The Professor's Notes

Well, McDonald’s has decided to divest Chipotle. I at one point had been quite critical of McD’s purchase of what has become one of my all-time favorite restaurants. That is, until the (then) Marketing Director for the McDonald’s New York Metro region told me that the only reason I had even been able to eat at one was because of the infusion of their capital and thus rapid expansion of the chain. This is echoed in the news story:

“Since we made our initial investment in 1998, Chipotle has grown from 16 restaurants in the Denver area to a strong and popular restaurant concept with more than 500 locations throughout the U.S.,” McDonald’s Chief Executive Jim Skinner said in a statement.

“However, attracting more customers to McDonald’s remains our greatest opportunity for long-term profitable growth,” he said.

I, for one, am pleased to see McDonald’s has come out of their slump, and that they are focusing on their core business. This does, of course, bring us back to a fairly common business theme, that we talk about often in class. Firms “diversify” and then they divest… diversify.. divest… Some even step outside the realm of what would seem to make sense. Some diversifications make sense. GMAC not only helped finance cars, but has become quite a strong entity in financing in general–and has helped float GM in these tough times.

Others make far less sense. For instance, remember Phillip Morris buying Nabisco, and Planters Peanuts? So a tobacco company sells food? That was a mistake that if I remember correctly was identified, and divested… *smile*

I look forward to hearing/reading your examples of firms that have gone through the diversify/divest cycle.

^{*cross posted from my posting at my home away from home: http://thelobbyists.blogspot.com/* may it rest in peace.}
In perusing many of the blogs on the left, I have detected a recurring, although not ubiquitous, theme. Specifically, a lack of faith in the system, and an overarching belief that elections have been stolen wholesale. In fact, they are arguing that, with the voting machines being electronic, and with various other things done, that people no longer have a voice, and that democracy is dead. They believe Corporate America has stolen the government.

Interestingly though, they must not really believe it, because the left is looking forward to the next elections. Apparently they don’t even believe their own rhetoric. For some reason, they hold two contradictory views. The first view is that elections are not fair, and the outcomes are “pre-determined.” The other view? That we can change things by getting out the vote, and voting for change.
Hmmm… are they simply stupid? While that would be a satisfying conclusion, I am not convinced of that. For a long time now I have held the view that accusations and charges are more reflective of the attitudes and behaviors of the people making them than the subject of the accusations. People see the world through their own lenses, and do not easily see alternative explanations. Or to put it another way “Bush must have lied–how else could you explain what is happening?!”

So here is MY theory (admittedly filtered through my lens–I understand I too am captive to my own paradigm). Keep the news story out there that Democracy is threatened. Let people know that our nation has been “stolen” as have elections. Convince people that they have to take action NOW to take back our government–and you can do that by getting out and voting for liberals. So, create fear, carefully drawing lines connecting unrelated information in a compelling story that implies connections, and get people to react to it.
Yup, that’s my theory, and I am sticking to it. Liberals are trying to “steal” elections the old fashioned way. Lying and scaring the electorate. Popularizing crazy conspiracy theories. Making people feel fear, rage, and hopelessness. And then, getting people to vote for them based on irrational fear.

I could be wrong. But it makes for a good story, and seems as plausible as any other.

Language Log: Who is the decider?

I must say, I find this “episode” of the Language Log uniquely satisfying. Partially because I too have fallen prey to the odd grammatical error, now and again. But mostly because it serves as a humbling reminder that we all fail, and thus, as we point out each other’s failings, we all contribute.

but perhaps I read too much into this.

The last sentence though, remains priceless. Sure, pick on the word “decider.” Anyone want to guess what the other “obvious” error is?

Confessions of a Community College Dean: Moral Dilemma: “No, brother bones, schools provide the opportunity to learn and experts to help students to do so. They are not businesses. ”

The above quote comes out of a very lengthy thread on the Community College Dean’s blog. There are many tangents that have come out of that thread, and this is the first one I have chosen to discuss.

