ETHICS 501 Trident The Face of an Organization The Face of an Organization An organization may be linked to a CEO, public figure, or celebrity brand endor

ETHICS 501 Trident The Face of an Organization The Face of an Organization

An organization may be linked to a CEO, public figure, or celebrity brand endorser. When consumers hear about the individual, they automatically make a connection with the brand or organization and vice versa.

This is advantageous when the “face of the company” is viewed positively. But when controversy strikes, that association can have a detrimental effect on the company and send it into crisis management.

Select a spokesperson or leader of an organization that did or said something which reflected poorly on the entity. It may be a news story that you recall, or you may conduct internet searches for an incident.

The paper will begin with a 2- to 3-sentence introduction and end with a 2- to 3-sentence conclusion. The body of the submission will be 2 pages in length and cover:

Incident background
Implication for the controversial figure
How the company reacted

After an initial internet search for a scenario, use articles primarily from the Trident Online Library’s full-text databases (such as Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, and/or ProQuest Central) to research the situation and write a 2½-page submission.

In academic writing it is necessary to use the third person vs. the first person. For more information, see Differences Between First and Third Person. This SLP will be written in the third person. Do not use any quotations. Since you are engaging in research, be sure to cite and reference the sources in APA format.

Use the attached APA-formatted template (ETH501 SLP3) to create your submission.

Your submission will include:

Trident University International’s cover page
A 2½-page paper with APA citations (2- to 3-sentence introduction, body, 2- to 3-sentence conclusion)
The reference list in APA format

Readings

Brusseau, J. (2012). Chapter 3: Theories of consequence ethics: Traditional tools for making decisions in business when the ends justify the means. Business Ethics. Lardbucket Books. Retrieved from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s07-theories-of-consequence-ethics.html

