1) What is the issue?
a. The Issue in the case of the Director’s daughter is whether or not Zoe Apse, the purchasing Manager for Mesa Meals, Inc. (MMI) should recommend doing business with Tabitha Foster, owner of Tabitha’s Tablecloths (TT), a brand new company with an insufficient track record, or to recommend continuing business with Loretta’s Linens (LL), the current contract holder.
2) What are the reasons?
b. The main reason for this issue is that the contract with Loretta’s Linens for all the restaurants’’ linens is up for renewal. Loretta’s Linens is still a contender because they provide equal pricing, and renewing the contract would not promote nepotism, in fact ...view middle of the document...
The Value assumptions being made are associated with the Loyalty concept. We assume that the board member, Mr. Foster is introducing TT as a viable supplier just because the company is owned by his daughter. We also assume that the CEO, Mr. Manning is being asked to push Foster’s daughters business for a personal agenda. It is assumed that Zoe should pick TT for the contract renewal because the CEO broke protocol and personally delivered the supplier’s information-signifying his personal interest in the allocation of this contract. Lastly, it is assumed that Mr. Manning is indebted to Mr. Foster for getting him the position of CEO and is therefore personally pressuring Zoe into selecting TT for the linens contract. A descriptive assumption being made is that Zoe believes she must pick TT to keep her good standing with the company. She doesn’t want to vote against upper management because she wants to stay in their good graces, but by doing so she would be creating a moral dilemma in which she wouldn’t be fulfilling her job duties of guiding the company into prosperous relationships depending on facts. Another descriptive assumption is that TT cannot handle the demands of a large company, something that has yet to be proved.
4) What significant information has been omitted?
e. Significant information could assist Zoe in making this difficult decision. The track record for LL and relationship information such as the number of years they have been in business with MMI or the satisfaction level between the companies is important, relevant information that could assist in the decision making process. Also the reason Mr. Foster recommended TT has been omitted. We assume he has introduced TT because of his daughter, but he may (as a board member) genuinely see the value in backing an environmentally friendly, up and coming business because he has information we do not. Any financial or production information regarding TT has also been omitted, so we have no idea what that company is working with. The message has provided absolutely no information about the third firm that was analyzed for this contract, which could also sway this decision. And lastly, the nature of the contract and its details, have been omitted-can it have multiple suppliers, what is the bid process? These are all pieces of information that could help make an educated decision.
5) What conclusions are possible?
f. A few conclusions are possible in the scenario. If the contract is awarded to Loretta’s Linens, MMI will be sticking to the facts and what is known. This is the least risky of the options available. If TT is selected for the control, the environmental benefits could create positive publicity and a great public image for MMI, also MMI would be saving the environment while gaining popularity without spending any money; it would be free advertising. Another possible solution would be to give TT the contract for a trial basis so that the company could...