it because of particular research, and if so, what and how? 4 Chapter 1 Introduction Was it because of particular engineering and/or production efforts, and if so, can these be adapted to other operations? Was it because of any particular element of the strategysuch as service, promotional activities, or distribution methodsand if so, how, and is it transferable to other operations? Was it because of the particularised elements of the strategy meshing well together, and if so, how was this achieved? Was the Situation Unique and Unlikely to Be Encountered Again? If the situation was not unique, how can these successful techniques be used in the fu ture and defended against competition? ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK In this eleventh edition we have modified the classification of cases somewhat from earlier editions. As mentioned before, Part I, Entrepreneurial Adventures, describes and analyzes well-known recent endeavors.In Part II, Marketing Wars, we examine the actions and countermoves of archrivals in hotly competitive arenas. Part III, Comebacks, studies three firms that faced adversity, and came back break in than ever. In Part IV, Marketing Management Mistakes, we delve into seven firms guilty of a variety of mistakes that offer great learning insights. Part V, Notable Marketing Successes, offers paragons of successful marketing strategies and operations. Finally, in Part VI, Ethical Mistakes, we examine three firms whose mistakes had major ethical and legal consequences.Let us short describe the cases that follow. Entrepreneurial Adventures Google is arguably the most outstanding successful new enterprise ever. It was fo unded by Sergey Brin and Larry foliate who dropped out of Stanfords Ph. D program to do so. With its search engine, it raised advertisement to a new level targeted announce. In so doing, it spawned a host of millionaires from its rising stock prices and stock options and made its two founders some of the richest Americans, just under Bill render and rabbit warren Buffett. How did they do it?Starbucks is also a rapidly growing new firmnot as much as Google, but still greatand a credit to founder Howard Schultzs vision of transforming a prosaic product, coffee, into a gourmet coffee house experience at luxury prices. Boston Beer burst on the microbrewery facet with Samuel Adams beers, higher priced even than most imports. Notwithstanding thisor maybe because of itBoston Beer became the largest microbrewer. It proved that a sharp entrepreneur can compete successfully against the giants in the industry, and do this on a national scale. Marketing WarsPepsi and Coca-Cola for decades competed gentlemans gentlemanwide. Usually Coca-Cola won out, but it could never let its guard down however, it recently did so in Europe. Now a Organization of this Book 5 trend toward noneffervescent beverages along with Pepsis non-drink diversifications is swinging the momentum to Pepsi. just Coca-Cola is trying hard to recover. Dell long rule the PC market with terminal-prices, direct-to-consumer marketing. Hewlett-Packard, the worlds second biggest computer maker, chose Carly Fiorina, a charismatic visionary, to be its chief executive officer, and she engineered a spinal fusion with Compaq. save growth in profitability did not follow, and early in 2005, the control panel fired Fiorina. Mark Hurd, an operational person, re pose her, and brought the accompany to PC say-so. merely Michael Dell is fighting back. Boeing long dominated the worldwide commercial aircraft market, with the European Airbus only a minor player. A series of Boeing blunders, however, coupled wi th an aggressive Airbus, brought market shares close to parity. Both firms are now introducing strikingly new planes, but are finding problems with their outsourcing key components to foreign suppliers.Comebacks McDonalds had long dominated the fast food restaurant market. Then it began to falter, and hungry competitors made inroads into its competitive position. As it fought to regain its momentum, it explored diversifications and ever more store openings, while profitability plummeted. Recently, it found a new formula for profitable growth. In the early 1960s, Harley-Davidson dominated a static motorcycle industry. Suddenly, Honda burst on the scene and Harleys market share dropped from 70 per centum to 5 percent in only a few years.It took Harley nearly three decades to revive, but now it has created a mystique for its heavy motorcycles and gained new customers. And its Rallies are something else again. The comeback of Continental Airlines from extreme adversity and devastated employee morale to become one of the best airlines in the country is an achievement of no small moment. New CEO Gordon Bethune brought marketing and human relations skills to one of the most rapid turnarounds ever, overcoming a decade of raucous adversarial labor relations and a reputation in the pits.Marketing Management Mistakes Borden, with its enduring symbol of Elsie the Cow, was the countrys largest producer of dairy products. On an acquisitions binge in the 1980s, it became a diversified food processor and vendorand a $7 billion company. But Borden allowed consumer acceptance of its many brands to depart through unrealistic determine, ineffective advertise, and an unwieldy organization. United Way of America is a nonprofit organization. The man who led it to become the nations largest charity perceived himself as virtually beyond authority.Exorbitant spending, favoritism, conflicts of interestthese went without criticism until investigative newsmans from the Washington Post publicized the scandalous conduct. With its public simulacrum plummeting, contributions nationwide drastically declined. The real concern was whether United Way could ever regain its former luster. 6 Chapter 1 Introduction The merger of Chrysler with Daimler, the Brobdingnagian German firm that makes Mercedes, was supposed to be a merger of equals. But Chryslers management quickly found otherwise, and the top Chrysler executives were soon replaced by executives from Germany.Assimilation and coordination problems plagued the merger for years. Nine years later, Daimler sold Chrysler to a private equity firm for tens of billions of dollars less than it paid. Newell, a consumer-products firm, successfully geared its operations to accept the demands of giant retailers, particularly Wal-Mart, whereas Rubbermaid had in recent years been unable to meet those stringent requirements. In 1999, Newell acquired Rubbermaid, confident of turning its operation around, only to find that Rub bermaids problems were not easily corrected and that they negatively impacted Newells fortunes as well.What do you do now? In April 1992, just remote Paris, Disney opened its first theme part in Europe. It had high expectations and absolute self-confidence (critics later called it arrogance). The earlier Disney parks in California, Florida, and more recently Japan were all spectacular successes. But rosy expectations became a untruth as marketing gaucheries finally showed Disney that Europeans, and particularly the French, were not carbon copies of visitors elsewhere. The problems of Maytags Hoover subsidiary in the United Kingdom almost hold water reason.The subsidiary planned a promotional campaign so bighearted that the company was overwhelmed with takers it could neither supply the products nor grant the prizes. In a miscue of multimillion-dollar consequences, Maytag had to foot the bill while trying to appease irate customers. What can we learn from Maytags travails? Two faltering retail chains, Kmart and Sears, merged under the auspices of a hedge fund manager, Edward Lampert. Whether two weaklings could become one strong operation to compete with the likes of Wal-Mart and Target was uncertain, though investors bid both stocks up to extravagant levels in anticipation.The rosy expectations collapsed as we moved into a recession in 2007 and 2008. Notable Marketing Successes Southwest Airlines found a strategic window of fortune as the lowest cost and lowest price carrier between certain cities. And how it milked this opportunity Now it imperil major airlines in many of their domestic routes. However, by 2008, competitors were beginning to counter Southwests price advantage. Nike and Reebok were major competitors in the athletic footgear and apparel market. Nike was overtaken by Reebok in the late 1980s, but then Nike surged faraway ahead, never to be threatened again.What is the secret of Nikes increasing dominance? Vanguard has become the largest mutual fund company, charging past Fidelity. Vanguards strategy is to downplay marketing, shunning the heavy advertizing and overhead of its competitors. It provides investors with better returns through far lower expense ratios and relies mostly on word of mouth and unpaid publi urban center to world-wide Wrap-Up 7 gain new customers, while old customers continue to pour in capital. Is Vanguard indefensible to aggressive new competitors? Ethical MistakesMerck, the pharmaceutical giant, learned that its blockbuster arthritis medicine, Vioxx, forked the risk of a heart attack or stroke. Over tail fin years and $500 million in publicize, it had 20 million users in the United States at the time it recalled the drug September 30, 2004. Critics and tort lawyers assailed the company for waiting so long to recall this drug, since some research studies as early as five years before had raised questions about the safety of Vioxx. What can we learn from Mercks handling of its great p rofit-making drug now discredited?The grand insurance firm MetLife, whether through lax controls or tacit approval, permitted an agent to use deceptive selling tactical manoeuvre on a grand scale, in the process enriching himself and the company. Investigations by several state attorneys general brought a crisis situation to the firm that it was slow to fight down to. Eventually, fines and lawsuits totaled almost $2 billion. Product safety lapses that result in injuries and even loss of life are among the worst abuses any company can confront. Worse, however, is when such risks are allowed to continue for years.Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires were involved in more than 200 deaths from tire failures and vehicle rollovers. After news of the accidents began surfacing, Ford and Firestone each blamed the other for the deaths. Eventually, inept crisis management brought a host of lawsuits resulting in massive recalls and billions in damages. GENERAL WRAP-UP Where possible , the text depicts major personalities involved in these cases. Imagine yourself in their positions, confronting the problems and facing choices at their points of crisis or just-recognized opportunities.What would you have done differently, and why? We invite you to participate in the discussion questions, the handson exercises, the debates look at the ends of chapters, and the occasional devils advocate invitation (a devils advocate is one who argues an opposing viewpoint for the sake of testing the decision). There are also discussion questions for the various boxes within chapters. While doing these activities, you may feel the excitement and challenge of decision making under conditions of uncertainty. Perhaps you may even become a fast-track executive and make better decisions.QUESTIONS 1. Do you agree that it is impossible for a firm to avoid mistakes? why or why not? 2. How can a firm race up its awareness of emerging problems so that it can take corrective action? Be as s pecific as you can. 8 Chapter 1 Introduction 3. Large firms tend to err on the side of conservativism and are slower to take corrective action than littler ones. Why do you suppose this is? 4. Which is likely to be more costly to a firm, errors of omission or errors of commission? Why? 5. So often we see the successful firm eventually losing its pattern of success.Why is success not more enduring? PART ONE E N T REPREN E U R I A L A D V EN T UR E S This page intentionally left blank CHAPTER TWO GoogleAn Entrepreneurial Juggernaut I n 1998 Sergey Brin and Larry scallywag dropped out of the Ph. D program at Stanford to suck up Google in a friends garage. Along the way, they discovered a virile marketing tool that would revolutionize publicizing. Six years later, on dread 19, 2004, they took this Internet search and advertising firm public at a price of $85 a share. One year after the initial public offering (IPO), Google stock closed at $280.By 2007, the stock had bypast over $ 700, and lots of people had become very rich. But this was to cause some serious concerns for the firm. Brain Drain Craig Silverstein, a fellow Stanford Ph. D student, was the first pick out of rogue and Brin. He helped them move their equipment out of Pages dorm room and into a place with more infinite and, more importantly, a garage. In early 1999, five months later, the enterprise had boastful enough to move into offices on University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto. The firms fortunes continued to improve, and Craig became director of technology in charge of product development.Before many years, Craig realized he had become very rich indeed. From the beginning, Google gave its employees stock options in lieu of competitive salaries that in those days it could ill cave in. These options gave employees the right to purchase a given number of shares of stock at a certain price, called a vested price, some years in the future. Even before button public in 2004, it had granted t wo big batches of such options. A 2002 grant that was priced at 30 cents a share vested in 2006. Another, priced at $4 a share in 2003, also vested in 2006.In May 2008, another round of options would be exercisable at $35, far more costly than the 30 cent option, but the way the stock was going up since the IPO, this higher price was of little consequence. By 2007, Craig was worth well over $ coke million in Google stock and was becoming richer with every passing day. He knew that some 700 of his associates were worth at least $5 million, and he knew that many of them were talking about quitting, with some wanting to start their own businesses. He knew that Bismarck Lepe, for example, who began working 11 12 Chapter 2 GoogleAn Entrepreneurial Juggernaut or Google in 2003, had left the firm straight after his four-year options vested in 2007. He now had a few million dollars that would help him start his own firm2 million in only four years, wow Craig couldnt help pondering whether he should do the same. After all, how many hundreds of millions does one man need? But he did not really see himself as an entrepreneur. At his materialization age, about the same age as Sergey and Larry, he was not coif to retire to some South Sea island and count coconuts. So he stayed, caught up in the challenge of solving tough problems with other clean Googlers. Making the brain drain all the more tempting for many of these employees was Googles hiring of the brightest unseasoned people, the very ones most likely to become entrepreneurs, if given the chance. Their ambitions fed on the great example of Google, as well as a plethora of smaller enterprises in this hotbed of innovation that was silicone polymer valley with its great research universities such as Stanford. SERGEY BRIN AND LARRY PAGE AND THE START OF GOOGLE In 1998 when the venture that was to be Google was only an idea, Sergey and Larry were both 25 years old and were doctoral students at Stanford.Sergey was a math whiz, having completed his undergraduate faculty member degree at 19, and aced all ten of the required doctoral exams on his first try, and teamed easily with professors doing research. His parents backgrounds were rich in science and technology. His mother was a scientist at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center. His father, Michael, taught math at the University of Maryland. Sergey was born in Moscow, but he and his family left the Soviet Union when he was sestet, fleeing antisemitism and seeking greater opportunity for themselves and their children.Larry Page grew up in Michigan, also the son of a professor whose Ph. D was computer science, and who taught at Michigan State University where Larrys mother also taught computer programming. He followed in the footsteps of his father and brother by going to the University of Michigan where he study computer engineering, receiving his undergraduate degree in 1995. At first he had felt uneasy about being one of the select few to be admitted to Stanfords elite Ph. D program. In those early days, these sons of prize professors were focused on pursuing their Ph. Ds, not on getting rich. In their families, nothing trumped the value of a great education. Neither of them had the slightest idea just how soon their heartfelt commitment to academia would be tested. 2 The get-go In the mid-1990s, the Internet was just emerging. Millions of people were logging on and communication through email. But researchers grew frustrated with the clutter of Web sites. look foring it for relevant information often resulted in an abundance of completely meaningless data. Search engines began to organize the Internet, and thus Yahoo and AltaVista among others were born. But they still left a lot to be 1 2Examples can be found in Quentin Hardy, Close to the Vest, Forbes, July 2, 2007, pp. 4042. David A. Vise, The Google Story, New York Delacorte, 2005, p. 31. Sergey Brin and Larry Page and the Start of Google 13 desired. The an swer to more relevant research seemed to be a better use of links, such as a highlighted word or phrase. In 1996, Page and Brin teamed up to work on downloading and analyzing Web links. In the process they actual a ranking system for distinct the Internet that yielded prioritized results based on relevance to the object of the search, and useful answers could be found swiftly.In 1997, they made the search engine available to students, faculty, and administrators on the Stanford campus, and popularity grew by word of mouth. As the database and number of users burgeoned, more computers were needed. In these early days, Brin and Page were able to scrounge around for unused computers and string together inexpensive PCs. By July 1998, they had an index of 24 million pages, with more coming. But their growth was stymied by lack of capital. They immovable to take a leave of absence from the Ph. D program and start their own firm.This way they could develop a business of their own that w ould fit their search engine. If it was as good as they thought, and with Internet use growing so rapidly, growth could be virtually un bound. Rather than selling out to some existing firm, wouldnt they be better off charge control? Still, by August they had run out of cash and earnestly needed an angel. One of their professors suggested they meet his friend, Andy Bechtolsheim, a legendary investor in a string of successful start-ups. After listening to their presentation, he said, This is the single best idea Ive heard in years.I want to be part of this, and he left them a check for $100,000 made out to Google Inc. 3 It took them two weeks before they could formally incorporate the company, Google Inc. , and then open their first bank account. The check sustained the two entrepreneurs at first, and in fall 1998 they moved their computers from a dorm room into a garage and several rooms of a house. They also take ind a friend, Craig Silverstein (mentioned earlier), as their firs t employee. After five months they outgrew the garage and moved into offices in downtown Palo Alto, still a mile from the Stanford campus.By now, their search engine was handling 100,000 queries a day, all this through word of mouth, emails, and twinkling messages. But they were again running out of money, despite the now $1 million in funding that they had store from Bechtolsheim and other early investors, and through borrowing on their credit cards. But it was clear that with upward of 500,000 searches per day toward the end of the year, they needed much more money. In the boomtown climate of Silicon Valley in early 1999, a public stock offering was one option, even though Google had no profits.But Brin and Page resisted this option, not wanting to reveal their trade secrets and lose some control. Efforts to license their search technology to other firms wishing to use it for research, found few takers. Eventually they went the venture capital route. But Brin and Page insisted on keeping control of Googles destiny and remain majority owners, or it was no deal. On June 7, 1999, less than one year after they left Stanford, they issued a press release announcing that two venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins and sequoia Capital, were investing $25 million in Google.On the Stanford campus and around Palo Alto, amazement reigned at the enormity of the sum seemingly without the two giving anything up in return. The announcement included details of the funding as well as additional information about Google, its impressive list of investors, and its growth 3 Vise, p. 48. 