LABRST 2M03 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Scuba Diving, Overconsumption

29 views4 pages

sarm11

28 Apr 2019

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

No other company is going to match google because of the number of searches it has. Google has an immense amount of data that is sold for a lot of money. Social media - you can tailor the advertising to what people are searching. Prosumption-stuff that is user created - you are creating value for companies by producing amounts of data- especially facebook and insta. Prosumption takes it further- customers participate in the creation of products in an active and ongoing way. If you are into the game- you are making the game better - blurs the line between play and work. Legal regime - monopolization-idea that monopoly was bad, thought u needed a competitive market. In this kind of market today they are not experiencing this. Or some say in how its used - ex. Newspapers vs. social media- newspapers held responsible but social media. Not because if you are it"s an entire different world.

Related Questions

CASE STUDY

It used to be that epidemiologists at the CDC only knew that you had the flu when you visited your doctor and the doc- tor then reported that information to other agencies. By the time this information made its way to the CDC or state health departments, it was often several days old, which meant that the medical community was always playing catch-up. And of course, your doctor was only aware of your illness if you showed up at his office, not when you decided to tough it out at home. Nowadays, however, before you ever go to the doc- tor, you are likely to search the Internet for âflu symptoms,â tweet your suddenly declining health status, or Instagram yourself lying in bed. Study the case below, which shows how the Internet and social media have impacted the field of epi- demiology, and then answer the questions that follow.

Google Used to Predict Influenza Outbreaksâ2008

In 2008, Google launched Google Flu Trends, an applica- tion that compiles aggregated data from key word searches

for clinical terms, such as thermometer, chest congestion, muscle aches, or flu symptoms. Google reports the data on a website, which then provides an early-warning system for the locations of new flu outbreaks. Because the data are collected from searches performed each day, trends in flu symptoms become apparent much more quickly than when they are based on data reported during office vis- its or in lab reports from physicians around the country. When the CDC compared actual cases over the course of a year with Googleâs findings, the data from the two sources matched.

Initially, Google was only compiling information about flu trends in the United States and Canada. But after the H1N1 virus appeared in Mexico in 2009, the CDC asked Google to go back and look at Internet searches conducted by people in Mexico during that time. Evaluation of the data indicated that Google detected an uptick several days before the CDC did (Figure 23.1).

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

Influenza activity

1113151719212325272931 2 4 6 8 1012141618202224262830 2

Suspected Confirmed

Mar

Apr

May

Date of illness onset

Intense

High Moderate

Low Minimal

Jul Aug Sep

Oct Nov

Dec Jan

Feb Mar

Apr May Jun

Figure 23.1 2009 Inflenza activity (a) Data from the Centers for Disease Control, based on physical examination by health care providers, shows a peak in influenza cases in late April. (b) Google âFlu Trendsâ shows an influenza peak in February.

No. of cases

Case Study Exercise 23 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 199

Epidemic tracking based on Internet searches reflects what is called collective intelligence. It works because indi- viduals using their personal computers tend to search for terms related to their immediate needs and intentions, and they generally do this before presenting in a doctorâs office or emergency room. The methodology used in the Google search was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, and another independent study has been published about a similar search analysis conducted by Yahoo, showing that it was effective in predicting flu trends.

Some people worry that data collected from Internet searches may compromise individualsâ privacy. However,

Google maintains that Flu Trends cannot be used to iden- tify individual users because the data are anonymous and are aggregated before being presented. Another potential drawback is that this data collection method is less likely to be useful for tracking epidemics in societies having a low percentage of computer ownership, namely, developing countries. However, considering the high stakes involved in identifying an epidemic quickly, Internet search term analy- sis holds great promise for public health. And, unlike most health innovations, itâs free!

3. How might data collected in this way not be representative of a particular population?

4. Explain why the two graphs in Figure 23.1 do not show influenza activity peaking at the same time.

6. In 2013, Google Flu Trends vastly overestimated the number of cases of the flu in the United States. One explanation for this was that there was a greater than usual number of media reports about influenza early in the flu season. Based on your knowledge of how Flu Trends works, explain why Google missed the mark in 2013

cyanyellowjacket531

Read the article below and write a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary. This assignment should be approximately 250 words . Complete this assignment as a Word document.

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals

Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read âscrapâ or âre-engineerâ) their performance appraisal process.

Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.

Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.

Why the process must change.

Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to âweed outâ the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.

Coupled with the performance rating is the âpotentialâ rating, which tries to capture an individualâs potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).

This approach is based on a philosophy that â we cant totally trust managersâ so weâre going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.

The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:

Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but itâs often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.

Managers cannot typically âjudgeâ an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.

Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.

