Otis Case Study Essay Example

Otis Case Study Paper Otis would have gone through a major restructure of several of Its service offices, because an IS was being built from the ground up. Information was now going to be traversing through a streamlined information channel, rather than layers of hierarchical structure. A lot of resources would have been invested in training employees about the new processes, and training managers about the added responsibilities and new information that was going to be available as a result of OUTSHINE. Any sort of organizational change experiences resistance from stakeholders in one form or the other. Toots employees might have resisted the change for a number of reasons. Fear of redundancy, added responsibility without any change in remuneration, lack of self-confidence in acquiring new skills required for the Job, lack of perspective as to why the change was being implemented, or imply too comfortable with the status quo, are some examples of the form of resistance that Otis might have had to overcome (Melcher, Rata, Bray Vane, 2012). Information Transformation Obvious noticed the change in the industry, and the way business was being done, Ana presented a violin Tort Otis: 10 Decode ten recognizes leader In service excellence among all companies-not Just elevator companies-worldwide. (McFarland Delayed, 2005). His aim was to create a paradigm shift within the organization from being a product manufacturing company to an excellent customer focused service provider. Due to regional and cultural variations within manufacturing, sales and supply-chain departments, he decided to streamline the department processes globally by using technology as an enabler. The organization went through a third- order change of transformation, whereby the existing IS was changed drastically. Its focus was shifted from managing production and physical assets to managing logistics and information, and this caused a systemic effect on all the other departments (McFarland Delayed, 2005; Piccolo, 2007). We will write a custom essay sample on Otis Case Study specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Otis Case Study specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Otis Case Study specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer As a part of this transformation, departments were restructured and new process improvement orgasm were implemented on a global basis. Programs such as Standard Interface and Modular Based Architecture (SAMBA), Achieving Competitive Excellence (ACE), and Sales and Installation Process (SIP), were introduced in engineering, supply chain, and sales and field operations departments, respectively (McFarland Delayed, 2005). E*Logistics Project The most significant aspect of this IS transformation was the e*Logistics information transformation project (McFarland Delayed, 2005). It provided the tools, in the form of IT systems, which were required to re-engineer business processes across the many. The project involved merging separate IT initiatives that were under development within Otis, with the basic idea of connecting different departments of the organization through the Web. Giuliani Did Francesco was appointed the Project Director of e*Logistics, perhaps due to his experience working in quite a few departments of the company, or because he might have had a vested interest in the transformation (McFarland Delayed, 2005). Under his supervision, e*Logistics automated manual processes involved in different stages of product installation and maintenance, while simultaneously integrating the dispersed data and information on a global scale. Back-end Technologies The technologies behind the development of e*Logistics were based on standardized data interfaces, and they were owned and built by Otis itself. This means that the software solutions were designed to incorporate and adapt to existing technologies, rather than designing solutions with fresh technologies from square one (McFarland Delayed, 2005). The new business model and companys vision were instilled into Otis on a global scale. Senior management ensured that every employee, from top to OTTOMH, was on-board the change Otis was about to embark upon, and that employees were willing to adapt to the technological and organizational restructuring (Messier, Rata, Bray Vane, 2012). The company valued the role of its employees in successfully implementing this change, and therefore invested resources in familiarizing them with technologies. It was this tactic that enabled them to reap extraordinary benefits by using simple IT tools. Institutionalizing Changes Since the launch of e*Logistics, changes to sale orders became transparent across different levels of the sales cycle. SIP program was based on the idea of identifying best practices across different units of Otis, globally. During the project proposal phase, SIP recognized that a pre-bid checklist was an appropriate way of managing new clients. Elogistics anomie tons Day Introducing a steward solution, Instead AT paper based forms, which enforced a sign-off from both sales and field-installation supervisors(McFarland Delayed, 2005). This eliminated information inconsistency between the two units, and also helped in other aspects of this phase by retaining consistent information about customers and proposals. Upon acceptance of a proposal, the order would enter the next phase of sales processing. E*Logistics automated and institutionalized the new processes of this phase by electronically dispersing important documents amongst the managerial staff for bookings, validations and scheduling. Data was uploaded to different financial systems of the company, and as a result of these automated processes and clear visibility of sales orders, field-installation supervisors were able to better assess the readiness of a site, thereby reducing costs and excess inventory, while improving delivery times McFarland Delayed, 2005). To improve processes in the order fulfillment phase, Contract logistics centers (CLC) and distribution centers (Docs) were established to manage customer requirements, product configurations and supply chain management. Instead of faxing or mailing sales orders, e*Logistics provided a central software solution which connected CLC on a global level. As a result, CLC were able to place orders from different suppliers in a cost-effective and timely manner (McFarland Delayed, 2005). E*Logistics embedded new processes in the field installation phase as well, by sending reminder e-mails to field-installation supervisors, and demanding an update of the field sites prior to shipping the products. Orders were now processed and shipped Just-in-time, as per remote requests from the field-installation supervisors. These processes gave the supervisors a better control on the fiscal accomplishment of each sale (McFarland Delayed, 2005). E*Logistics also automated the process of billing customers and transitioning sales into service contracts, by prompting service agents to contact customers upon Job completion. This resulted in precise billing, increased conversion of new-unit sales to service contracts, and faster collections in the closing activities phase (McFarland Delayed, 2005). The above five phases highlight how e*Logistics baked new best-practice processes into the organization. Implementation In 2001, Ron Beaver became the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at Otis with 450 IT employees and 250 contractors reporting to him on a dotted-line basis. He was the leader of global IT with seven regional IT leaders reporting to him directly, who were responsible for their local systems and processes. 0 of the aforementioned staff were dedicated towards design and implementation of e*Logistics, and it was not deemed as a separate investment to all the other programs that were introduced for process improvements (McFarland Delayed, 2005). Rather, it was considered as an enabler to implement those programs successfully. As with any IS transformation project, there were a number of technological challenges involved in ensuring successful implementation of e*Logistics. Delivering the software to over 20,000 desktops across the organization, and training over 3000 staff in sales and field- operations worldwide, were a couple of such challenges faced by Otis (McFarland Delayed, 2005). Therefore, to minimize the associated risks, the project was rolled out at pilot sites across Europe. Its successful implementation at pilot sites aided in planning implementation in other regions, which were priorities based upon need Ana return on Investment (McFarland Delayed, 2 I en projects success was measured based on a number of metrics, such as number of orders processed through e*Logistics by each sales representative (McFarland Delayed, 2005). Conclusion The organization invested a lot of resources into streamlining its processes globally and shifting its focus from product flow to information flow.