This is not the first time I have heard the argument that “education is not a business.” I would have to agree. Educators have a responsibility to provide an education, to convey material to learners in an environment, and with pedagogical approaches, that enhance the opportunity for the learners to actually grasp and internalize the material. I would then also argue that McDonalds (or, Lone Star Steak House, or any other restaurant), Barnes and Noble (and other perveyors of books), Bloomingdales… none of these are businesses either. They exist to meet a requirement, or satisfy a want, for people that have a need or want. In tfact, they too actually want people to “grasp” and (in the case of restaurants literally, and bookstores not so… ) internalize the materials.

In all these cases the contact person–the educator, the bookstore clerk, the customer specialist, or the counter-kid at McDonalds, needs to focus not on the business aspect of the firm, but on the customer’s satisfaction. The “best” businesses do that–focus on the customer, understanding that the rest will follow.

Specifically, and this is the most critical point, if people see value in what they receive they will pay for it as they are able. If they don’t–they won’t!

Education, and other not-for-profit endeavours are a bit different, in that schools and public broadcasting, and often hospitals, are able to get people in general to see the benefit, and pay for services they themselves might not directly receive, but they do it because the see, and wish to encourage, the product to continue to be provided. (I wish it were possible to go to Barnes and Noble and have someone offer to subsidize my book purchases, but alas, that doesn’t happen.)

So what wordplay am I conducting here? Well, business is, according to lawyerintl.com is “A continuous and regular activity that has income or profit as its primary purpose.” Hmmm… so perhaps, either I am just creating a smoke-screen to obfuscate the point about education, or education has as its primary purpose making money. Or perhaps their is another option–the ‘legal’ definition of a business doesn’t actually fit what we in business actually do.

Businesses most often are in the business of generating revenue. Without revenue no operation can continue. Be it public radio and televion, or the local university, or the local McDonalds, all need revenue to survive. But by the same token all businesses understand that they exist to satisfy some perceived want or need, and that they can only survive through providing that.

Here’s the bottom line: yes, educators, you are not “business people.” Your charter is to serve your institution by delivering the best educational experience possible to the students in your care, and doing all you can to ensure they grasp the material and are hopefully changed by it. That is just like a counter-kid at McDonalds has as their mission to keep the customer “lovin’ it.” It’s the role of the administration, and the management, to ensure the revenue keeps coming in, and that the books either remain “balanced” (not for profits) or stay positive to satisfy the stakeholders.

So if it appears that a conflict exists, then I suggest you ask these simple questions:

1. Does the actions of the administration take the school/college/university away from it’s mission of education?

(critical point here: do not ask yourself if it takes away specific areas of education, such as medieval studies, but rather if it has changed the mission–say to providing conferences and hotel space, without an educational element.)

2. Does the administration make clear the long-term strategic direction for this change?
(perhaps outlining either a) the fiscal need that perhaps ensures survival, such as at Tulane, or b) reaches an as yet untapped clientele with the educational mission, as the discussion at the Dean’s blog has as its base.)

These are only two questions. Perhaps you have more.

I welcome a lengthy discussion here, as well.

The Professor

» Can you hear me now? Big Brother is listening | Threat Chaos | ZDNet.com

Okay, so now we are told that virtually everything that travels over the US communication network gets shunted to the NSA. Now, I am a bit concerned about this, as I am sure most Americans are, and I want to get your opinions about this. How do you feel about the NSA sorting through billions and billions of emails and texts a day? Do you feel it is a blatant violation of your rights, or do you believe that they can’t be doing too much with the data, or they would have to hire every person in the nation to evaluate it?

I can hear now the cries that this is another example of the Bush Administration’s blatant disregard for personal freedoms. Hey, it *might* be true, but there have been concerns about the NSA’s listening techniques long before this Bush Administration. Does no one remember the book “Puzzle Palace?”