14 Chapter 2 GoogleAn Entrepreneurial Juggernaut rate of 50 percent per month. All this put the company in the global limelight, giving it the opportunity to grow further through free media publicity. 4 But Google still had not earned any appreciable revenue to upport its heady growth, and no plan for this was revealed in the press release. THE EARLY GROWTH YEARS By the end of 1999, Google was averaging 7 million searches per day, but its revenue from licensing remained small. If the business could not be reasonably profitable, they could hardly maintain their vision of vast information available to users without charge. With licensing its search technology to businesses proving to be such a limited revenue source, they finally were forced to consider allowing advertisers access to their multitude of users.Brin and Page could see a relationship between their search engine and the boob tube networks those offered entertainment and news for free, while charging millions for the advertising. But the two shuddered at the flash banner ads that littered the Internet. Still, they belatedly recognized that advertising was where vast sums were being spent, not in licensing, Creating a Different Advertising Model They wanted to avoid the clutter of almost out-of-control, irrelevant ads, and they developed strict standards for surface and type of ads.They separated the free sear ch results from the ads, which they would label Sponsored Links. These Links, because of their relevance to the search, would be clicked on more often than if they were labeled simply Ads. They decided to exhibit the links in a clearly marked box preceding(prenominal) the free search results. The ads would be brief and look identical, with just a headline, a short description, and a link to a web page. But these would be targeted ads, offering a major advantage for advertisers confronted with the huge wastage of advertising reaching uninterested audiences.At first Google sold this advertising to large businesses that could afford expensive ad campaigns, but it soon found substantial market electric potency in letting smaller advertisers easily sign up online with a credit card, and their ads could then be running within minutes. This gave Google an edge over similar providers unable to offer such fast service, and also minimized its own costs of selling advertising. Shortly af ter turning to its advertising model, Brin and Page had another innovative ideathey would rank ads based on relevance.And relevance would be determined by how often ads were clicked on by computer users. This would provide valuable feedback to advertisers and influence the selling and pricing of ads. CHARGING AHEAD When the Internet stock price bubble burst in 2000, it ravaged the former highflying entrepreneurial firms of Silicone Valley with major layoffs and bankruptcies. But Google stood poised at the nadir of its great growth to come and was one of 4 Vise, p. 69. Charging Ahead 15 the few firms able to hire outstanding software engineers and mathematicians, many holding worthless stock options.This pocket billiards of talent stimulated Googles growth as it moved to a large headquarters in Mountain View, named the Googleplex, forty minutes southeast of San Francisco. There Brin and Page developed a work environment lots unprecedented. See the following Information Box for so me examples of this culture that was intentional to cultivate strong loyalty and job satisfaction and to foster a creative, playful environment where Googles employees, mostly young and single, would be free to spend their waking hours. By early 2001, Google was recording 100 million searches per day.It was also entering the dictionary as a verb, as for example, to google each other before dates. Now large firms, such as Wal-Mart, the worlds biggest retailer, and Acura, a major automobile manufacturer, joined the entourage of firms advertising their wares on Google. What was the secret behind the rapid growth of Googles advertising program? As we saw before, Google came up with an unique approach to advertising, an study BOX WORK CLIMATE AT GOOGLE Employees worked long hours but were inured like family. There was even a gourmet chef, with free meals, healthy drinks and snacks.The chef took pride in providing better meals than found in area restaurants. effrontery the internati onal mix of employees, the menu was varied to cater to all tastes Southwestern, simple Italian, French, African, Asian, Indian, etc. The ring Street Journal sent a reporter out to investigate. Where else but the Plex can you zip around on a bicycle and choose from multicultural comfort food, American regional food, small plates, entrees made with five ingredients or less, and dishes based on raw materials supplied from within 150 miles of Mountain View?Many employees eat three meals a day at the Plexs 17 food venues, open any time day or night. . . . We were told that Messrs. Brin and Page chow down with the troops. (Raymond Sokolov, Googling Lunch, Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2007, pp. W1 and W5. ) Also furnished were such comforts as on-site laundry, hair styling, dental and medical care, a car wash, day care, fitness facilities with personal trainers, and a professional masseuse. Brightly modify medicine balls, lava lamps, assorted gadgets and sports equipment gave the appearance of a college campus.Chartered buses had internet access so that commuters to San Francisco could use their laptops. Social events and entertainment were Friday afternoon and evening features. As a spur for creativity, a policy was set that software engineers spend at least 20 percent of their time, or one day a week, working on whatever projects interested them. Do you see any downside to these workplace amenities? Would these influence your choosing to work for Google despite less money? Would some of these be appropriate to other firms? If so, what kind of firms? 16 Chapter 2 GoogleAn Entrepreneurial Juggernaut pproach that most advertisers previously could only dream of i. e. , Targeted textbook Ads. The unobtrusive ads are seen only by potential customers who are searching for information on that specific topic. In one swell descend this advertising virtually eliminates the great waste of most mass media advertising that is viewed by a vast audience who have no in terest whatever in the product being advertised despite millions and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent. For an example of the waste of such untargeted ads, consider an airline spending $1 million or more on a TV ad campaign that gains only 100 new first-class customers as a result. Furthermore, in Google-placed ads no intrusive banners compete for attention. The text ads (links) and websites are read carefully by users or potential users, and these often find the ads as valuable as the actual search results. A New CEO In early January 2001, at the urging of its venture capitalists, Larry and Sergey reluctantly consented to hire a chief executive officer to run operations. Eric Schmidt was highly recommended by one of the venture capitalists. He not only had entrepreneurial experience as founder of Sun Microsystems, and CEO of Novell, but also academic credentialsa Ph.D in computer science from the University of California at Berkeley, and a degree in electrical engineering from Princeton. Then there was research experience at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center and Bell Labs. At 46, he was a seasoned tech executive and brought a needed mature balance to this organization of young people. Besides, he was willing to invest $1 million of his own money to buy preferred stock in Google, this at a time when the company was running short of cash again. (It would soon never again run short of cash. ) Google entered into pacts with Yahoo, AOL, EarthLink, and Ask Jeeves.This gave it relationships with most of the biggest Internet properties. By the end of 2002, Google and its venture capitalists could see that the search engine was going to be a huge financial success. For the year, it had recorded $440 million in sales and an amazing $100 million in profits. Virtually all of these profits came from people clicking on the text ads that were on the right side of search results pages at Google. com and the pages of its partners and affiliates. But the world did not realize the extent of this profitability since Google was still a private company.This silence about the profitability of the online search and advertising business model undoubtedly kept other firms, especially Microsoft and Yahoo, from investing in or developing search engines of their ownuntil Google had an almost insurmountable head start. The advertising industry was being transformed as well, as billions of dollars of advertising was being shifted from television, radio, newspapers, and magazines to the Internet. But the time was nearing for Google to go public, and with this full disclosure would horrify the investment community and make Google stock the darling of investors and employees alike. Example cited in Seth Godin, Your Product, Your Customer, Forbes, May 7, 2007, p. 52. Going Public 17 GOING ordinary Finally in early 2004, Larry and Sergey reluctantly started the process of taking Google public. In truth, their decision was practically dictated by federal rules t hat required public disclosure of financial results by companies with a substantial amount of assets and shareholders, and Google had exceeded these limits with many of the company employees having been given stock in the then-private firm. This move would enable them to change over their holdings to cash.The venture capitalists who had supplied the early crucial funds would also benefit from the runniness that going public would provide. For most entrepreneurs, taking their new firm public was the ultimate goal since the IPO (initial public offering) would often make them present moment millionaires. But for Brin and Page, the reality of being billionaires was not all that appealing. They both lived comparatively modestly, loved the privacy, and cared little for the accumulation of wealth and the accoutrements of wealthsuch as grand homes, planes, and yachts to attest to their success.The company was debt free, self-funded, had plenty of cash, and had no need to sell stock to th e public to raise money. They were not sure they wanted the considerable publicity and what it would entail and affect the freedoms they had enjoyed, and that of their families. For example, would they need bodyguards? How about the paparazzi? And their employees who would become instant millionaires, how would this affect their intensity and focus? And would they even stay with Google, or go out on their own? (We know that many left to start their own enterprises. In early 2004, the employees were quietly told that the company was going to archive a public offering. And thousands of Google employees, spouses, and interested others began an eight-month guessing game of how much the company and themselves would be worth. The eight months proved to be a stressful time for almost all concerned, but probably most of all for Brin and Page. Their wavering to disclose much before the public auction did not delight them to the media. Then an ill-advised Playboy interview did not go well and even triggered a SEC investigation.To make matters worse, the stock market was tanking as world oil prices spiked, and many analysts were warning of a global recession. Also, the capital of Greece Olympics were starting amid great fears of terrorism. Google and its bankers realized that the initial price range of $108$cxxxv would probably not be acceptable to the market at this time, and on August 19, Google finally went public at $85 a share. By the end of the first day, the stock had reached nearly $100. By the next day it was $108. It reached $200 in November and kept climbing from there.Forbes, in its listing of the 400 Richest Americans cited Brin and Pages wealth at $4 billion each at the end of 2004, due to the success of the IPO. Then in 2006, The Google Guys chink the top 10 of the Forbes 400, each now worth $18. 5 billion. This placed them as the fifth richest Americans, in the company of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, ahead of Michael Dell of Dell Computer, and way ahead of Donald Trump. And they were both only 34. 6 6 Forbes, Forbes 400 The Richest People in America, October 8, 2007, p. 78. 18 Chapter 2 GoogleAn Entrepreneurial Juggernaut AFTER THE IPOAfter the IPO, the pace of innovation at Google got into high gear. New products and innovations were being spawned and made available to millions of customers around the world. Google became the darling of the media no other firm or individual got the press coverage of Google. The fact that it was now a public company with its financial performance right away availableand as such now well covered by financial analysts who did not cover private firmsmade its promising results and potential very visible. It expanded the lead in its core search and advertising business in the United States and much of the world.And with its new cash horde, it thirstily branched out into new areas, even such far out visions as a Green renewable-energy program to find ways to generate electricity more cheaply th an by burning coal. 7 Not surprising, the growth of Google was being compared with that of Microsoft two decades earlier. Google was also becoming a major competitor of Microsoft, not in PCs, but in a later phase of technology that was surpassing the earlier technology, this time by the powerfulness of the Internet revolution. But possibly the real competition was in recruiting and retaining the brightest technology minds in the world.But more about this later. For now, let us compare this early growth of Google with Microsoft in the Information Box beginning on page 19. Googles Poaching of Talent As the business burgeoned in the bounciness and summer of 2005, Google added more than 700 employees in just three months. The total head count now was 4,183, nearly double the total the previous year. Google was hiring Ph. Ds from the top universities across the country, and even trespassing on Microsofts own neighborhood, at the University of Washington.It opened a facility in a Seatt le suburb just down the road from Microsofts Redmond plant, and now it was easy for their engineers and scientists to move over to Google. They didnt even have to move to a new city or change their commute. In these days, Microsoft was viewed as a mature business. It no longer had the sex appeal that Google had grasped. Microsoft was struggling to keep its best people, even offering more money and perks. But the amazing growth and potential of Google brought the lure of great riches as stock options became valuable.As mentioned before, not the least of the perks that Google offered were the free restaurants and other amenities at its Googleplex headquarters in the Silicone Valley 40 minutes south of San Francisco. The increasing poaching of talent climaxed with Dr. Kai-Fu Lee, a highly regarded scientist, who wanted to leave Microsoft to become president of Google China. Microsoft began an complete legal assault alleging that Google improperly sought to induce Lee to fail the term s of his employment contract with Microsoft. A temporary triumph over Google raised the specter of litigation for any senior Microsoft employee who left for Google.The wide publicity served to illustrate how seriously Microsoft regarded the threat posed by its smaller rival. 8 7 Rebecca Smith and Kevin J. Delaney, Googles Electricity Initiative, Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2007, p. A16. 8 Vise, p. 274. Analysis 19 ANALYSIS Here we have seen perhaps the greatest growth ever of a new enterprise. In the enthusiasm of this growth, investors bid up its stock market price to make the company more valuable than such long-established firms as Coca-Cola, Hewlett-Packard, Time Warner, AT&T, Boeing, Disney, McDonalds, and General Motors and Ford.INFORMATION BOX COMPARISON OF MICROSOFT AND GOOGLE Table 2. 1 Comparison of Microsoft and Google Growth in Revenues from Their Beginnings Microsoft Beginning Went Public Years from Beginning 1975 1986 11 years Revenues (millions) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Google Y/Y Growth $ 1996 2004 8 years 40. 7% 75. 1 70. 1 36. 0 47. 3 55. 8 49. 7 197 346 591 831 1,183 1,843 2,759 1996 28,365 32,187 36,835 39,735 44,282 Y/Y Growth $ 409% 233. 9 117. 5 92. 5 72. 8 9. 400 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions) 13. 5 14. 4 7. 9 11. 4 439 1,466 3,189 6,138 10,605Source Calculated from company annual reports. Commentary The much faster start of Google is mind-boggling. The experts thought Microsoft was the model of the most successful entrepreneurial start ever. Bill Gates did not rush to take his venture public, waiting 11 years to do so, at which time revenues were almost $200 million. Google on the other hand delayed only six years before going public, but its revenues were already over $3 billion. As we can see, the year-to-year growth rate also strongly lucky Google, with around a hundred percent growth since 2004. The two years before going public showed growth over 400 percent and 200 percent each year. ) The comparis on between a young growth company and a mature Microsoft is clearly evident. (continues) 20 Chapter 2 GoogleAn Entrepreneurial Juggernaut COMPARISON OF MICROSOFT AND GOOGLE (continued) Table 2. 2 Comparison of Microsoft and Google last-place Income from Their B

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Internet Addicition Essay