Supermajority Vote in US Congress

Supermajority Vote in US Congress A supermajority  vote is a vote that must exceed the number of votes comprising a simple majority. For example, a simple majority in the 100-member Senate is 51 votes; while a 2/3 supermajority vote  requires 67 votes. In the 435-member House of Representatives, a simple majority is 218 votes; while a 2/3 supermajority requires 290 votes. Key Takeaways: Supermajority Vote The term â€Å"supermajority vote† refers to any vote by a legislative body that must get more votes than a simple majority of votes in order to win approval.In the 100-member United States Senate, a supermajority vote requires a 2/3 majority or 67 of 100 votes.In the 435-member United States House of Representatives, a supermajority vote requires a 2/3 majority or 290 of 435 votes.In the US Congress, several major legislative actions require a supermajority vote, most notably impeaching the president, declaring a president incapable of serving under the 25th Amendment, and amending the Constitution. Supermajority votes in government are far from a new idea. The first recorded use of supermajority rule took place  in ancient Rome during the 100s BCE. In 1179, Pope Alexander III used a supermajority rule for papal elections at the Third Lateran Council.   While a supermajority vote can technically be specified as any fraction or percentage greater than one-half ( 50%), commonly used supermajorities include three-fifths (60%), two-thirds (67%), and three-quarters (75%) When is a Supermajority Vote Required? By far most measures considered by the U.S. Congress as part of the legislative process require only a simple majority vote for passage. However, some actions, like impeaching presidents or amending the Constitution, are considered so important that they require a supermajority vote. Measures or actions requiring a supermajority vote: Impeaching: In cases of impeachment of federal officials, the House of Representatives must pass articles of impeachment by a simple majority vote. The Senate then holds a trial to consider the articles of impeachment passed by the House. Actually convicting an individual requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the members present in the Senate. (Article 1, Section 3)Expelling a Member of Congress: Expelling a member of Congress requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in either the House or Senate. (Article 1, Section 5)Overriding a Veto: Overriding a presidential veto of a bill requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in both the House and Senate. (Article 1, Section 7)Suspending the Rules: Temporarily suspending the rules of debate and voting in the House and Senate requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the members present. (House and Senate rules)Ending a Filibuster: In the Senate only, passing a motion to invoke cloture, ending extended debate or a filibuster on a measure requires a 3/5 supermajo rity vote - 60 votes. (Rules of the Senate) Rules of debate in the House of Representatives preclude the possibility of a filibuster. Note: On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted to require a simple majority vote of 51 Senators to pass cloture motions ending filibusters on presidential nominations for Cabinet secretary posts and lower federal court judgeships only. Amending the Constitution: Congressional approval of a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of those members present and voting in both House and Senate. (Article 5)Calling a Constitutional Convention: As a second method of amending the Constitution, the legislatures of 2/3 of the states (33 states) can vote to request that the U.S. Congress convenes a constitutional convention. (Article 5)Ratifying an Amendment: Ratification of an amendment to the Constitution requires the approval of 3/4 (38) of the state legislatures. (Article 5)Ratifying a Treaty: Ratifying treaties requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the Senate. (Article 2, Section 2)Postponing a Treaty: The Senate may pass a motion to indefinitely postpone its consideration of a treaty by a 2/3 supermajority vote. (Senate rules)Repatriating Rebels: An outgrowth of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to allow former rebels to hold office in the U.S. gove rnment. Doing so requires a 2/3 supermajority of both the House and Senate. (14th Amendment, Section 3) Removing a President from Office: Under the 25th Amendment, Congress can vote to remove the President of the United States from office if the vice president and the Presidents Cabinet declare the president unable to serve and the president contests the removal. The removal of the president from office under the 25th Amendment requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of both the House and Senate. (25th Amendment, Section 4) Note: The 25th Amendment is an effort to clarify the process of presidential succession. On-the-Fly Supermajority Votes The parliamentary rules of both the Senate and House of Representatives provide means by which a supermajority vote can be required for the passage of certain measures. These special rules requiring supermajority votes are most often applied to legislation dealing with the federal budget or taxation. The House and Senate draw authority for requiring supermajority votes from Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states, Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings. Supermajority Votes and the Founding Fathers In general, the Founding Fathers favored requiring a simple majority vote in legislative decision-making. Most of them, for example, objected to the Articles of Confederations requirement for a supermajority vote in deciding such questions as coining money, appropriating funds, and determining the size of the army and navy. However, the framers of the Constitution also recognized the need for supermajority votes in some cases. In Federalist No. 58, James Madison noted that supermajority votes could serve as a shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. Hamilton, too, in Federalist No. 73 highlighted the benefits of requiring a supermajority of each chamber to override a presidential veto. It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, he wrote, calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body.