Anyway–let me (and the other readers) know what you think about this topic!

Language Log: Heated words about “sauna”

Wow… Frazz, one of my all-time favorite comicstrips (I am not such as avid junky as my brother and father) makes the big-time in the Language Log! Okay, so I enjoy the language log for their defense of freedom of speech AND their defense of speech…

But this one, well, it “da bomb.”

So, how do YOU pronounce Sauna?

A Liberal Dose:

“Among the troops, a flood of desertions (thanks in no small part to the efforts of GI Rights Online) is indicative of the growing unpopularity of the occupation — fully 72% of American troops in Iraq support ending it this year.”

Here we go. “flood of desertions” this blogger claims. This particular blog reminds me of some of the worst writings I have seen in class. Students will do anything to get a point across in their papers, and will cite things that don’t actually argue what the student portrays it to be arguing. Unfortunately, I have actually seen articles submitted by academics for peer reviewed journals, where the authors misrepresent the argument put forward in a cited work.

This is a classic point in case. According to this blog, one would think that we are losing soldiers, sailors, airman and marines at a phenomenal rate–perhaps even greater than ever before. Wow! I was surprised enough to go check his source. Much to my surprise I saw in the graphic the heading “Desertions drop.” Hhmmmmm flood? The article goes on to point out that desertions have continued to drop since 9/11/01, and in fact “Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.”

Two points strike me here. First, the numbers are not only lower than they were in 2001, but they are also lower than they were in 2000–while that “other guy” was still in the White House! Second, most desertions happen stateside, are early in an enlistment, and more often than not are based on personal issues (failure to adapt to the military lifestyle, personal issues back home) than they are a protesting of a war the nation was engaged in at the time of the enlistment!

In the same blog entry, further down, the blogger makes the rather simple mistake of referring to election fraud in the 2004 election, when the article again and again states it was the 2002 election. Why is this a big deal, and not just a simple error? Because we are all told by the left how corrupt the ’04 election was, but not the ’02 one.

So here we are. This blogger has become so blinded by his political ideology that either he can no longer read things carefully, or he chooses to distort the sources.

I had actually commented on his blog, providing a correction, but it seems that, while he shows that comments are allowed, but moderated, he actually doesn’t put comments up for view. Hmmmm… I must admit, because of the errors on this one page, and how easy it is for someone to quickly check the facts by actually reading the sources cited, I found myself wondering if this blogger is actually a conservative make a veiled attempt at making liberals look stupid. Hey, it’s either that, or…

So students, learn a valuable lesson. Before you cite something, read it. Make sure that the document you cite actually buttresses the argument you are using it to make, or at least that you represent their argument accurately.

The Prof

Taken on Friday when my son and I went on a photo excursion.

Taken in color. Desaturated, added real film grain.

made a tad smaller.

Amazon.com: Why ERP? A Primer on SAP Implementation: Books: F. Robert Jacobs,David Clay Whybark:
“Why ERP? Because I didn’t have a choice as to read it or not. I’d rather take a bath in gasoline and light myself on fire than read this thing again.” (Reviewer’s comment)

Last posting, I put a story up about SAP releasing V 5 of their SCM software. I commented there on the need for software to support supply chain collaboration, among other things. It was pointed out to me by a colleague that the book, “Why ERP” presents an implementation of an SAP ERP system that failed. I have yet to read the book, but it is now high on my reading list (and I encourage those of you interested in these things to do as well.)

Hey, I make it easy for you–I am linking this posting to the Amazon site for this book. But not to get you to buy it, because if that was my goal I would have figured out a way to get a kickback. I wanted to actually link to the comments reviewing the book, like the one quoted above. It appears that this book is fairly common required reading, and that students don’t like it. Don’t believe me? Go read the comments!

This was doubly interesting to me, since it combined the ERP discussion with a discussion on evaluations by students. Over at the blog “Confessions of a Community College Dean” the Dean is trying to figure out ways to evaluate his faculty. This is often stymied by the fact that students’ evaluations are, well, sometimes less than constructive. Note, I say sometimes.