While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.

Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.

People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback â and the âappraisalâ process almost always works against this.

The most valuable part of an appraisal is the âdevelopment planningâ conversation â what can one do to improve performance and engagement â and this is often left to a small box on the review form.

Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:

We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (donât we?)

We need a record of low performance when we let someone go

We need to capture performance data in an employeeâs profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration

We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.

Well, Iâve probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.

Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.

The new keys to success:

Develop a âfeedback-richâ culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.

Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.

Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.

Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses â give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.

Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.

Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.

Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they arenât performing well itâs not necessarily their fault â the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.

Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.

Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research showsthat these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well â when you move to customer service, engineering, and other âbuilderâ roles they can create problems.

Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.

Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.

Reward talent âproductionâ not talent âhoarding.â If you pay your managers to âproduce output,â they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills â so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.

Iâve had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In todayâs globalized,talent constrained workplace itâs clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.

Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.

Read the following case study and then answer the question which follows: CUTCO Corporation, the largest manufacturer and marketer of high-quality kitchen cutlery and accessories in the United States and Canada, celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2009. Over 100 kitchen cutlery products are sold under the CUTCO name as well as a variety of kitchen gadgets, utensils, and flatware. The company also carries a line of cookware, sporting/pocket knives, and garden tools. Boasting over 15 million satisfied customers and annual sales of over $200 million, CUTCO's commitment to quality and innovation is evident throughout the manufacture and marketing of company products. CUTCO stands behind each and every product with a FOREVER satisfaction guarantee. The guarantee has four components: 1. FOREVER Performance Guarantee 2. FOREVER Sharpness Guarantee 3. FOREVER Replace Service Agreement for Misuse or Abuse 4. 15-Day Unconditional Money Back Guarantee The company's FOREVER guarantee ensures that CUTCO cutlery stays in the family for generations to come. Given this backdrop of the company's high-quality product offering in difficult economic times, the company initiated a "going green" effort in 2008. Everyone, from individual consumers to corporate decision makers, is talking about sustainability, going green, and reducing the carbon footprint. However, some companies' efforts are more "greenwashing" than truly intended for the well-being of the environment. Greenwashing is what companies do (e.g., promotional efforts) to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are. For the CUTCO Corporation, however, the plan is not for a "go-green project" or to engage in "greenwashing." Rather, the company is instilling "going green" initiatives that, like the product's FOREVER guarantee, stay with the company forever. In 2008, CUTCO Corporation's marketing coordinator, Pam Bailey, was given the opportunity to create and coordinate a companywide "Going Green" effort. The focus initially was the "low hanging fruit" (things that were easy to do). One year later, Bailey, the Green Team, and CUTCO Corporation had accomplished the following: 1. Implemented computer power management--estimated savings of $41,000 annually. 2. Turned off center row lighting on one floor of administration building--estimated savings of $7,500 annually. 3. Created a recycling program to collect plastic, glass, aluminum, and tin cans as well as reuse or recycling of Cutco product components--all resulting in a 26 percent decrease in trash from all CUTCO facilities. 4. Set company printers to automatically duplex; departments switched to two-sided reports--paper use decreased by 27 percent. 5. Printed company newsletter on 50-percent recycled paper 6. Encouraged its 75 employees to bring their own reusable plates, cups, and utensils to the Christmas lunch--resulting in only two bags of garbage from the party. CUTCO Corporation's "Going Green. Going Forward" effort is part and parcel of the company's internal processes, and the company plans to continually work toward going green. It is not holding itself up as a company that has "gone green," nor is it touting its initiatives externally. Rather, like the CUTCO product, the results will speak for themselves. QUESTION The Cutco case deals with the marketing environment surrounding green initiatives and the skills marketers need in today's changing workplace. You will assume the role of a new marketing manager at a local light bulb manufacturing company. Your boss has read a story about the green initiatives at Cutco and wants you to prepare an executive memo on some initiatives that could be considered for your company. Your memo should address the following questions: 1. What are true green initiatives versus "greenwashing" ideas? 2. What are the ethical and societal issues involved in green initiatives? 3. How have other organizations approached the issue of green initiatives? Develop a response that includes examples and evidence to support your ideas, and which clearly communicates the required message to your audience. Organize your response in a clear and logical manner as appropriate for the genre of writing. Use well-structured sentences, audience-appropriate language, and correct conventions of standard American English.

LABRST 2M03 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Scuba Diving, Overconsumption

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

CCT322H5 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Search Engine Optimization, Voice Search, Amazon Echo

CMNS 453 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Paying For It, Infomercial, Prosumer

COMM 1101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Initial Public Offering, Slacker, Gmail

Related Questions