Much evidence has been alleged that favorable pathologies be beginning to heighten in cyberspace (i.e., internet addictions). A lot of controversy is environ the question, is there proof that the internet is being ab manipulationd and misused by individuals on an everyday basis and should we consider this to be a study mental health problem? Key Arguments* Why do mickle have attachment insecurity and dissociation with their lives to make them choose to be disorganized, and allow a fantasy world to take over resulting in problematic internet abuse. * How information and communication technologies changing our way of interacting with reality. * What ar the psychological symptoms involving disturbed relationships with technologies emerging, how some are more affected than others. * How contrary forms of think dependence behaviours, much(prenominal) as an addiction to hearty networking, cybersex, online gambling, or web-based role-playing games are affecting our call for to be on the internet. * How some games vantage achievements and goals making the cyber game goals more important of that than reality goals. * Does well-disposed media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and other forms of cyber communication have detrimental effects related to internet addiction. * internet Gambling, main reasons for internet addiction, however not only when costing their health but impacting finances and crippling family relationships.Critical synopsisArticle 1 Reference (2)Researchers have begun to examine the personal and social consequencesassociated with excessive online involvement. The present study examined college students problematic Internet use (PIU) behaviors Its proper(postnominal) aim was to investigate the links between PIU with both internalizing (depression, social anxiety) and externalizing (substance use and other risky behaviors) problems. Article 2 Reference (4)There are m both psychological factors surrounding the present issue of interne t addiction, victimization evidence such as Social Networking Sites (SNS)e.g., facebook , twitter etc, Massive Multiplayer Online games and Internet Gambling as my three key topics. The aim is to provide a clear and concise method about how individuals who consistently spend their epoch on the internet are having detrimental effects on their physical, social and psychological life. Article 3 Reference (5)There is an increasing need for the provision of both internet addiction prevention and care for any sufferers, psychologist should be weary of the dangers of internet abuse when juvenility present with anti-social, predatory behaviours. Socialization in girls may be warped towards online contact and the user may benet from providing alternatives. The aim is to focus on internet-related addictive behaviours and how to allow in the use of suitable diagnostic tools, a detailed personal interview, a mental health status examination and information regarding the overt behaviours g ather by the surroundings. I want to engage the reader to believe that internet addiction is a real mental health issue, that effects youth all the way to late adolescent, whether it be an addiction though games, gambling, social media etc, there is evidence to say that individuals influenced by this addiction are not progressing in life, because excess use of a cyber world has become a major part of their lives or taken over their lives. Structure grounds addiction in Video Games (Kuss, Daria J Griffiths, Mark D. Studies) Main conclusions stemming from this character Psychological Evidence to Addiction (Griffiths, M Study & Gencer, S L & Koc, M Study) Main conclusions stemming from this source Evidence addiction to Social Networking Systems (Kittinger, R., Correia, C J., & Irons J G Article) Main conclusions stemming from this sourceReferencesBozkurt, H Coskun, M Ayaydin, H Adak, I Zoroglu, S S (2013). Prevalence and patterns of psychiatric disorders in referred adolescents wit h Internet addiction. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 67(5), pp. 352-359. De, L., & Josepth, A. (2013). Problematic Internet Use and some other Risky Behaviours in College Students An Applicationof Problem-Behaviour Theory. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), pp. 133-141. DOI 10.1037/a0030823. Gencer, S L & Koc, M. (2012) Internet abuse among teenagers and Its relations to internet usage patterns and demographics. diary of educational Technology & Society. 15(2), pp. 25-36. Griffiths, M. (2010). Internet abuse and Internet addiction in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(7), 2010, pp. 463-472. Kittinger, R., Correia, C J., & Irons J G (2012) Relationship in the midst of Facebook Use and Problematic Internet Use Among College Student. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 15(6), pp. 324-327. Kuss, D J Griffiths, M D., Internet video game addiction A taxonomical review of empirical research in the literature. Revue Adolescence. 30(1), 2012, pp . 17-49.

Performance Management in Non-Profit Organizations Essay

Non-Profit brass sections atomic number 18 certain(p) to address whatsoever the close challenging starts affecting cabaret ending delirium in inner-city communities, educating separate tikeren, diminishing health disparities and empowering disfranchised populations to bring close to change be just a few of these actually difficult tasks non- bring ins take on. Considering the enormousness of that work and the pivotal role these organizations take in alleviating the burden of those starts to order, it is neat to say that non-profits ar held against high expectations and consequently take in to show prima(predicate) cognitive process to live up to the magnitude of the scope of the work they were trusted upon. It is alike fair to say that their carrying out leave behind non merely when affect their bottom telephone circuits, exclusively also the welf atomic number 18 of the communities they serve.Public and noncommercial organizations signifi lavatorytl y affect, and wipe out great potential to improve, the lives of citizens and communities in much(prenominal) aras as public safety, transportation, parks and recreation, economic flummoxment, education, ho using, public health, environmental vigilance, quad exploration, affable operate, and much. In each of these argonas thither is interest, and some clips very great interest, in ensuring that public and noncommercial organization organization organizations perform exactably and economic aid society to strickle forward. (Berman, 2005)Looking at noncommercials from that view range and understanding the jounce their exploit has on society, one would think that these organizations arusually driven by results and perplex efficient movement solicitude systems in nates. The truth is that it is not the case, non-profits atomic number 18 kn deliver to be explosive charge-driven and the notion of writ of exe lowerion-establish be intimatement is somewhat overb old to intimately of those organizations. Non-profit organizations ar of increasing importance in modern economies, not sole(prenominal) as providers of goods and services but also as practiceers (Speckbecker, 2003). Moreover, there seems to be a growing awareness that nonprofits need direction just as for-profit organizations do.As Speckbecker says Twenty years ago, counsel was a dirty condition for those involved in nonprofit organizations (Speckbecker, 2003). It blottot trading, and nonprofits prided themselves on being free of the profane of commercialism and above such sordid considerations as the bottom line. now most(prenominal) of them nominate hold backed that nonprofits need focus level(p) much than than business does, precisely because they lack the discipline of the bottom line. (Speckbecker, 2003).In the business world, market forces serve as feedback mechanisms. Companies that perform surface are rewarded by customers and entrustors underperformers are penalized. Performance is comparatively easy to quantify done quarterly earnings, ROI, customer loyalty scores, and the like. Moreover, such metrics put forward be gradatory and compared, ensuring that the companies producing the lift out results will inveigle capital and talent. Managers are encourage to invest in the tribe, systems, and infrastructure needed to continue pull throughing superior mathematical operation.And internal feedback mechanisms, from current operating data to surgery reviews, keep everyone focused on censorious activities and polishs. In the nonprofit world, missions, not markets, are the primary magnets attracting essential visions, from donors enliven by organizations audacious goals from board members, who not only volunteer their time and expertise but also much serve as major(ip)(ip) funders and from employees, who accept modest paychecks to do work they care passionately about. (Bradach, 2005) there are galore(postnominal) opport unities for performance improvement in the Non-profit field and there are many a(prenominal) organizations that declare successfully used performance mensuration methods. This paper hears at some areas in which improvement has frequently been accept and sought in recent years in order to break in table service external stakeholders needs, amend organizational lastingness and using resources efficiently, improving project management, and increasing productivity through battalion. Modern performance improvements efforts often raise the bar in these areas, and managers are increasingly expected to be familiar with the strategies and receiveds that they involve. These areas offer important opportunities for increasing performance and productivity.When it comes to performance management in nonprofit, the first content that comes to play is how to designate performance. When dealing with a segment whose products are not tangible, how butt join forcest one qualify the effe ctiveness of that kind of work? At the said(prenominal) time, the expectations being placed on these organizations to show results by their round members, their boards, and public and private donors are rising. not-for-profit leaders are put in a difficult military position where they need to demonstrate accountability and quantify the goals they want to achieve. For that reason, most of them score resorted to a set of commonly used performance peckers to ensure they are being much more explicit about the results they intend to deliver and the strategies theyll apply to achieve them. This paper will discuss some of the performance measures used in the non-profit sector.Performance MeasurementPerformance bar is the activeness of documenting the activities and accomplishments of syllabuss. (Thomas J. Tierney and granny knot Stone, 2005). The performance of a nonprofit can be mensurable by quantifying outcomes and outputs that have been achieved through the services they deliv er. For example, by showing how well students in a certain schoolhouse district are doing with standard testing scores, reduction in communicable disease rates and how many inmates were connected with housing and jobs after discharge. It is about measuring what classs are rattling achieving and letting tribe know how resources are being translated into results. Performance meter systems provide