REAL CASE DISCUSSION TOPICS NMIMS 2017,2018

CASE 1, FEBRUARY 2018

Arakansas Inc is a young startup that has recently hired you and your team to help them in selecting
two candidates from several applicants. Arkansas is looking to hire for two roles : Project Manager
and Functional consultant for which it is willing to incur maximum of INR 30 Lacs in CTC in total. The
following candidate profiles are received, unfortunately they are all jumbled up and no one is sure who
has applied for which role. :wacko:

The following are the candidates:

1. Sakshi Sinha – Age 27, Work ex-2 yrs, No. of companies worked for – 1, Key skill : People
management, Expected CTC – 12 Lacs

2. Sadaf Zia – Age 26 , Work ex – 20 months, Key skill: Sharp programmer, awarded by Microsoft for
exceptional programming skills, Expected CTC – unknown

3. Raj Singh – Age 33, Work ex – 10 years , Key skill – Excellent project manager, No. of companies
worked for – 12, Expected CTC – 24 Lacs

4. Peter Parker – Age 43 years, Work ex- 15 yrs, Key skills – Excellent technical and Managerial
skills, Ex-CTO . No. of companies worked for: 2. Expected CTC – 28 Lacs

5. Vinod Rai – Age 20 years, Workex – 0, Key skills – C++ Coding , Expected CTC – 4 Lacs

6. Prerna Rai – Age 29 years , work ex- 6 years , Key skills – Functional and Technical , No. of
companies worked for : 1, Expected CTC – 16 Lacs

Arakansas is also keen to see if more people can be hired within the budget. The company is facing a
slight funding crisis but is expected to recover from it.

As a team discuss and come to a consensus on who should be hired for your client .

All the best  :good:

CASE 2 .

The Case of the Performance Appraisal

Frank became chief financial officer and a member of the Executive

Committee of a medium-sized and moderately successful family-
owned contracting business six months ago. The first nonfamily
member to hold such a position and to be included in the Executive
Committee, he took the job despite a lunch-time remark by the
company’s CEO that some members of the family were concerned
about Frank’s “fit with the company culture.” But the CEO (who is
married to the daughter of the founder of the company) said he was
willing to “take a chance” on Frank.
Soon after Frank started, the company decided for the first time to
“right-size” (a euphemism for downsize) to respond to rapid
changes in its business. Frank, who had been through this before
when he was a senior manager in his previous company, agreed this
was good for the long-term health of the 20-year-old company. He
decided not to worry that family members seemed more concerned
about their own short-term financial interests.
Besides, the CEO was relying on Frank to help him determine how
to downsize in an ethical manner; the CEO said he trusted Frank
more on this than he did the head of his personnel department, who
had “been around a little too long.”
On Frank’s recommendation, the company decided to make its lay-
off decisions based on the annual performance appraisal scores of
the employees. Each department manager would submit a list of
employees ranked by the average score of their last three appraisals.
If the employee had been with the company less than three years, if
the score for two employees was identical, or if there was some
extraordinary circumstance, the manager would note it and make a
decision about where to rank the person. At some point, Frank and
the Executive Committee would draw a line, and those below the
line would be laid off.
As Frank was reviewing the evaluations, he was puzzled to find
three departments in which the employee at the bottom of the list
had “N/A” where the evaluation score should have been written.
When he asked the managers to explain, they told him these
employees had been with the company almost since the beginning.
When performance appraisals had been instituted six years earlier,
the CEO agreed to the longtime employees’ request that they keep
receiving informal evaluations “as they always had.”
The managers told Frank they’d questioned this decision, and the
CEO had told them it wasn’t their problem.
When Frank raised this issue with the CEO, he responded, “Oh, I
know. I haven’t really evaluated them in a long time, but it’s time for
them to retire anyway. They just aren’t performing the way they
used to. The company’s been very good to them. They’ve got plenty
of retirement stored away, not to mention the severance you’ve
convinced me to offer. They’re making pretty good money, so
cutting them should let us lower the line a little and save jobs for
some of the younger people–you know, young kids with families
just starting out. And don’t worry about a lawsuit. No way they’d do
that.”
“Do they know they’re not performing well?” Frank asked.
“I don’t know,” the CEO responded. “They should. Everybody else in
the company does.”
As they walked to the door, the CEO put his arm around Frank’s
shoulder. “By the way,” he said, “you should know that you’ve won
over the Executive Committee. They think you are a terrific fit with
this company. I’m glad you talked with me today about these three
employees. You got it right: This is a company that cares for its
employees–as long as it can and as long as they’re producing.
Always has, always will.”
Frank left the CEO’s office with the vague feeling that he had some
moral choices to make.
Questions for Discussion:
Does he have an ethical dilemma? What’s the right thing to do? If he
disagrees with the CEO, how does he protect his own career and the
interests of his own family? What do you think?

FACEBOOK: The Psychology Experiment You Consented to in

FB’s Terms of Service

Thursday, Jul. 17, 2014

 
For one week in 2012, half a million Facebook users took part in a
massive psychological experiment aimed at discovering if emotions
could be spread through social media. The problem? Users had no
idea it was happening. It turns out Facebook routinely runs
experiments on users; in fact every Facebook user has been a
subject at some point, whether it be slight modifications in
formatting or major feature changes.
Just about every Internet service does experiments, but this one
altered users’ news feeds to highlight items with either positive or
negative emotional content, and then measured if it affected the
emotional content in each user’s future posts.
While it is agreed the experiment was legal, critics argue this type of
testing crosses the line, particularly when consent is buried in a
terms of service. Facebook researchers have taken to social media to
apologize for the study, but the company’s official statement is that
Facebook users agree to these types of experiments as part of the
terms of service.
Question for Discussion:
Does Facebook need more explicit consent for this type of
experiment? For all experiments?
The Exotic Melons:
You are the manager (Worldwide Sales Cock and Bull Melons) in a Dubai-based company that deals
in selling exotic fruits. Cock and Bull Melons are a special variety of melons that can be cultivated
only on the sandy dunes surrounding the Cock and Bull oasis in the Sahara desert. Worldwide demand
and supply have been quite stable so far at 100 melons a year, with the supply being just sufficient to
cover the demand.
Cock and Bull Melons have traditionally been sold to the sheikhs in the Middle East, and Hollywood
and Bollywood actors and actresses. Their exorbitant prices take them out of reach of common
people. 
In January 2002, the research centre at Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), India discovers that
Cock and Bull melons can cure the fatal MarGaya syndrome in pregnant women, which kills both he
mother and the child. Also, it can cure the fatal MaraGaya syndrome in diabetic patients. Both these
symptoms are very rare. Unfortunately for you, in May 2002, the MaraGaya syndrome strikes 2000
people in America and the MarGaya syndrome strikes 1000 pregnant women in Sweden. 100 Cock
and Bull melons are required to cure the 1000 cases in America while 100 are required to cure the
Swedish problem. You know that the patients in both the countries cannot afford the high cost of
Cock and Bull melon treatment. You also know that the revenues from treating patients would be
much lower than selling them to sheikhs and film stars. 
You are in a real dilemma. What would you do?
Confidential Information?
Mr. SecretKeeper is a Corporate Head (HR) in a company. He is very nice and gets along well with
all people. People often consult him for help and advice. One person (named “Mr. A”) approaches
him for a job because he is right now jobless. Mr. SecretKeeper takes the guy's qualifications and asks
him to come after a week however, since no job available. He keeps frequently postponing the job
offer. Mr. A keeps visiting the HR head, Mr. Secret Keeper, often and becomes his close friend.
Then, one day, Mr. A confides with the HR Head “I was in prison for 18 years for a crime that I had
not committed. With two years remaining of the sentence, I ran away from jail. Even now, police is in
look out for me.” Mr. SecretKeeper tells the person to go home and that he would give him a job.
However as soon as he leaves, Mr. SecretKeeper calls up the police and gives the details of Mr. A and
asks them to arrest Mr. A.
Because of this betrayal of trust by the HR head, people in the organisation have started losing faith in
him. A senior person in the office complains to the VP that the Mr. Secret Keeper has “broken faith”,
so others could not come to him.
Assume that you are the VP of the company. What would you do about the situation?
In a fix!
You are the young dynamic, blue-eyed boy (girl) in a firm, which is a known leader in the industrial
oils business. Under your leadership, the company has done extremely well in a slow, sluggish,
mature market and has also effectively warded off competition from the superior industrial oil
segment.
However, as a young blooded individual, you decide that the company should branch into something
more glamorous and contemporary. You manage to convince the top management to get into the film-
making business.
The film-making business is started as another division, where the systems and processes are kept the
same to have uniformity across businesses. You manage to hire top talent in this field Mr. A, Mr. B
and Mr. C from different competitors. You have big hopes from the trio as these people have come
together as a team for the first time. You grant every freedom to these people to recruit their own
subordinates.
Barely a month after the film-making business has started, you are in a fix! Mr. B throws his cap,
sheds a zillion tears and tells you in a choked voice that he would rather die than continue with your
business. A couple of months later Mr. C blames your policies and quits.
Your six monthly profit and loss statement shows that film-making business had been a horrific
disaster. The only remaining member of the star trio, Mr. A says that the business is slightly out of
form and that he might deliver if you grant him complete freedom. 
You can now see your own future as dark as the industrial oils your company specializes in. You are
wondering what went wrong and what should you do now?
Tension on the job:
Sujit Bhattacharyya (Bhola) had been an exceptionally bright student throughout his studies at IIT-
Kharagpur. He devoted four years in pursuit of academic excellence. He had very few friends. Few
peers liked him, but he was the darling of all his professors. Bhola joined TELCO from the campus as
production supervisor in charge of vehicle assembly. Bhola used to manage shop floor operations
consisting of truck assembly and in a shift 30-33 operator used to report to him. The IQ level of a
typical operator could be compared to that of a class VIII student, but years of experience had made
them confident about their job.
The operators, by virtue of doing the same job for so many years, had developed a highly robotic style
of functioning and were highly resistant to change. The trade union was powerful and exercised a lot
of leverage with the management, to secure incentives and overtime payment, which were fixed at a
uniform rate across the departments.
Nilesh was an operator in charge of front axle assembly. The number of trucks that rolled out of the
factory was equal to the number of axles assembled. Thus, Nilesh was looking after a highly sensitive
assembly operation. Nilesh, lately, had lost a lot of money in the stock market, had frequent quarrels
with his wife and many times used to come drunk to the shop floor. His abrasive behavior had caused
a lot of worry to Bhola. Nilesh also started absenting himself from duty and became casual in his
approach. Subsequently, Nilesh was transferred to the quality control department to reduce his
physical workload. Bhola found it very difficult to find a suitable replacement for Nilesh in the
assembly area. He had to frequently interchange workers who were unable to cope with the high
pressure work at the axle assembly. They deliberately started going slow, and thereby, affected
productivity. Bhola did his best to pinpoint the problem. He was under tremendous pressure from the
top to increase productivity to previous levels.
The workers started demanding additional incentives and overtime payments. The management, on
the other hand, was opposed to any change in the incentive structure. Bhola was helpless. He tried his
best and at times did the work himself. The workers, sensing that Bhola had little control over them,
became more aggressive and further slowed their work. Bhola suffered an emotional breakdown and
had to stay away from work for two months. 
Discuss what the main issues in the case are and what would be your approach in this situation.
The Video Games Case
You are the CEO of a large, diversified entertainment company. A division of your firm manufactures
video games. The division is the third largest manufacturer of hardware in the industry and has a 10%
market share, with the top two having 40% and 35% respectively. The industry growth has been
strong, though over the last few months, the overall industry sales growth has slowed a bit.
The division's sales have increased rapidly over the last year from a relatively small base. Current
estimate is annual sales of 500,000 units for your division. The selling price of the basic Video Game
unit (hardware) is Rs. 1000. The current cost of manufacturing a unit is Rs. 700, excluding the
marketing costs. The top two competitors are estimated to have a 10 to 15% cost advantage currently.
The division currently exceeds corporate return requirements; however, margins have recently been
falling.
The product features are constantly developed (e.g., new type of remote joy stick), to appeal to the
segments of the market. However, the division estimates much of the initial target market (young
families) has now purchased the video game hardware. No large new user segments have been
identified . 
Recently, a request has come to you, the CEO, for approval of Rs. 20 Cr. for tripling the division's
capacity. The requested expansion will also reduce the cost of manufacture by 5 to 7 % from the
present value. Should you approve the expansion?
Student's BIG problem:
In an institute AIM, the students' council is selected by a voting wherein each student is allocated a
vote for each position in the council. The council is supposed to undertake activities of students'
interests. Each student pays Rs. 50 per year towards council dues. Extending the brief of the council,
it decides to add responsibilities and projects. As a first, it introduces a scheme for students wherein it
provides them stationary and hosiery at a subsidized price. This is to be done on a no-profit no-loss
basis. Initially, it is done only for a select group of students as a pilot exercise. 
Extending in the first month, the council has a sale of Rs.3500. They make a profit of Rs. 300. Seeing
this, the council decides to expand its store for the complete instituted. They buy goods worth
Rs.15000 for the first time and Rs 10000 the second time. In order to buy these goods, it takes loan of
Rs.8000 at an interest of 18% per annum. Rumors of bungling of money start floating around the
campus. Some council members are alleged to have taken money from the store and the council
funds. As a result of these rumors, some students begin to boycott the council and start to doubts its
intentions. In addition, they allege that the store was supposed to be on a no profit no-loss basis, but
still it aimed at earning profits. 
On complaints to the institute authorities, the store is closed for business till further notice, pending an
internal investigation into the matter. As a result of the store closure, the council is left with stocks of
Rs.13500. In addition, the council also has to repay Rs. 8000 plus interest to the financial institution.
In the present scenario, what could be the possible solutions?