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2008). Calculating consequences: The utilitarian approach to ethics. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Consequentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ University of Bedfordshire Business School
SHR039-6
Operations and Project Management
Assignment 1 Briefing
You will be required to undertake a case study and complete a case analysis report. This can
be based on operations of your current workplace or any other organisation known to you.
Assessment -1: Operations Management (40%)
Individual Report Submission
Assessment Title
Operations Management Report
Unit Title
Operations and Project Management
Unit Code
SHR039-6
Assessment Weighting (%)
40%
Number of Credits
15
Issue Date
Submission Deadline
Procedure for/where to submit
work (including file name
format for TurnItIn where
applicable)
Expected Return Date
Description of
Assessment Task
You MUST submit digital copy electronically on BREO Turn-it-in.
The following file naming format should be used for submission:
Assignment 1_Operations Strategy_ Student Name _Student ID
Number
Two weeks after submission
You need to choose one global operations management case for your
individual report from companies such as Apple, Oman Air,
Samsung, Google or any company of your choice. You will discuss
this further with your tutor before finalising the topic. Critical
analysis of the case will help you to answer the following operations
management questions:
Q1) Critically examine three relevant Operation Management
(OM) decision areas (e.g. quality, inventory management, layout
or process design etc.) in your chosen company (or workplace, as
long as evidences can be validated with credible resources within
your workplace) (suggested 750 words)
Q2a) Compare and contrast your chosen organisation with
another contemporary one using the 4 Vs (Volume, Variety,
Variation and Visibility) (suggested 150 words – please see Note
2)
Q2b) Examine the ways to improve operational performance
within your chosen company (suggested 350 words).
Note 1: Introduction and conclusion is suggested to be 250 words.
Note B: Please include a table with the comparison of your
companies 4 V’s in Appendix A and include a short discussion
referring to this in the main body of the Report.
You will be required to undertake a case study and complete a case
analysis report. This can be based on operations of your current or
previous workplace or any other organisation known to you. You
need to discuss and confirm with your tutor to agree upon a suitable
case. The report will be 1,500 words in length (not including
references and appendices). It should include answers to all the case
questions (given above) and must make use of relevant unit concepts
on the aspect covered. Your first submission is the final.
Format
MS Word
Resources/Support Available
Class discussion to clarify Assignment;
In-class review
Unit resources on BREO;
Assessment Criteria
See composition of marks for Assignment-1, overleaf.
Details of how feedback will
be provided
2Q and feedback given on-line through Turn-It-In and marked
assessment criteria marking grid.
Referral Assignment
Your referral assignment will require you to discuss and critically
analyse operations management issues and operations strategy based
on another organisation (discussed and confirmed by your tutor).
Composition of Marks for Assignment-1:
Assessment Criteria
Critically examine3
OM decisions (e.g.
quality, inventory
management, layout
or process design
etc.) in your chosen
company (or
workplace)
Compare and
contrast your chosen
organisation with
another
contemporary one
using the 4 Vs
(Volume, Variety,
Variation and
Visibility}
Examine the ways to
improve operational
performance within
this company
Structure,
presentation &
Referencing
40%
25%
25%
10%
F (=70%)
Very little or no
evidence of the ability
to appreciate the OM
decision areas in the
case. Alternatively,
heavy reliance on large
chunks of the case.
No/very limited attempt
to use evidence to
support the arguments.
Unfounded ways to
improve performance.
The 4 Vs (Volume,
Variety, Variation and
Visibility} are
described, with no
evaluation.
Some attempt is made to
appreciate OM decision
areas in the case.
Arguments are baseless
and weak.
Dubious logic used to
suggest ways to improve
performance.
Attempted to critically
analyse 3 OM decision
areas but lacks supporting
evidence from the
literature and practices of
the case company.
The logical link between
OM areas and improved
performance is
satisfactory
Some evidence of critical
analysis of 3 OM decision
areas, supported by the
literature and /or OM
theory.
Some logical
recommendations to
improve performance.
A good critical analysis of 3
OM decision areas in the
case, supported by some
evidence from the literature
to support the discussion.
Some sound
recommendations to
improve performance.
Comprehensive critical
analysis of 3 OM decision
areas in the case, supported
by strong evidence from the
literature, to support the
discussion.
Sensible and logical,
substantiated
recommendations to improve
performance.
4 Vs (Volume, Variety,
Variation and Visibility}
are described but
discussion lacks breadth.
The student fails to
demonstrate a real
understanding of all the
issues involved in each of
the Vs.
4 Vs (Volume, Variety,
Variation and Visibility}
are described but
discussion lacks
evidence. Discussion
narrow and possibly not
well argued or supported.
A good understanding of
the 4 Vs (Volume, Variety,
Variation and Visibility} of
the case considered,
supported by evidences.
A comprehensive answer that
shows a sound evaluation of
the 4 Vs (Volume, Variety,
Variation and Visibility},
supported by evidences and
appropriate examples.
Limited improvements
for the company’s
operational performance
are described, with no
evaluation of two
relevant improvements
Some improvements for
the company’s
operational performance
are described but
discussion lacks breadth.
Student fails to
demonstrate a real
understanding of at least
three improvements.
Some structure is evident
but not effective.
Presentation
unsatisfactory or grammar
issues affecting
readability.
Significant errors in
Harvard References
Four improvements for
the company’s
operational performance
are described but
discussion lacks
evidence. Discussion
narrow and possibly not
well argued or supported
4 Vs (Volume, Variety,
Variation and Visibility}
are described An ability to
use ideas which are easily
accessible. No evidence of
a student’s attempt to go
beyond the obvious.
Discussion accurate but
shallow indicating some
issues with the 4 Vs.
Five improvements for the
company’s operational
performance are described
An ability to use ideas
which are easily
accessible. No evidence of
attempt to go beyond the
obvious. Discussion
accurate but shallow.
Good report structure and
presentation.
Some referencing is used
to support discussion.
A good understanding of
atleast five improvements
for the company’s
operational performance of
the case considered,
supported by evidences.
A comprehensive answer that
shows a sound evaluation of
atleast five improvements for
the company’s operational
performance, supported by
evidences and appropriate
examples.
A good logical structure is
evident
Presentation of the report
and readability are very
good.
Good references are used to
support the discussion.
A well-structured report,
where the arguments are
presented in a logical order.
Professional presentation with
excellent readability.
Wide range of high quality
references to support the
discussion.
Poor/illogical structure.
Poor report
presentation, with poor
grammar and
readability.
Referencing limited and
not in Harvard format.
Structure and
presentation of the report
is satisfactory.
Readability is acceptable,
though some grammar.
Harvard reference format
used correctly,
referencing is limited.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment