Manager Essay Example

Manager Essay Volkswagens U. S. subsidiary has launched a new pro-cess for allocating scarce IT budgets across a portfolio of project requests, in an effort to align IT activities better with corporate strategy. Now that they have used the process for the first time, though, and arrived at a list of approved projects, no one seems happy with the outcome. This case provides an opportunity to discuss the difficult governance issues that arise in making IT investment decisions. As you read the case, consider these questions: What is your assessment of the new process for managing priorities at Volkswagen? Are the criticisms Justified? Is it an improvement over the old process? Who controls the budgets from which IT prohects are funded at Volkswagen of America? Who should control these budgets? How should Matulovic respond to his fellow executives who are calling to ask him for special treatment outside the new priority management system? Dr. Uwe Matulovic, chief information officer (CIO) of Volkswagen of America (VWoA), placed the telephone in its cradle and leaned back in his chair, replaying the Just- completed conversation with one of his peers from the Executive Leadership Team (ELT). The call, Matulovic mused, had been similar to three others he had participated n that week, each with a different ELT member. The results of a new prioritization process†a list of IT projects that would be funded in 2004†had been unveiled only a few days earlier. But already a storm was gathering. The phone calls from other executives had common themes. All the callers had expressed concern that high priorities for their areas of the company had not been funded. We will write a custom essay sample on Manager specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Manager specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Manager specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Some had repeated views expressed during the prioritization process by people who worked for them about supposed categorization mistakes that penalized Copyright 2005, 2007 President and Fellows of Harvard College. Harvard Business School Case 606-003. Professor Robert D. Austin, Dr. Warren Ritchie, and Greggory Garrett prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate effective or ineffective management. Certain details have been disguised. Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business School. their business units. And each of the calls had concluded with an informal request to insert an unfunded project (or two) into the IT departments work plans. We dont have to reopen the process, the most recent caller had said, but perhaps spare capacity might be applied to make some progress on this project in 2004†weve one this before, and it would mean a lot to our area and to the companys growth plans. The 10 business units that made up MOA had proposed more than 40 projects, with funding requirements totaling $210 million (US). A budget of only $60 million (an amount capped by Volkswagen Group (VWAG), the parent company of MOA) made some degree of disappointment inevitable. But the intensity of pushback against the new process was surprising. The ELT had endorsed the idea of improving upon the old way these decisions were made, via unstructured debate explicit and link projects and the core business processes they impacted with MOA corporate goals. An orderly, rational process would replace what, in the past, had sometimes been haphazard. But now, questions were being raised about whether the new process was right for MOA. 50 Module Three IT Leadership EXHIBIT 1 The Himalayas Chart Some business units had seen none of their projects funded. Whispers throughout the company suggested that the process was too theoretical and noted that IT infrastructure projects had been treated separately, not forced through the same process, which many considered unfair. As Matulovic peered through the window into an overcas t sky, he wondered whether he should order exceptions to the rocess. If a project was small and Just below the line of funded projects, maybe IT should figure out a way to get it done. Or maybe he should stand his ground and defend the new process. Matulovic did not work for the other members of the ELT, but he did have to work with them. Whatever he decided could certainly affect working relationships, so he would need to consider his options carefully. Backgrowid †Volkswagen of America Ferdinand Porsche designed the first Volkswagen automobiles during the 1930s in Germany. The original vehicles, targeted at the mass market (Volkswagen means, iterally, peoples car), were intended to transport a family of five at highway speeds, use modest amounts of fuel, and remain within financial reach of most people. The companys signature platform by the late 1940s was the Beetle, which, with its rounded styling and reliable air-cooled engine, became internationally popular. For about 20 years, sales of the Beetle hurtled skyward, propelling the companys total worldwide vehicle sales past a million in 1955 and toa high point in 1969. Although popularity of the Beetle declined throughout the 1970s and its importation was discontinued in the United States, late in that decade, production of Beetles in Latin America continued into the 1990s. It remains the best-selling car of all time. After peaking in the late 1960s, the pattern of sales for the North American subsidiary of Volkswagen settled into a trying cycle of ups and downs that became known, due to its Jagged contours, as the Himalayas Chart (see Exhibit 1). Other marketing nameplates have sold more units, but these nameplates were not the same vehicle in different geographies, nor did they retain as much consistency in core design as the classic Beetle.

