need a response to 2 post wk5

CASE STUDIES 5

Case Studies

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

Case Studies

Back Bay University Case Study

Question 1

A formal salvage program will help to plan well and ensure that the old equipment and scrap metals are sold at the best prices possible. The foreman and others who are selling the scrap metal to the faculty staff may be doing so at a throw-away price. Hence, the money that is received may be too little. The formalization will help to bargain and sell them the way they should such that a substantial amount of money is obtained. The money used to carry out development at the school or attend to other important matters. The little money that is being received currently is used or vital matters but more can be done if the process is finalized. Some of the funds can be used to fund research. For instance, through buying laboratory apparatus and chemicals necessary for experimentation. Besides. Some of those funds could be sued to offer scholarships to some of the students and hence, they will not have a heavy burden. Another importance of having a formal salvage program is that it will be possible to track how the finances are used to avoid any embezzlement or misuse. Every expenditure needs to be accounted for by the procurement team.

Question 2

Such a program can be opposed because it can lead to quarrels among the parties involved in the process of selling the equipment and scrap metals and the procurement team. Some staff members might see it as if it is a scheme by some of the workers to gain financially without involving others. Such arguments can even affect the way the university is run and the teaching process. Therefore, leaving the selling of such equipment to continue the way it has been happening can be a better option if things are observed from that perspective. The stability of operations at the school should always be put first.

Hydrosub Case Study

Question 1

The project supervisor at Bolger Shipyards Mr. Burt and the former chief buyer at Hydrosub are the ones who caused the poor performance of the Bolger contract. Burt did not inform the current chief buyer of Hydrosub Kathleen Johnson about the renegotiation of contact due to the change in design early enough. He delayed to convey such important information and thus, that led to more time being taken to talk to the management of Hydrosub. Burt also delayed giving vital information to the Bolger contract negotiators. Such information included periodic analysis, bimonthly reporting, and weekly time cards. Hence, funds were delayed and decisions could not be made on time. The former Chief buyer at Hydrosub is also responsible for the poor performance since he left without addressing the cost increase. Revision of the completion date had already been done four times.

Question 2

Production delays were caused by the project supervisor at Bolger Shipyards. He did not clarify everything early enough so that the Chief buyer at Hydrosub could inform the management of the necessary materials and costs to be availed on time. Burt was talking about the addition of costs due to the change in design when it was too late. Even Ms, Johnson was shocked but she had to adjust. What concerned her most is the fact that the project was to delay by four weeks. Such issues are better addressed at the beginning of awarding the contract so that the date of completion does not keep on changing. Cost miscalculations were done by the project supervisor at Bolger Shipyards and the former chief buyer at Hydro sub. However, it is Burt who misled Hydrosub’s chief buyer by not talking about the additional costs on time. He was speaking about the additional design costs when it is too late.

References

Back Bay University case study

Hydrosub’s unfloatable amphibious assault vehicle: Case study