In these reviews of the book you will find there to be constructive critiques. These critiques say things like:

“Do not read this book if you are an expert on SAP or very familiar with ERP systems. This is little more than a text book put in the form of one large example.” (Hmmm one CASE example can be quite rich in individual exmplars used for discussion and study. But still, good critique.)

CAUTION: This book (actually a novel) is good only for those who do not know anything about ERP. Finish this quickly and move on to more detailed stuff like MISSION CRITICAL by Thomas Davenport. (again, the usefulness is challenged, but at least the commentator provides an alternative.)

and, Perhaps the best review:

This actually is a good read. It kept my interest for a full 2 hours, which is what is took to read it. The case study is real and on the mark. It illustrates that even if SAP is being widely adopted in your industry (in this case furniture), it may not be the right solution for you. In this instance, SAP (or the SAP implementation approach) was wrong because the company, whose business model was “make to order”, tried to cut time and costs by directly implementing a configuration which worked well for a company that has a very limited (few part numbers with minimal change) product line.

The author also did a realistic job in presenting the politics of the situation. The company president wanted an easy integration under a tight deadline. The IT geek wasn’t interested in the business model and wanted a showcase quick installation. The marketing guy wasn’t interested in the details and wanted to showcase the installation. The book’s hero is a healthy skeptic, who is trying to understand ERP, its benefits, and how it fit his company’s business.

Based the book’s title, I thought I was picking up another SAP marketing book. But it is not that at all. It’s objective and deals with business issues. No ABAP, idocs, and organization elements here.

My recommendations for anyone writing a review or a critique, including critiquing a course or an instructor? They are quite simple really:

1. Provide positive feedback if at all possible. What did you like, and why? The why is important because it helps to know how to develop future information in a way that worked well previously. Criticism need not be negative, or even pointing out weaknesses. Sometimes people need to be told the good things.

2. Be critical, with a positive attitude. Say things like “While I appreciate XXX, it didn’t work well, because…” Again, the because, or the why, is critical to helping the professor or author provide a fix for things later.

3. Understand the purpose of what you are critiquing. If you are critiquing a course, and the course is on advanced astrophysics, don’t criticize the lack of creative writing assignments. Alternatively, if you are in an MBA program, regardless of the quantitative rigour of the individual course, you should have an expectation that students will be expected to communicate clearly–after all, you are there to be better managers.

So, remember: criticism should be given with the intent of improvement, and while it may have been cathartic for the reviewer to write: “I wouldn’t even make paper airplanes with this book – because they would suck too. When millions of books were burned in WWII, why did they miss this one?” they certainly provided nothing to the discussion.

The Prof

Postscript: (In fact, the paper airplane comment was followed by a recommendation to read “The Goal” by Goldratt. An excellent book, but with a completely different message/intent. This reviewer apparently missed point number three.)

SAP spruces up its supply chain software | CNET News.com:

“With the package’s new tools, the company said, retailers can strike a better balance between increased customer service levels and lowered merchandise inventory, SAP said. They can replenish products with long lead times and at the same time handle seasonal products and introduce new products with short product-lifecycles using historical information on similar products to forecast demand.”

This is, perhaps, the state of the art in true Supply Chain Management software. I would recommend anyone interested in SCM that they start looking at this sort of software for managing their chain. I find perhaps the most interesting line in here is the one about managing long lead times, and seasonal products.

I am curious myself to get my hands on this. I fervently believe that for a software package to truly support SCM, they need to incorporate not only a good information system for the sharing of information, but it also needs to in some way provide a way to encourage shared decision making.

The infusion of collaboration in the supply chain will of course be THE way firms are able to be fully empowered and can reach nirvana, satisfying customers and have very low inventories.

Perhaps SAP is willing to let this professor of SCM play with the software a bit…