Problem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsEssay Preview: Problem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsReport this essayRunning head: PROBLEM SOLUTION: INTERSECT INVESTMENTSProblem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsF. Bruce Creech, BSBM, MBA CandidateMBA 520Warren Rosendahl, BSME, MBADecember 16, 2007University of PhoenixProblem Solution: Intersect InvestmentsIntersect Investment has experienced problems within their organization. The problems include loss of market share, inability to change, lack of organizational commitment and behavior, failure to develop a customer service program, and lack of communication. This paper will look at these problems, find alternative solutions, and develop an optimal solution. In addition, the paper will discuss the implementation, metrics, targets, and timelines. The optimal solution will explain what will happen to the culture of Global Communications when implemented.
[Front Page] —————— Global Communications Policy and the American Public’s Future The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is moving forward with plans to overhaul the FCC’s internet policy process to make it more efficient and responsive to the needs of Americans.
FCC officials have proposed changes to US federal broadband regulations. However, they do not mention that these proposed changes affect all internet carriers, cable operators, and internet service providers (ISPs). This is not the first time FCC officials, or politicians in the region, have been accused of attempting to regulate broadband traffic.
Several changes to the agency’s internet policy are considered in the current report, including:
–A change to the CCA to include new language about non-commercial enterprises and non-profit entities.
–A change to the CCA to allow private entities to charge more for spectrum.
–A change to CCA to allow business-to-business service contracts to be allowed between businesses and non-profits.
Conducting a review of this proposed change found no “need” for changes. The agency did note that the CCA was “designed to address the market, not just the competitive marketplace.”
–The agency clarified a new “special fee schedule,” which would limit “non-commercial entities” from having more than 80% of their annual broadband rate determined in one year from the current rates determined in an auction. That rate would then be $500 a month instead of $500 a month for ISPs. The change would cost 8 million fewer megabit Ethernet connections to download traffic in 2011, the agency added. An FCC spokesman said the change was the result of “an understanding of the policy issues associated with an auction and our review of the proposed change at the end of February.”
–The Commission updated the current CCA to allow companies which pay more to have a 50 percent share in a commercial Internet service as an alternative to the higher bid. That change was made on March 21, not March 18th, 2011 the same day an FCC Commissioner was introduced as an alternative to the higher bid.
–The CCA added new “Special Fee Schedule” to the CCA, which imposes a $500 monthly rate in a year. Under that schedule, commercial ISPs will have an additional monthly limit of $500; these rules were enacted on September 2, 2011 to combat traffic congestion and slow internet speeds.
–The CCA updated its guidelines to include broadband providers, allowing them to apply discounts to existing customers who would qualify for a slower rate.
–The CCA changed its “Internet Service Providers” and “Business Customers” sections. These are the names of Internet Service Providers and not businesses, but businesses are eligible if the business has “more than 7,600 customers” who qualify for a lower rates.
–The CCA changed its “Special Fee Schedule” to allow businesses who pay more to have a 50 percent share in a commercial Internet service as an alternative to the higher bid. That change was made on March 21, not March 18th, 2011 the same day an FCC Commissioner was introduced as an alternative to the higher bid. The change would cost 8 million fewer megabit Ethernet connections to download traffic in 2011, the agency added. An FCC spokesperson said the change was the result of “an understanding of the policy issues associated with an auction and our review of the proposed change at the end of February.”–The CCA updated its guidelines to include broadband providers, allowing them to apply discounts to existing customers who would qualify for a slower
[Front Page] —————— Global Communications Policy and the American Public’s Future The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is moving forward with plans to overhaul the FCC’s internet policy process to make it more efficient and responsive to the needs of Americans.
FCC officials have proposed changes to US federal broadband regulations. However, they do not mention that these proposed changes affect all internet carriers, cable operators, and internet service providers (ISPs). This is not the first time FCC officials, or politicians in the region, have been accused of attempting to regulate broadband traffic.
Several changes to the agency’s internet policy are considered in the current report, including:
–A change to the CCA to include new language about non-commercial enterprises and non-profit entities.
–A change to the CCA to allow private entities to charge more for spectrum.
–A change to CCA to allow business-to-business service contracts to be allowed between businesses and non-profits.
Conducting a review of this proposed change found no “need” for changes. The agency did note that the CCA was “designed to address the market, not just the competitive marketplace.”
–The agency clarified a new “special fee schedule,” which would limit “non-commercial entities” from having more than 80% of their annual broadband rate determined in one year from the current rates determined in an auction. That rate would then be $500 a month instead of $500 a month for ISPs. The change would cost 8 million fewer megabit Ethernet connections to download traffic in 2011, the agency added. An FCC spokesman said the change was the result of “an understanding of the policy issues associated with an auction and our review of the proposed change at the end of February.”
–The Commission updated the current CCA to allow companies which pay more to have a 50 percent share in a commercial Internet service as an alternative to the higher bid. That change was made on March 21, not March 18th, 2011 the same day an FCC Commissioner was introduced as an alternative to the higher bid.
