Personal Learning Cloud #2: Decision-Making Part 1

 o   Introduction & Problem Identification: 

     The case for I chose this assignment is Marketing Case #2 on Bid Process Irregularities. In this case, the character Tom Jones has recently joined Wood Truss, a manufacturer of wooden structural parts for commercial buildings. He is responsible for reviewing the bill of materials for commercial projects and developing his firm's bid. The day before a bid was due, Tom's boss, Mark Smith, handed him two brown envelopes containing the bids from Wood Truss's two main competitors. Mark instructed Tom to make sure Wood Truss's bid was just under the lowest bid from the competition.

    This situation presents a dilemma for Tom, as he is being asked to participate in an unethical and potentially illegal bid process. The use of insider information from a competitor is considered bid rigging and is a violation of anti-competition laws. Mark's assertion that this is how things are done in the construction industry is not a valid excuse for unethical behavior.

    The problem with this bid process is that it creates an unfair advantage for Wood Truss and undermines the integrity of the bidding process. By participating in this type of bidding, Wood Truss is putting its reputation and potentially its future at risk. The company may face legal consequences for bid rigging, and its reputation in the industry could be tarnished. This situation also highlights the need for companies to have ethical standards in place and to ensure that their employees are aware of and adhere to those standards.

Decision Criteria: 

    Criteria for evaluating bid irregularity processes;

        1. Legal compliance: The decision should not only comply with anti-competition laws and regulations, but also ensure that stakeholders' rights and interests are protected, such as the right of competitors to fair competition. This is most important aspect of the criterion. Weight: 10 out of 10. 

        2. Ethical considerations: The decision should take into account the ethical values and principles held by the company and its stakeholders, including the wider community. This can involve ensuring that the decision does not cause harm to any stakeholders or violate their rights. Weight: 7 out of 10.

        3. Reputation: The decision should protect the company's reputation and promote a positive image, while also taking into account the values and interests of other stakeholders, such as customers and the wider community. Weight: 8 out of 10

        4. Transparency: The decision should promote transparency for all stakeholders, including the company, competitors, customers, and the wider community. This can involve clear rules and procedures for all bidders and transparent communication with stakeholders about the bidding process. Weight: 5 out of 10.

o   Evaluate Alternatives: 

Alternative #1: 

Report the Irregularity: The first alternative decision is to report the bid process irregularity to the relevant authorities. This decision aligns with the criteria of legal compliance, ethical considerations, and transparency, as it ensures that the company is following the law and acting ethically while promoting transparency in the bidding process. By reporting the irregularity, the company can protect its reputation and avoid any negative impact on its brand and future business prospects.

Alternative #2: 

      Refuse to Participate: The second alternative decision is to refuse to participate in the bidding process if it involves the use of insider information or other unethical practices. This decision aligns with the criteria of ethical considerations, and reputation, as it ensures that the company is acting ethically and promoting fair competition while protecting its reputation. By refusing to participate in an unethical bidding process, the company can demonstrate its commitment to ethical business practices and maintain its reputation as a responsible and trustworthy business.

o   Select the Best Alternative:  

After evaluating both the alternative decisions, I would conclude that reporting the irregularity would be a better for resolving the bid process irregularity. Reporting the regularity best fills the criterion because it emphasizes the importance of the legal compliance, ethical considerations and reputation criterions. Choosing to go with the other alternative decision would not meet the criterion because it doesn't consider legal compliance important. Alternative #2 is most definitely internally acknowledging a mistake but not necessarily taking measures to be legally compliant in the future.