considerable detail about programs. It can be argued that performance measurement by itself does not constitute performance improvement it is an education-gathering strategy. However, the purposes to which this information is put are clearly associated with improving performance (Berry, 2003).Coming from the point of view that performance is in the eye of the beholder and again revisiting the issue that nonprofits deal with issues that whitethorn not be tangible and are life- terrorening to quantify, the first question one can ask is who is watching non-profits to absorb sure they are doing a good job? Moreover, what qualifies as a good job for an organization such as AIDS save? A cure for AIDS has not been found yet does it mean that organization failed? Understanding what performance for nonprofits is whitethorn not be as clear cut and straight forward as it is for for-profits.After all, we are not styleing at how many pairs of shoes have been exchange or how many juvenile branches of a bank have been closed. We are looking at quality of life indicators and those are much harder to measure. The most fundamental finale a nonprofit can get is to define the results it must deliver in order to be successful. That process entails translating the organizations mission into goals that are simultaneously compelling enough to attract ongoing support from stakeholders and particular(prenominal) enough to inform resource allocations. (Thomas J. Tierney and Nan Stone, 2005)Most traditional management accounting systems are establish on fiscal results and their prac tical relevance for performance management in for profit organizations is obvious. However, the concept of profit as defined as a bureau to measure results is not valid for nonprofit organizations. Clearly, this does not exclude that nonprofit organizations generate profits in the sense that they generate a notes surplus. For example, a hospital or a theater whitethorn enumerate the surplus of specific products (a specific operation or a play at the theater) or the surplus during a particular period. (Speckbacher, 2003). However, the main going away is that even though these non-profits had a surplus, their focus is still their mission. They didnt make decisions based on how they could make more money they made decisions based on what was better for their programs. The fundamental difference amongst profitable and non-profit organizations when it comes to financial decision making is that for the latter the mission is still the focus.The past some(prenominal) decades have seen unprecedented growth in the scope and complexity of relationships between organisation and nonprofit organizations. These relationships have been more fruitful than many critics had feared and more problematic than many advocates had hoped. In the recent years, presidential toll have increasingly relied on non-profits to address issues on a community- direct. Non-profits deal with a large coordinate of issues and for each of these topics these particular non-profits are experts on that subject.The governing has acknowledged that expertise and also the fact that those organizations are usually community-based and more in airwave with the particular needs of those communities or interest groups. As governments dependence on nonprofits for public services, usually through contracts and grants, has increased, government officials have steadily increased their accountability demands for nonprofits, especially through greater economy and performance-based spotting (Behn, 2001). Expectations for information and greater transparency in programmatic and financial operations are also on the rise at both the earth and federal levels. In addition, many leading associations representing nonprofit organizations have called for greater levels of self-regulation, including better disposal procedures (Maryland Association of Nonprofits, 2009 Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, 2007).A very common concept that derived from this relationship between government and nonprofits is performance based contracting. This paper will review that concept and outline a few additional approaches Non-Profits can use to measure performance.Performance contractPerformance Contracting became very popular in the mid-90s with the reinventing government movement. invigorated public management (NPM) practices generated a spike in the interest level from the government in doing business with non-profits. And repayable to this increased interest, all the ideas and concepts that pertain imp roving the performance of public services transcended to the non-profit arena. Moreover, this movement and the related NPM back up policy makers to adopt more market-based strategies for addressing public problems, such as contracting with private nonprofit and for-profit agencies (Lynn, 1998).In addition, the wel furthermoste reform legislation of 1996 created the transitional Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, replacing the long-standing Aid to Dependent Families and Children (AFDC) program (Berman, 2005). A central component of the new TANF program was performance-based contracts to encourage service providers to place singulars in permanent employment quickly (Berman, 2005). These contracts were also part of a immenseer strategy embodied by TANF to reduce the role of cash tending in helping low-income individuals kindly services delivered extensively by nonprofit and for-profit agencies through performance contracts were designed to help individuals who might ha ve antecedently relied on cash assistance to obtain employment and/or learn new skills to prepare themselves for the labor market (Berman, 2005).Non-profit organizations greatly realizeed from these new trends in invigorated Public Management which allowed them to conquer a bigger space in the public arena, as they had increased visibility and more access code to resources. Under the core principles of that movement, communities had to be empowered to address their own problems and the federal government trusted non-profits to implement high-level projects, as pointed out before. Consequently, governments live on increasingly dependent on such organizations to tackle some of the more critical issues in society.And due to the fact these issues, such as welfare, violence prevention and land preservation are of high interest to the government officials constituents accountability came in to play. These performance-based contracts are being executed with tax dollars and the governme nt officials need to be responsible to their voters on how these resources are being allocated and what results those programs are bringing. What it comes down to is that Non-Profits are in charge of executing what elected officials forestall their constituents. in that respectfore, the need to enter contracts with a clear expectation of how the budget will support programs and goals and how those monies will translate into improvements to that community or segment.Non-Profits greatly benefit from this relationship with government. From both the point of view of business development, since their contract revenue enhancement has significantly increased with the grants and contracts received from the federal government. And from the point of view of implementing performance management activities, since this new way of conducting business paved the way for the entranceway of valuable concepts related to performance management in non-profits. In Summary, new public management broug ht a new set of ideas and principles that were embraced by nonprofits and changed some of their paradigm with regards to their own definition of success and they relationship with their mission. Performance started to be evaluated by directly connecting program budget to goals and outcomes to understand the impact of those contracts had on addressing the issues at hand.Over time, performance contracting spread to a wide variety of service fields in the United States and elsewhere. New York City, for instance, has restructured hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts with loving and health agencies as performance contracts. Some state governments have privatized at least some of their child welfare services by sack public services provided by state or county ply to performance-based contracts with nonprofits, with the goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of child welfare services (Courtney, 2000).The same has been done by the Health Resource Service Administratio n (HRSA) and plaza Abuse Mental Health Administration (SMAHSA), in the past v years when they increased squarely the funding available to communities to address major public health epidemics, such as human immunodeficiency virus and Heroine/Crack use, that the government alone wouldnt be able to tackle. Due to the magnitude of these contracts and the threat these issues pose to society, the issue of performance has been addressed tirelessly and governments pressured nonprofits to come up with a set of measures to account for their performance and their ability to fulfill the terms of those contracts.The benefits and disadvantages of performance contracts have been extensively discussed in recent years. Within the performance management strategy movement, otherwise strategies have been employed that contact to be more nonprofit-centric. These strategies include benchmarking, logic models, balance cards, and affectionate return on investment (SROI). in all of these strategies have been used to measure performance in non-profit organizations in recent years and can illustrate examples of how organizations are applying management concepts to their operations. (Heinrich and Marschke, 2008). The Performance management contracts introduced nonprofits to these concepts and in result they became better able to manage their own performance as a whole, and not only when it relates to these contracts. (Heinrich and Marschke, 2008). All these concepts will be discussed in this paper.BenchmarkingBenchmarking involves identifying excellence and using it as a standard by which to measure performance. Benchmarking entails an effort to compare a specific nonprofit organization (or set of agencies) with other comparable organizations. It has its roots in the for-profit management world where companies are often compared on various measures, including profitability. The haulage of benchmarking is that it offers nonprofits a mechanism for them to assay their organization s, including administrative costs, the efficiency of their fund-raising operations, and number of members in comparison with other organizations with similar missions and profiles. Outcome evaluation is also very complicated, so benchmarking offers a strategy for program improvement and greater accountability, even in the absence of specific outcome data that are often lacking for many nonprofit programs (Kara D. Rutowski, Jeffery K. Guiler and Kurt E. Schimmel, 2007).Looking again at the issue that the product delivered by nonprofits may not be so good measured and quantifiable as services and products in the for-profit charge, it is harder for nonprofits to assess their own performance looking at standard reports. For instance, lets look at an HIV Testing Program whose goals are to promote HIV testing and raise awareness of risk factors. Hypothetically, lets consider that such program tested 1000 people during a tending(p) year and only 4 were positive. How will they measure t heir performance based on those numbers? That can be quite a difficult to encounter if a 4% seropositivity rate is an indicator for success or failure. However, using the benchmarking approach this program can compare itself to how it did as it relates to other programs serving similar populations and obtaining similar results.According to HIVqual (, an organization that specializes in providing benchmarking for dissimilar clinical indicators for HIV treatment, despite seeming low that 4% rate is well above the national average. The National average according to the HIVQual Project is about 1%. In this case an apparent low performance indicator, 4%, turned out to be an excellent outcome. Without access to that kind of information that program manager would not know how well he was doing and whether or not his program was being successful.Undeniably benchmarking tends to be most reformatory with easy to obtain information, such as number of administrators, membership levels, and the heart and soul of donations. However, the health care industry utilizes it a niggling more comprehensively, especially when looking at health outcomes of a particular community and health disparities data. The field of Public Health has also embraced that strategy for community-wide data evaluation, such as rates of violence and STD transmission, and used it to compare how in effect neighborhoods have addressed such problems. Also, the Boston Public Health Commission compares individual program data with city-wide data to determine how well a program is performing in comparison to others. Benchmarking is an attainable way to measure performance, as non-profits are comparing their outcomes to national and local averages they can have a clear idea of where they rank and where they need to improve. However, that approach can only be utilized if such data exists.As mentioned before, in the health care industry this method is widely used and there are plenty of data ava ilable on clinical outcomes. Different types of benchmarking may be undertaken, depending upon what the organization hopes to achieve (Rutowski, Guiler & Schimmel, 2007). Industry benchmarking, or functional benchmarking, is the measurement of several aspects of the companys operations and a comparison of these crossways an industry. Competitive benchmarking is used to compare an organization with its competitors. Process or generic benchmarking is used to compare similar procedures at different companies. There has been relatively little research exploring benchmarking in nonprofit organizations outside of the healthcare industry (Rutowski, Guiler & Schimmel, 2007). Hopefully, nonprofits will follow the trend set by healthcare and employ this strategy as a performance measurement technique more efficiently in the upcoming years. Balanced ScorecardsAnother performance management strategy commonly utilized by nonprofits is the balance batting order develop by Robert Kaplan in 2002 . The balanced scorecard is think to counter the criticism from within the nonprofit sector that the application of certain types of performance management strategies borrowed from the for-profit sector do not sufficiently account for the companionable mission and levers of many nonprofits (Berman, 2005).Kaplan describes the innovation of the balanced scorecard as follows The balanced scorecard retains traditional financial measures. But financial measures tell the narrative of past events, an adequate story for industrial age companies for which investments in semipermanent capabilities and customer relationships were not critical for success. These financial measures are inadequate, however, for guiding and evaluating the transit that information age companies must make to create future value through investment in customers, suppliers, employees, processes, technology, and innovation. (Kaplan, 2002)The balanced scorecard is a strategic-planning beam that seeks to integrate financial, programmatic, operational, and mission-related objectives, so a nonprofit agency can strive to create a more efficient and effective organization age at the same time remaining faithful to its mission. (Berman, 2005). The balanced scorecard does involve a significant investment by a nonprofit organization because of its substantial data requirements and the need for extensive consultation among the different stakeholders of a nonprofit, including the board, faculty, clients, community members, and funders. As a result, the balanced scorecard tends to be embraced by larger nonprofit and public organizations eager to drive substantial change in their operations.The balanced scorecard is also particularly worthy for organizations that seek to rethink or improve their relationship with their users, such as parents in a family-service agency or patients in the case of a hospital. In this sense, the balanced scorecard reflects the enhanced primacy placed on reactivity to cu stomers in all types of organizations (Berman, 2005). However, despite its holistic approach to organizational strategy, the balanced scorecard tends to focus on measurable indicators of costs and program employ and thus is not widely used to consider the citizenship and community-building role of nonprofits although it potentially could be used to address these issues. (Berman, 2005) Also, the measurement of program impact through the balanced scorecard approach remains challenging overtaken the worry of obtaining relevant outcome data because of the expense and the long-term effects of many nonprofit programs. (Berman, 2005)Balance score cards are a viable alternative for nonprofit organizations. In this system, one takes a look at various elements affecting performance and not a single detached measure. Due to the fact that non-profits are very in tune with their mission, and are constantly focusing on trying to allocate their limited resources efficiently in order to achiev e their goals, this system works very effectively as it provides these organizations with this bigger-picture view they much need. The balanced scorecard system has a multiple focus on several perspectives, including financial performance, and that will give nonprofits the tools they need to make decisions regarding where moneys will be invested in comparison with performance analysis of different programs. For a nonprofit organization, profit is not a determining goal of strategy but no margin, no mission. Therefore, they need to be able to put their money where they can see results.The other issue to be considered with this approach is stakeholder involvement. In this case, the balanced scorecard provides a comprehensive framework that will help association directors and managers better define strategies, track performance, and provide data to show their various stakeholder groups how well they are performing in terms of mission value and outcomes. It helps as far as celebrating t heir successes and selling their message to others. Well-rounded and well-presented results will make those organizations look more appealing and that could potentially attract endowments, additional contracts and positive publicity.logical system ModelsAnother performance management approach that is widely used by nonprofits is a logic model. As a matter of fact, many public and private funders now require nonprofit grant and contract applicants to develop a logic model as part of their grant application. system of logic Models have operate a standard performance measure for contracts due to the fact that they focus on process and outcomes. Logic models force nonprofits to map out the entire production process for their programs, from the initial inputs such as staff and resources to the long term outcomes.For funders, logic models offer an opportunity to hold nonprofits accountable for the implementation of their programs. Thus, funders could sanction a nonprofit that fell shor t of its intended service deliver model after a contract or grant was awarded (Berman, 2005). For Nonprofits, logic models allow them to select which outcomes they want to achieve, so they can focus their efforts on achieving these particular goals. These goals are not chosen randomly, this consists of a logic process, from a cause-consequence frame of reference therefore, these goals are very realizable and these organizations are very likely to succeed.Logic models have certainly caught the attention of nonprofits nationwide. Arguably their greatest value is on the front-end of service implementation. Ideally, the process of creating a logic model should engage a broad spectrum of a nonprofit agencys staff and volunteers in thinking about impact and outcomes (Berman, 2005). This level of involvement helps them refine their strategies and win the support of agency stakeholders. By having everyone on board, these agencies will be more likely to achieve program goals. Logic models a s a strategy to drive better outcomes and help funders select the most effective agencies for funding remains quite problematic. Furthermore, logic models tend to focus on programmatic performance and generally do not engage the agency in thinking about governance or citizenagency relationships. (Berman, 2005)SROI Social Return on InvestmentAnother performance strategy designed for nonprofits that also take into account their difficulties in evaluating programs and delimitate success is the Social Return on Investment (SROI). This strategy was pioneered by JedEmerson and colleagues at the Roberts Foundation in San Francisco who envisioned SROI as a fomite for assessing the social value of nonprofit programs. Too often, nonprofit programs, especially social service programs, are evaluated quite narrowly and thus may not appear to demonstrate significant value for the community (Berman, 2005). Topics, such as quality of life, positive decision making, civic pride and affinity for di versity, for instance, are very hard to measure. One can measure how many people attended a benefit to raise autism awareness, but how can we measure how the lives of those who attended were impacted by their participation?Bearing that challenge in mind, SROI is designed to overcome this problem through a more inclusive approach to thinking about costs and benefits that consider the savings to society of nonprofit services. For example, a persons employment because of job gentility and placement by a nonprofit would produce long-term benefits for society that should be considered when evaluating the impact of a nonprofit program (Tuan, 2008). This type of account may be a hard one to make. There is the counter-argument whether or not current citizens are paying for current services. There is also the counter-argument that tax dollars should be directly benefiting tax payers, and projects such as school renovations may sound more appealing than investing on something that people wi ll see results in the long discharge.Similar to other performance management initiatives, SROI focuses on programmatic impact rather than governance (Tuan, 2008). SROI is also quite complicated in practice so its adoption within the nonprofit sector has been quite limited, although the conceptual framework employed in SROI has encouraged funders and nonprofits to approach social impact more inclusively and to be rigorous and data-driven in thinking about costs and benefits. SROI has also spawned other efforts to think by and large about the social value of nonprofits (Tuan, 2008).In times where government and the boorish in general faces a dreadful budget crises making decisions from where to cut from such an abstract idea may be not the best way to measure performance as it relates to results from financial investments. This approach is plausibly the one that makes moresense from a long-term perspective. However, many non-profits can not afford that kind of thinking and need to have more tangible data to account for their performance. The idea of social impact can and should be used for lobbying and for getting buy-in from constituents however, resting on that strategy to justify resource allocation and to measure results may be a risky decision to make.ConclusionOverall, the varied performance management strategies commonly used by nonprofit organizations tend to minimize attention to internal management and governance as well as the external relations in party favour of a focus on impact and the relevant costs and benefits (Berman, 2005). As previously discussed, the biggest issue faced by non-profits is the fact that their product may not be as easily defined as the services and goods are in the for profit world. The issue of the market inclination and how people are responding to their services is also another important one to be kept in mind. Non-profits are not dictated by their consumers behaviors, but by the environment as a whole. The definition of success in the nonprofit world is very complex and can be looked at from different angles as explained through the strategies above.Non-profits have increasingly tried to hold in performance management strategies to its practices. And although the management of these organizations may be a little more in tune with those principles, we can not forget that those concepts may not be as evident to their staff. For many of the direct line staff, it is very hard to evidence the impact of performance management on management decisions and service improvements. Managers may be aware of the value of performance measurement in influencing decisions and improving services, but sometimes the communication with staff tend to be broad and disappointingly vague. As non-profits utilize these concepts to run their operations, they need to understand that front line staff needs to be equally aware of how the organization is performing and how that affects them. There is a presumed linkage to bu dget decisions, although promised in theory, is often difficult to detect in practice. many an(prenominal)non-profits have been good about disseminating those ideas among their managers, but that may not have been equally successful in getting their staff on board.In conclusion, performance management in nonprofit is a very broad topic that can be viewed from many different perspectives. The need to become more accountable to results has forced many of these organizations to adopt performance management systems. There are a few commonly used systems as explained in this paper, they each have their strengths and their weakness and it is up to each nonprofit manager to decide which one suits them best. This is a very new field, however, that has emerged with New Public Management and become more prominent in the 90s.There is a lot of room for new theories and approaches to be developed, and I am sure in the near future we will be auditory sense more innovative concepts coming into p lay. Regardless from which angle you look at predominance for nonprofit organizations, there will always be the issue of hard-to-define products and goals. And there will always be the cultural issues within those organizations where staff may not be as in tune as managers are of the needs to define success and measure performance. People join non-profits because they have affinity with their missions and the idea that they have to achieve goals and quotas may not be as tangible to them as their desire to help others.BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Bradach, Jeffrey (2005). Non-Profit Effectiveness. Washington, DC Brookings Institution Press. 2. L., Thomas, J. Tierney, and Nan Stone (2006). Delivering on the promise of nonprofits. Harvard Business Review. 3. Lencioni, Pat. Nonprofits vs. For-Profits cathexis and Performance. Business Week Online 6 May 2009. world-wide Reference marrow squash Gold. Web. 1 May 2010. 4. Berry, J.M. (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Washington, DC Brookings Institution Press. 5. Behn, R.D. (2001) Rethinking elective accountability. Washington, DC Brookings Institution Press. 6. Behn, R.D., & Kant, P.A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22, 470-489 7. Blalock, A.B., & Barnow, B.S. (2004).Is the new obsession with performance management masking the truth about social programs? In D. W. Forsythe (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government (pp. 485-519). Albany, NY Rockefeller Institute Press. 8. Bovaird, T., & Downe, J. (2009). debut in public engagement and co-production of services. Meta-evaluation of the local government modernization agenda-White policy paper. 9. Emerson, J., Wachowicz, J., & Chun, S. (2000). Social return on investment Exploring aspects of value creation in the nonprofit sector. San Francisco The Roberts Foundation. Retrieved December 6, 2009 10. Lynn, L.E., Jr. (1998). The new public management How to commute a th eme into a legacy. Public Administration Review, 58, 231-237. 11. Lyons, M. (in press). Australia A go along love affair with the new public management. In S. Phillips & S. R. Smith (Eds.), formation and regulation in the third sector. London Routledge. 12. Marris, P., & Rein, M. (1982). Dilemmas of social reform meagreness and community action in the United States.Chicago University of Chicago Press. 13. Marshall, T.H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development Essays. New York Doubleday. 14. Berman, Evan M. Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Armonk, NY, regular army M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2005. p 15. 15. Tuan, M.T. (2008). Measuring and/or estimating social value creation Insights into octonary integrated cost approaches. Seattle, WA Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved December 11, 2009. 16. Speckbacher, Gerhard. The economic science of Performance Management in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management & lead Spring2003, Vol. 13 Issue 3, p26 7, 15p 17. Ammons, David N., and William C. Rivenbark. Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review 68.2 (2008) 304+.General Reference Center Gold. Web. 3 May 2010 18. Kara D. Rutowski, Jeffery K. Guiler and Kurt E. Schimmel. Benchmarking organizational commitment crossways nonprofit human services organizations in Pennsylvania. School of Business, Robert Morris University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2007. 19. Courtney, M.E. (2000). Managed care and child welfare services What are the issues? Children and Youth Services Review, 22(2), 87-91. 20. Kaplan, R.S. (2002). The balanced scorecard and nonprofit organizations. Boston Harvard Business School.