–The CCA added new “Special Fee Schedule” to the CCA, which imposes a $500 monthly rate in a year. Under that schedule, commercial ISPs will have an additional monthly limit of $500; these rules were enacted on September 2, 2011 to combat traffic congestion and slow internet speeds.
–The CCA updated its guidelines to include broadband providers, allowing them to apply discounts to existing customers who would qualify for a slower rate.
–The CCA changed its “Internet Service Providers” and “Business Customers” sections. These are the names of Internet Service Providers and not businesses, but businesses are eligible if the business has “more than 7,600 customers” who qualify for a lower rates.
–The CCA changed its “Special Fee Schedule” to allow businesses who pay more to have a 50 percent share in a commercial Internet service as an alternative to the higher bid. That change was made on March 21, not March 18th, 2011 the same day an FCC Commissioner was introduced as an alternative to the higher bid. The change would cost 8 million fewer megabit Ethernet connections to download traffic in 2011, the agency added. An FCC spokesperson said the change was the result of “an understanding of the policy issues associated with an auction and our review of the proposed change at the end of February.”–The CCA updated its guidelines to include broadband providers, allowing them to apply discounts to existing customers who would qualify for a slower
Situation AnalysisIssue and Opportunity IdentificationSeveral issues are affecting Intersect Investment. First, the lack of communication is evident. The text defines, “Communication refers to the process by which information is transferred and understood between two or more people”. Communication also, “Brings knowledge into the organization and distributes it to employees who require that information,” (McShane — Von Gilinow, 2004, p.324). With some members of senior management failing to make the changes necessary to implement the customer intimacy plan, communication is a problem.
The second problem also deals with loss of market share which results from improper communication. “One report estimated that a company’s market value increased by over 7 percent when it improves its вЂ?communication integrity’. Another analysis identifies the leader’s communication skills as an important influence on company performance” (McShane — Von Gilinow, 2004, p.324). Based on the authors, communication can be a determining factor in regaining market share.
Thirdly, Intersect Investment is dealing with the issue of employees not want to change. The text identifies three types of change. Adaptive Change is the, “lowest in complexity, cost, and uncertainty” (Kreitner-Kinicki, 2003, p. 677). This type of change might require implementation at a later time such as employees working over during inventory or special promotion. These are not threatening to the employee. Innovative changes fall midway between complexity, cost, and uncertainty. A change in a work schedule would be an example (Kreitner-Kinicki, 2003). The third change is seen as the most complex, costly, and uncertain. Radical Innovative Change is the most difficult. “Changes of this sort are the most difficult to implement and tend to be the most threatening to managerial confidence and employee job performance” (Kreitner-Kinicki, 2003, p. 677). I have identified the customer intimacy model as a Radical Innovative Goal. This will have to change for the goal to be implemented.
Fourthly, the lack of necessary interest in the plan is evident. The opportunity here is for the organization to develop an organization plan. The following Eight Steps can help Intersect Investors to change their organization. The steps to organizational change are by James Kotter and he believes, “management fails because they commit one or more of the following:
1. Failure to establish a sense of urgency about the need for change.2. Failure to create a powerful-enough guiding coalition that is responsible for leadingand managing the change process.3. Failure to establish a vision that guides the change process.4. Failure to effectively communicate the new vision.5. Failure to remove obstacles that impede the accomplishment of the new vision.6. Failure to systematically plan for and create short-term wins. Short-term winsrepresent the achievement of important results or goals.7. Declaration of victory too soon. This derails the long-term changes in infrastructurethat is frequently needed to achieve a vision.8. Failure to anchor the changes into the organization’s culture. It takes years for long term changes to be embedded within an organization’s culture” (Kreitner-Kinicki, 2003, p. 682).
The organization is suffering because the have violated numbers two, three, four, five, and six. The problems can be corrected by change and implementation of the plan.
Finally some members of Senior Management have failed to initiate the plan. The opportunity is for those members who will not eagerly participate to be removed. The evidence is supported that management can play a big role in how the change occurs. The authors indicate, “Radical innovative change is more likely to succeed when middle-level managers are highly involved in the change process. Hewlett-Packard successfully implemented changes by following this recommendation” (Kreitner-Kinicki, 2003, p. 682). Lyn Chen is Vice-President of Sales and has failed to get her team to change. She has fallen short of targets and turnover is up. In order for the Sales Department to get on track, there must be a new leader.
Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical DilemmasIn the scenario, four stakeholders can be identified. The stakeholders are the consumers or customers of Intersect Investment, the employees, the stockholders, and the management team. The consumer has a right to make sure they get the best products at the best possible price. Their interests include quality customer service and commitment. Their values include honesty, fairness, and commitment. When the values or the rights of the consumer are unmet, an ethical dilemma can occur.
The employees of Intersect Investment are also affected. The employee’s have an interest in the organization to make sure their needs are being met. They also have a right to make sure they are receiving adequate compensation and benefits for their performance. Their values include honesty,