Cloning essay Essay Example

Cloning essay Essay Example Cloning essay Paper Cloning essay Paper Essay Topic: Rebuttal Cloning The employment of cloning and human embryonic stem cells is of the most significant innovations in medicine (Wobus and Boheler, 2005).   The discovery of the ability to manipulate embryonic stem cells has created the fields of regenerative medicine and cellular therapy, which aim to treat debilitating and/or fatal conditions that were earlier acknowledged to be incurable (Taupin, 1996).   Unfortunately, this breakthrough has brought forth issues regarding the value of life.   Technically, cloning of embryonic stem cells involve collection of embryos that are ethically regarded at the earliest stages of human life (Brown, 2006).   Ethical arguments have arisen, questioning whether it is right to improve life by destroying another human life in the form of an embryo.   This paper will enumerate ethical arguments that renounce the use of the cloning technology and the use of spare embryos for biomedical research and therapeutics. Embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of 5 to 7-day old human embryos or blastocysts right before its implantation along the walls of the uterus (Bongso et al., 1994).   These stem cells are cultured in vitro over mouse embryonic fibroblast feeder cells supplied with growth serum.   Embryonic stem cells have the ability to infinitely self-renew and sustain their capacity to differentiate into any form of mature cell.   Depending on the kind of trigger stimuli introduced, these cultured cells may be controlled to differentiate into the cell type needed for research, experimentation and therapeutics. Stem cells are collected from four different (4) sources- from surplus embryos or by-products of in vitro fertilization (IVF) laboratories, from â€Å"spare† embryos obtained from embryo donors at IVF clinics, from embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or the removal of the nucleus from a body cell and reinsertion into an egg cell, and lastly, from aborted or terminated fetuses.   No matter which route is used to collect stem cells, the use of embryos for stem cell research has been the center of ethical debate since its conception.   The principle of ethics involves careful deliberation on the use of stem cells as related to human well-being and human freedom.   Several issues regarding this new technology have raised uproar and disagreements between the scientific community and ethics groups. One major ethical issue regarding the use of â€Å"spare† embryos is the lack of respect for the embryo.   The concern is associated to the possible future demand for embryos once this cellular technology is determined to be successfully therapeutic.   Embryos might later be treated as therapeutic materials or commodities instead of living beings at their initial stages.   There is also a risk for a devaluation of embryos, wherein the loss of human life may later in time be tolerated instead of prevented (Bobrow, 2005).   In addition, the acceptance of destruction of embryos may serve as a precedent for implementation of other controversial biomedical acts such as creation of embryo â€Å"factories†, cloned babies and mass production of â€Å"spare parts† from fetuses (Hug, 2005, 2006).   There is claim for the scientific community that employment of spare embryos may not automatically mean any disrespect towards embryos because the destruction of embry os in order to collect stem cells results in the provision of new therapeutics for specific medical disorders.   Certain scientists have actually claimed that it is more immoral to destroy embryos during in vitro fertilization because those embryos are not implanted or donated for further use but are actually discarded, unlike embryos that are destroyed for stem cell research which are cautiously propagated and ultimately designed to replace defective tissues and cells for medical therapeutics.   Such rebuttal from the scientific community is not good enough because they actually approach the issue of choosing between the lesser evil option. Another major issue that is being publicly scrutinized is whether the creation of embryos for research purposes is morally worse than using â€Å"spare† embryos from IVF cases for experiments.   Such issue reflects the intention of each act, and the idea of using leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization protocols is much more tolerable to society than the simple creation of research-oriented embryos because there is less guilt involved in using extra or spare embryos from IVF cases than creating embryos that could have been another human being but their chance to live has been taken away.   The scientific community has tried to explain that production and destruction of spare embryos is a normal physiological event during pregnancy, which enables a sibling embryo to complete the entire gestational range (Borge and Evers, 2003).   They claim that this kind of sacrifice is also necessary to promote life for the sibling embryo. After describing the pros and cons of two major ethical issues, I personally believe that the utilization of cloning techniques is unacceptable.   I think that the ethical questions raised against the technique shows that there is an urgent need to review and prevent the employment of such revolutionary technology, as well as promote the importance of human life and respect.   More effort should be given by both scientific and legislative communities to understand and disseminate any human rights that are violated by this technology, so that they would give more respect to life as all the rest of the society has shown over the last centuries. References Bobrow, J.C.   (2005):   The ethics and politics of stem cell research.   Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc.   103:138-142. Bongso, A., Fong, C.Y., Ng, S.C. and Ratnam, S.   (1994):   Isolation and culture of inner cell mass cells from human blastocysts.   Hum. Reprod.   9:2110-2117. Borge, O.J. and Evers, K.   (2003):   Aspects on properties, use and ethical considerations of embryonic stem cells- A short review.   Cytotechnology   41:59-68. Brown T (2006):   Gene cloning and DNA analysis: An introduction.   Los Angeles: Blackwell Publishing Limited.   386 pages. Hug, K.   (2005):   Sources of human embryos for stem cell research:   Ethical problems and their possible solutions.   Medicina (Kaunas)   41(12):1002-1010. Hug, K.   (2006):   Therapeutic perspectives of human embryonic stem cell research versus the moral status of a human embryo- Does one have to be compromised for the other?   Medicina (Kaunas)   42(2):107-114. Taupin, P.   (2006):   Derivation of embryonic stem cells for cellular therapy:   Challenges and new strategies.   Med. Sci. Monit.   12(4):RA75-78. Wobus, A.M. and Boheler, K.R.   (2005):   Embryonic stem cells:   Prospects for developmental biology and cell therapy.   Physiol. Rev.   85:635-678.

The History of Guam and Why It Is a US Territory Research Paper

The History of Guam and Why It Is a US Territory - Research Paper Example 1. Chamorro people were the first settlers on the island. According to Cunningham & Beaty (2001), they immigrated from Indonesia or Philippines to the Island and brought their culture and language with them. 3. The latte was  «stone pillars » that served as a building material for Chamorro dwellings according to Cunningham & Beaty (2001). Today scientists pay specific attention to late to learn more about Chamorro culture. 3. When the war was over, USA increased its influence on the territory of Guam. Guam Organic Act signed in 1950 declared Guam to be  «organized territory of the USA » with its local government (Rogers, 1995). 4. There were several referendums held on the Island to determine its future as Guam had a right for self-determination (Ruffatto, 1993). Local people could choose whether they wanted to be with the USA or develop independently. 49% of voters expressed their will to stay together with the USA in 1982 as stated by Rogers (1988). I. Summary: Guam has a long history; it was ruled by local Chamorro peoples, colonized by Spain and occupied by Japan. It became a part of the USA not so long ago and this decision was confirmed by referendum in 1982. All in all, Guams history makes this place unique and outstanding. Ruffatto, P. (1993). US action in Micronesia as a norm of customary international law: The effectuation of the right to self-determination for Guam and other non-self-governing territories.