Volume 17, Number 1 Printed ISSN 1078-4950 PDF ISSN.docx

Volume 17, Number 1 Printed ISSN: 1078-4950
PDF ISSN: 1532-5822
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ACADEMY FOR CASE STUDIES
Editors
Inge Nickerson, Barry University
Charles Rarick, Purdue University, Calumet

The Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies is
owned and
published by the DreamCatchers Group, LLC. Editorial content
is under the
control of the Allied Academies, Inc., a non-profit association
of scholars, whose
purpose is to support and encourage research and the sharing
and exchange of
ideas and insights throughout the world.
Page ii
Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume
17, Number 1, 2011
Authors execute a publication permission agreement and assume
all liabilities.
Neither the DreamCatchers Group or Allied Academies is
responsible for the
content of the individual manuscripts. Any omissions or errors
are the sole
responsibility of the authors. The Editorial Board is responsible
for the selection
of manuscripts for publication from among those submitted for
consideration.
The Publishers accept final manuscripts in digital form and
make adjustments
solely for the purposes of pagination and organization.
The Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies is
owned and

published by the DreamCatchers Group, LLC, PO Box 1708,
Arden, NC 28704,
USA. Those interested in communicating with the Journal,
should contact the
Executive Director of the Allied Academies at [email protected]
Copyright 2011 by the DreamCatchers Group, LLC, Arden NC,
USA
Page iii
17, Number 1, 2011
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Irfan Ahmed
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, Texas
Devi Akella
Albany State University
Albany, Georgia
Charlotte Allen
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas
Thomas T. Amlie
SUNY Institute of Technology

Utica, New York
Ismet Anitsal
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, Tennessee
Kavous Ardalan
Marist College
Poughkeepsie, New York
Joe Ballenger
Nacogdoches, Texas
Lisa Berardino
Utica, New York
Thomas Bertsch
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Steve Betts
William Paterson University
Wayne, New Jersey
Narendra Bhandari
Pace University
North Brunswick, New Jersey
Barbara Bieber-Hamby
Nacogdoches, Texas
W. Blaker Bolling
Marshall University

Huntington, West Virginia
Lisa N. Bostick
The University of Tampa
Tampa, Florida
Michael W. Boyd
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina
Thomas M. Box
Pittsburg State University
Pittsburg, Kansas
William Brent
Howard University
Washington, DC
Michael Broihahn
Barry University
Miami Shores, Florida
Gary Brunswick
Northern Michigan University
Marquette, Michigan
Carol Bruton
California State University San Marcos
Poway, California
Gene Calvasina
Southern University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Russell Casey
Penn State University Worthington Scranton

Dunmore, Pennsylvania
Yung Yen Chen
Nova Southeastern University
Davie, Florida
Wil Clouse
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee
Clarence Coleman
Winthrop University
Rock Hill, South Carolina
Michael H. Deis
Clayton College & State University
Morrow, Georgia
Carol Docan
CSU, Northridge
Northridge, California
Scott Droege
Mississippi State University-Meridian Campus
Meridian, Mississippi
Page iv
17, Number 1, 2011

Martine Duchatelet
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, Indiana
Steve Edison
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Little Rock, Arkansas
Andrew A. Ehlert
Mississippi University for Women
Columbus, Mississippi
Henry Elrod
University of the Incarnate Word
San Antonio, Texas
Mike Evans
Winthrop University
Werner Fees
Georg-Simon-Ohm-Fachhochschule Nuernberg
Nuernberg, Germany
Troy Festervand
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Art Fischer
Pittsburg State University
Pittsburg, Kansas
Barbara Fuller
Winthrop University

Ramaswamy Ganesan
BITS-Pilani Goa Campus
Goa, India
Joseph J. Geiger
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Issam Ghazzawi
University of La Verne
La Verne, California
Michael Grayson
Jackson State University
Jackson, Mississippi
Richard Gregory
University of South Carolina Spartanburg
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Robert D. Gulbro
Athens State University
Athens, Alabama
Allan Hall
Utica, New York
Karen Hamilton
Appalachian State University
Boone, North Carolina
Heikki Heino
Governors State University
University Park, Illinois

Terrance Jalbert
University of Hawaii at Hilo
Hilo, Hawaii
Marianne L. James
California State University, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
Marlene Kahla
Nacogdoches, Texas
Joseph Kavanaugh
Sam Houston State University
Spring, Texas
William J. Kehoe
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia
Wasif M. Khan
Lahore University of Management Sciences
Lahore, PU, Pakistan
Marla Kraut
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
S. Krishnamoorthy
Amrita Institute of Management
Tamil Nadu, India
Dave Kunz
Southeast Missouri State University
Cape Girardeau, Missouri

John Lawrence
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Jonathan Lee
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
John Lewis
Nacogdoches, Texas
Page v
17, Number 1, 2011
Rod Lievano
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, Minnesota
Steve Loy
Eastern Kentucky University
Richmond, Kentucky
Anne Macy
West Texas A&M University
Canyon, Texas
Edwin Lee Makamson

Hampton University
Hampton, Virginia
Jeff Mankin
Lipscomb University
Nashville, Tennessee
Paul Marshall
Widener University
Chester, Pennsylvania
James R. Maxwell
State University of New York College at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York
Steve McGuire
California State University, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
Michael McLain
Hampton University
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Todd Mick
Missouri Western State University
St. Joseph, Missouri
Kenneth K. Mitchell
Shaw University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Mohsen Modarres
Humboldt State University
Arcata, California
William B. Morgan

Felician College
Jackson, New Jersey
Inge Nickerson
Barry University
Inder Nijhawan
Fayetteville State University
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Adebisi Olumide
Lagos State University
Lagos, Nigeria
Joseph Ormsby
Nacogdoches, Texas
D. J. Parker
University of Washington Tocama
Tacoma, Washington
Karen Paul
Florida International University
Miami, Florida
Steven K. Paulson
University of North Florida
Jacksonville, Florida
Terry Pearson
West Texas A&M University
Canyon, Texas
Rashmi Prasad

University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
Sanjay Rajagopal
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina
Charles Rarick
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, Indiana
Sherry Robinson
Penn State University
New Albany, Pennsylvania
Ida Robinson-Backmon
University of Baltimore
Baltimore, Maryland
Durga Prasad Samontaray
King Saud University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Joesph C. Santora
Essex County College
Newark, New Jersey
Sujata Satapathy
Indian Institute of Technology
New Delhi, India
Bob Schwab
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, Michigan

Page vi
17, Number 1, 2011
Elton Scifres
Nacogdoches, Texas
Herbert Sherman
Southampton College
Southampton, New York
Linda Shonesy
Athens State University
Athens, Alabama
Mike Spencer
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, Iowa
Harlan E. Spotts
Western New England College
Springfield, Massachusetts
Harriet Stephenson
Seattle University
Seattle, Washington
Philip Stetz
Nacogdoches, Texas

Jim Stotler
North Carolina Central University
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Jennifer Ann Swanson
Stonehill College
N. Easton, Massachusetts
Joseph Sulock
UNC-Asheville
Asheville, North Carolina
Joe Teng
Barry University
Prasanna J. Timothy
Karunya Institute of Technology
Tamil Nadu, India
Jeff W. Totten
Southeastern Louisiana University
Hammond, Louisiana
Jack E. Tucci
Mississippi State University-Meridian Campus
Meridian, Mississippi
George Vozikis
University of Tulsa
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Rae Weston
Macquarie Graduate School of Management
NSW Australia

Greg Winter
Barry University
Art Warbelow
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
Thomas Wright
University of Nevada - Reno
Reno, Nevada
Page vii
17, Number 1, 2011
JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY FOR
CASE STUDIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..............................................................................................

III
LETTER FROM THE EDITORS
...............................................................................................
.. IX
PEANUT VALLEY CAFÉ: WHAT TO DO NEXT?
................................................................... 1
Lee E. Weyant, Kutztown University
Donna Steslow, Kutztown University
COMPETING IN THE AGE OF WAL-MART:
A BOUTIQUE BUSINESS CASE STUDY
................................................................................. 11
Michael L. Thomas, Georgia Southern University
Linda Greef Mullen, Georgia Southern University
J. Michael McDonald, Georgia Southern University
BYD OF CHINA: ELECTRIFYING THE WORLD'S
AUTOMOTIVE MARKET .................. 19
Charles A. Rarick, Purdue University Calumet
Kasia Firlej, Purdue University Calumet
Arifin Angriawan, Purdue University Calumet
PEGASUS RESEARCH INSTITUTECTHE DEVELOPMENT OF
A COST
ACCOUNTING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
FOR A
SMALL DEFENSE
CONTRACTOR.......................................................................

.................... 29
Richard E. McDermott, Weber State University
AUSTRALIAN DREAM: AN AMERICAN
DREAM............................................................ 49
Stephen L. Loy, Eastern KentuckyUniversity
Steven Brown, Eastern Kentucky University
Mark Case, Eastern Kentucky University
Page viii
17, Number 1, 2011
CHIROPRACTIC MARKETING: MARKET SEGMENTATION
& GROWTH STRATEGY
...............................................................................................
............ 65
Jeanny Y. Liu, University of La Verne
Stephanie N. Van Ginkel, University of La Verne
ST. LOUIS CHEMICAL: COST OF CAPITAL
.......................................................................... 83
David A. Kunz, Southeast Missouri State University
Benjamin L. Dow III, Southeast Missouri State University

FEMSA 2007: THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS
IMPACT OF
DIFFERENCES IN MEXICAN AND US
GAAP........................................................................ 89
Kevin L. Kemerer, Barry University
................................................................................ 89
Michael L. Tyler, Barry University
ANDERSON’S DEPARTMENT STORE: A COSMETIC
DILEMMA .................................. 109
Regina A. Julian, Stephen F. Austin State University
Elton L. Scifres, Stephen F. Austin State University
MIXED SIGNALS AT GABBA ENTERPRISES
..................................................................... 115
Kurt Jesswein, Sam Houston State University
HSN, INC.: WEATHERING THE RETAIL STORM
............................................................... 121
Alexander Assouad, University of South Florida St. Petersburg
William T. Jackson, University of South Florida St. Petersburg
James A. Fellows, University of South Florida St. Petersburg
Page ix

17, Number 1, 2011
LETTER FROM THE EDITORS
Welcome to the Journal of the International Academy for Case
Studies. The editorial
content of this journal is under the control of the Allied
Academies, Inc., a non profit association
of scholars whose purpose is to encourage and support the
advancement and exchange of
knowledge, understanding and teaching throughout the world.
The purpose of the JIACS is to
encourage the development and use of cases and the case
method of teaching throughout higher
education. Its editorial mission is to publish cases in a wide
variety of disciplines which are of
educational, pedagogic, and practical value to educators.
The cases contained in this volume have been double blind
refereed, and each was
required to have a complete teaching note before consideration.
The acceptance rate for
manuscripts in this issue, 25%, conforms to our editorial
policies. The Instructor’s Note for each
case in this volume will be published in a separate issue of the
JIACS.
If any reader is interested in obtaining a case, an instructor’s
note, permission to publish,
or any other information about a case, the reader must
correspond directly with the Executive
Director of the Allied Academies: [email protected]
We intend to foster a supportive, mentoring effort on the part

of the referees which will
result in encouraging and supporting writers. We welcome
different viewpoints because in
differences we find learning; in differences we develop
understanding; in differences we gain
knowledge and in differences we develop the discipline into a
more comprehensive, less esoteric,
and dynamic metier.
The Editorial Policy, background and history of the
organization, and calls for
conferences are published on our web site. In addition, we keep
the web site updated with the
latest activities of the organization. Please visit our site and
know that we welcome hearing from
you at any time.
Inge Nickerson, Barry University
Charles Rarick, Purdue University, Calumet
Page x
17, Number 1, 2011
Page 1

17, Number 1, 2011
PEANUT VALLEY CAFÉ: WHAT TO DO NEXT?
Lee E. Weyant, Kutztown University
Donna Steslow, Kutztown University
CASE DESCRIPTION
The primary subject matter of this case involves the
management of a quick service
restaurant (QSR). The case has a difficulty level of three,
appropriate for junior level courses in
management or hospitality management. The case is designed
to be taught in 1, 75 minute class
period and is expected to require 2 hours of outside preparation
by students.
CASE SYNOPSIS
This case focuses on the operational and strategic management
issues faced by a family
owned quick service restaurant (QSR). The case explores the
operational issues with a multi-
unit restaurant. What are the operational decisions necessary to
effectively manage QSR
facilities? What are the strategic issues facing a QSR owner?
[NOTE: This case is a fictionalized version of a real-life
situation. Names and other potentially

identifying information have been changed to protect identities.
The applicable fact situation is
true to the real case.]
THE PEANUT VALLEY CAFE
Peanut Valley Café is a family owned, ethnic food quick
service restaurant (QSR). The
company has two locations in the southwestern part of the
United States. The two facilities are
20 miles apart with one facility located in Plainsville and the
other in Pleasant Valley. Both
facilities are equidistant, about 8 miles, from a major military
base that is in the process of
expanding operations. The population of Plainsville is nearly
33,000 and the population of
Pleasant Valley is approximately 11,000. Plainsville is the
county seat for Mountain County.
The city has a small, regional shopping mall, a civic center, a
hospital, and Mountain
Community College. Pleasant Valley is the county seat for
Lovely County. The town has an
ethanol processing plant, milk processing facility, several
peanut processing facilities, and
Regional State University (RSU). RSU is a small regional
university providing undergraduate
and graduate programs for approximately 4,000 students. Both
cities are about 100 miles from a
metropolitan area with a population greater than 50,000 and
more than 120 miles from a
population centers greater than 150,000. (See Appendix C:
Map).

17, Number 1, 2011
Peanut Valley Café started in 1967 serving Mexican-American
fast food. Sam Snow
joined the company in 1969 as a management trainee after
graduating from a prestigious land-
grant college with a degree in Hotel, Restaurant Management
(HRM). By 1970, Peanut Valley
Café had grown to five locations. In 1971, the owner of Peanut
Valley Café offered Sam the
opportunity to buy the Plainsville restaurant. This facility was
located in front of a new shopping
center, across the street from the Plainsville Park, and within a
block of the Plainsville High
School. In 1971, this was an ideal location since the highway
had been expanded to three lanes
to handle the traffic to the hospital and the military base located
west of town. In 1975, Sam
received permission from Peanut Valley Café general
management to open a restaurant in
Pleasant Valley across the street from a RSU dormitory and the
RSU administrative building.
Additionally, this location was along the main highway to
Desert Sun, a city of 55,000 located
about 90 miles southwest of Pleasant Valley.
In 1979, Peanut Valley Café’s operations were facing financial
difficulties. Originally,
the locations in small towns resulted in little competition with
national franchise operations such
as McDonald’s and Burger King. With increased competition
from national chains, three of the
five Peanut Valley Cafés reported their third consecutive annual
loss. Only Sam’s operations in

Plainsville and Pleasant Valley posted profits during this time.
When Peanut Valley Café’s
general management decided to close the business, Sam offered
to buy the company’s name and
continue operating his two facilities. On January 1, 1980,
Peanut Valley Café was officially sold
to Sam Snow’s new corporation – High Plains Restaurant
Management, Inc., dba Peanut Valley
Café. Sam has operated the two restaurants in the same location
since 1975. Over the years Sam
has experienced the typical business cycles of all small
businesses. Likewise he has experienced
his share of attempting new projects. For example, from 1998
to late 2004 Sam operated a food
court version of his café in the local mall with a limited menu.
Also, during this time period, his
corporation owned an Orange Julius franchise in the local mall.
For simplicity, the gross
revenue figures for the Plainsville operation during those years
reflect these additional ventures.
Moreover, in 1996 Sam was offered the opportunity to buy the
gas station adjacent to the
Pleasant Valley facility. This venture accounts for
approximately 10% of the total revenue at the
Pleasant Valley facility. (See Appendix A for current
organizational chart and Appendix B for
selected financials.)
Last July, Sam met with Dr. Abraham, Associate Professor of
Management, RSU. Dr.
Abraham was designing the curriculum to support a new
Hospitality Management degree at RSU
and needed the input of industry leaders such as Sam Snow.
Their initial conversation covered a
variety of topics including the local economy, community
growth, entrepreneurship, and the
need for a hospitality degree in the area. During this

conversation, Sam stated that he wished he
had the time to implement the systems that would really help his
business. “My managers are
not a part of this operation. Sure, they try, but there is no
follow through on items. I feel like we
are not on the same page.” Sam asked Dr. Abraham if he could
help in facilitating a discussion
between Sam and his managers. Dr. Abraham agreed to assist
Sam, but wanted to observe the
Page 3
17, Number 1, 2011
operation before conducting the meeting. Over the next several
months, Dr. Abraham visited
each facility, met with the employees, and received a tour of the
operation. By November, it was
agreed that Dr. Abraham would attend the employee meetings
being conducted by Sam.
The employee meeting for the Pleasant Valley facility was
scheduled for late November.
Following his normal procedure for these meetings, Sam
decided to close the facility at 8:30PM
versus 10. About ten minutes into the meeting a bus from
Mountain Plains University arrived
with the women’s basketball team and coaches. The team had
played the RSU women’s team
earlier in the evening. When the coach came to the door, a
member of Sam’s management team
answered the door and told the coach they were closed. Without
prompting, the Peanut Valley

Café employees asked Sam to open the restaurant for the team.
Sam agreed and the team was
invited into the facility. While the restaurant employees were
busy preparing the food for the
team, Sam overheard one of his Assistant Manager’s remark
“We can’t afford to let that much
revenue be turned away. I can’t believe this meeting is more
important than servicing the
community!” After the team completed their meal, Sam
resumed the employee meeting. During
a conversation about hours, one of the morning managers, Jesus,
started complaining about the
lack of support from the other managers, especially Daniel.
This continued for several minutes
with both managers and their respective subordinates trading
barbs about the operational
procedures. Finally Sam stopped the meeting and looking at
Jesus stated “We’ll continue this
conversation in private after the meeting.” The meeting ended
with Sam and Jesus going to the
manager’s office. As Dr. Abraham was collecting his materials,
several employees stopped to
talk. One employee commented, “This has been brewing for
some time. Jesus and Daniel have
not gotten along since Daniel was promoted to manager. Jesus
is a great cook, but he is not a
strong manager.” Another employee added, “You know this all
began when Daniel started going
to RSU for his management degree and doesn’t have to work the
early morning shifts.” The next
day Sam called Dr. Abraham to apologize for the incident with
Jesus. “He probably has the best
overall culinary skills of all my managers. But he is very
narrow-minded about what needs to be
done. He is not a good manager and tries to tell the others how
things should be done. I had

planned to talk to him about his overall performance for several
weeks but never got the time to
drive to Pleasant Valley for the talk”. About a week later, Sam
and Dr. Abraham were
coordinating a time for Sam to be a guest speaker in a
hospitality management class when Sam
stated, “Well, Jesus quit. Called me at 6:25AM last Tuesday
and quit. That hurt since we open
at 6:30AM. I had a young employee waiting outside the door
for about 45 minutes until I got
there to open. The young man was upset that he had to wait and
tersely told me about 20 people
stopped by and wanted to know why the restaurant was closed.
When I explained what
happened, he added ‘I should have known. Jesus and Daniel
had words yesterday’.”
During the spring, Sam and Dr. Abraham met to discuss
managerial operations. They
discussed the employee training programs. They reviewed the
various videotapes Sam had
collected over the years concerning customer service, sales, and
safety. Sam stated that the
Plainsville facility has an extra room above the restaurant that
can be used for small groups or
Page 4
17, Number 1, 2011
individuals to view the tapes. “Unfortunately, I do not have the
same luxury in Pleasant Valley.
It’s a space issue. So I will periodically show a tape at Pleasant
Valley as part of the employee

meeting.” When asked who is responsible for the training, Sam
stated it was the General
Manager and Assistant Manager’s responsibility. “But they
don’t have time to do the training.
We get done what we can. I know some of my people are not
very good at teaching others, but
when you live on the margins, you do what you have to.”
Additionally, Sam and Dr. Abraham
discussed the menu. Dr. Abraham raised the issue, “Sam, there
appears to be a lot of items on
the menu from traditional Mexican cuisine of tacos and burritos
to American cuisine of
hamburgers and fried chicken. Doesn’t this cause inventory and
production issues?” Sam
responded “Not really. I use the same ground beef for the
hamburgers that I use in the tacos and
burritos. There is a longer prep time for the hamburger, but it’s
not a big seller and whoever
wants a burger is willing to wait.” As they talked about the size
of the menu, Sam stated that he
was proud of the fish taco. “I was in Hawaii for a conference
and saw a restaurant similar to
mine offering a fish taco. It’s been great, though not a big
seller. I think we sold 10 fish tacos
last week between the 2 facilities. I use fresh fish and created
my own seasonings. Since we are
using fresh fish, I’ve created a separate prep area to eliminate
any cross contamination.”
During a meeting in April, Sam lamented that he was 62. He
had been in this business
for is entire life. “I started with this venture on a lark. No
clear plan. This was just a stopover
until I found what I really wanted back in the northeast. Here I
am 40 years later. I’ve done
well. Had several years when I did not take a salary. Man, that
was the closest to bankruptcy

I’ve ever been. I enjoy this business, but for how long? I know
I need help. I’m sorry my son
lost his job with a major corporation. But he got a good buyout
and has decided to come live
with us for the next six months to help me get some of the
systems I’ve always wanted to do in
place.”
About a month later, Dr. Abraham was ready to facilitate the
meeting between Sam and
his managers. Sam arranged to have the meeting in a location
away from the restaurants. After
introductions, Dr. Abraham started the meeting.
“The purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss Peanut Valley
Café – where you are, where
you want to go, and your role in the journey. To start we will
begin with “Through the
Looking Glass”. Our initial goal is to identify as many items as
possible. So please hold
your comments until later. We will list the ideas on the flip
chart and post these on the
wall for ease of reference. Let’s begin. Where do you see
Peanut Valley Café five years
from now?”
Please refer to Figure 1.
“Look out the window. What do you see?”

17, Number 1, 2011
Figure 1
Through the Looking Glass – Peanut Valley Café in 5 years
Participate in city events
More automation
Better advertising
Tours by elementary schools
Training programs
More family friendly
Higher presence in community
Keeping up with IT
More managers
Bigger Pleasant Valley store
Double sales – customer count
Work with Military base
General Manager
Faster service
Menu redesign/simplify
Advertise birthday parties
Online orders
Expand
Figure 2
Out the Window – What do we see?
RSU
Businesses
Banks
Fire department

Hospital
Schools: Public and Private
Travelers
Military Base
School Athletic teams
Competitors (Partial List)
McDonald’s
Dairy Queen
Burger King
Taco Bell
Wendy’s
Juan’s Authentic Mexican Restaurant
Price of Gas Increasing
Page 6
17, Number 1, 2011
“What are the roles the people in the room should have?”
Figure 3
Managerial Roles
Sam
Face of the Business
Provide vision leadership
Be supportive
Marketing
Vendor support

Update stores
Moral support
Son
Implement programs/IT
Short term – implementation
Training development
Your
Face of the store – true managers
Hiring employees
Smoother running crews
Better customer …
The attached journal describes a national project. Based on the
journal, and on your team’s understanding of the project,
answer the questions below:
#
Question
Points
a
Was it an internal or external project? Give rationale.
4
f
In your opinion, was the railway approach the best approach to
have been selected? Support your rationale using PV, NPV,
IRR, B/C. (1 page)
25
l
Using a table / bullets, list at least 10 individual risks ranked by
severity and project phase (i.e. pre-construction & post-
construction). (1 page)
25
p
Describe at least 3 lessons that can be learned from this project.
3
r
Other Considerations

5
s
Other – APA (Times New Roman, 12, double- spaced, in-text
citations, grammar, reference list, etc.)
10
TOTAL
240
Side note from instructor:
1. Your response should cover between 5 pages only.
2. This research project requires you to tie together everything
you have studied in this semester. This may include core project
management skills, writing skills, APA formatting, meeting
deadlines, etc.
3. Ensure all responses you provide (including numbers, tasks
and other facts) are supported by information from the journal
or provide appropriate assumptions where necessary. This
journal including all other sources should be correctly
referenced.
4. Use effective in-text citation to help the reader know exactly
where you are picking your facts from. APA requires the use of
page numbers primarily for direct quotes. However, just for this
sake of this assignment, since I need to know exactly where you
are picking the facts from, please use page numbers as often as
you need to. If I cannot connect your rationale with the pages, I
may not give the maximum points for that section.
5. You have been put in teams so you can bounce ideas off each
other – no one person knows it all. This is a good opportunity to
access your respective strengths and weaknesses and work
together as a team.
6. If there are any questions or clarifications needed, the PM
may contact me. All the best!

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=tcen20
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering
ISSN: 1448-8353 (Print) 2204-2245 (Online) Journal homepage:
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcen20
The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project
management
Dick Lees
To cite this article: Dick Lees (2005) The Alice-Darwin
railway: a feat of project management,
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2:1, 25-36, DOI:
10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916
To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916
Published online: 22 Sep 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 20
View related articles
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=tcen20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcen20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.10
80/14488353.2005.11463916

https://doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalC
ode=tcen20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalC
ode=tcen20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/14488353.2005.1
1463916
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/14488353.2005.1
1463916
25
© Institue of Engineers, Australia 2005
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol 2, No 1.
technical paper
* Invited special focus paper accepted after review
(April 2005)
The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project
management*
Dick Lees
General Manager, Special Projects, Kellogg Brown & Root Pty
Ltd
Honorary Fellow, Institution of Engineers, Australia
Fellow, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
SUMMARY: This paper describes the project management of
the 1420 kilometre Alice Springs to
Darwin railway. The sponsor group included the

Commonwealth, South Australian and Northern
Territory Governments. The Asia Pacific Transport Consortium
delivered the new line under a
BOOT contract with the AustralAsia Railway Corporation. KBR
invited the John Holland Group,
Barclay Mowlem, Macmahon Holdings and Australian Railroad
Group – all industry leaders – to
join it in forming the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium.
Funding was provided by both sponsor
and deliverer under a BOOT structure.
Project managing the design and construction is outlined,
including the whole of life approach,
quality, procurement, cost control and industrial relations.
1 BACKGROUND
The 1420-kilometre Alice Springs – Darwin rail
line completes the Adelaide to Darwin Railway,
thereby connecting all mainland states with the
north of Australia and creating a ‘landbridge’ to
Asia. It is a visionary project that will open up trade
opportunities within Australia and overseas, and
foster the development of regional industries.
Asia Pacific Transport, a consortium led by Kellogg
Brown & Root Pty Ltd (KBR), succeeded in
delivering the line ahead of schedule, within budget,
and with excellent safety, industrial relations and
local industry participation records. This success
can be attributed to the consortium’s management
approach, which was characterised by excellent
planning, commitment to innovation, and building
good relations with stakeholders.
The Asia Pacific Transport Consortium delivered the

new rail line under a BOOT (build, own, operate,
transfer) contract with the AustralAsia Railway
Corporation, which represents the interests of the
Commonwealth, South Australian and Northern
Territory governments. Design and construction of
the railway was contracted by Asia Pacific Transport
to a design and construction joint venture (ADrail),
and was completed in October 2003. Operations
commenced in January 2004. FreightLink, the
consortium’s operating company, will manage rail
services for the first 50 years of the railway’s life.
This includes maintaining and operating the Tarcoola
– Alice Springs line and overseeing port terminal
operations at Darwin’s East Arm Port.
The rail link will enable more efficient transport of
goods between northern and southern Australia,
and by reducing the time it takes for freight to
reach Darwin, shipping to vital Asian markets will
also be more cost-effective. The completed railway
is opening up new opportunities for industries like
mining, agriculture, aquaculture and tourism.
Constructed at a total cost of more than A$1.4 billion,
this is one of the largest infrastructure developments
ever undertaken in Australia. The construction
project required 2 million sleepers (Fig 1), 8 million
sleeper clips, 2.5 million tonnes of ballast (Fig 2), 2800
26
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” -
Lees 27
Lees
km of rail, 15 million cubic metres of earthworks (Fig
3), 100,000 m of corrugated steel pipe for culverts,
and material for 93 bridges, including crossings of
the Katherine and Elizabeth rivers.
The consortium members did not just have their
reputations at stake, but hundreds of millions of
dollars of their own and their investors’ money. How
Figure 1: Sleeper handling Figure 2: Ballast transport
Figure 3: Bulk earthworks
the project was managed was all-important.
Planning began well before the start of the project.
The first step was to assemble the right team, so KBR
invited the John Holland Group, Barclay Mowlem,
Macmahon Holdings and Australian Railroad Group
– all industry leaders – to join it in forming the Asia
Pacific Transport Consortium.
26

Lees 27
Lees
2 PROJECT STRUCTURE AND FINANCING
Successfully completing a project like this took
more than technical expertise, more than the wealth
of experience on large-scale projects that all Asia
Pacific Transport sponsors had. It demanded their
total belief in the future of the railway, as is evidenced
by their willingness to underwrite well over half the
railway’s total cost.
KBR managed the bidding process, led negotiations
and ensured the financial support was in place. KBR
also led the design and construct joint venture, called
ADrail.
Following complex negotiations, the AustralAsia
Railway Corporation and Asia Pacific Transport
entered into a Concession Deed providing the
framework for the design, construction and operation
of the railway. This deed came into force at Financial
Close, which involved 112 different signatories
checking and signing 333 project documents.
The AustralAsia Railway Corporation provided
$480 million of funding. The remainder (about $900
million) was raised by the consortium.
As a PPP project, the Alice–Darwin Railway is

important on several levels. It has:
• allowed government to provide major
civil infrastructure with limited financial
commitment and risk;
• enabled taxpayers’ funds to be deployed
elsewhere;
• maximised industry participation;
• generated private-sector revenue;
• introduced commercial best practices.
It has also shown the Australian financial community
that deals of this magnitude can be done, and done
extremely well: the Alice–Darwin Railway Project
was named Global Finance’s Asia Pacific Infrastructure
Deal of the Year in 2001 and Euromoney’s PPP Deal
of the Year in 2002.
To help ensure the project’s viability, the
consortium:
• assembled a team with expertise in
operations, rail, logistics, design, construction,
maintenance and project management, with
the ability to self-perform these tasks, thus
reducing the need to use more expensive
methods of subcontracting the works;
• developed strategies for efficient and speedy
construction of the new railway, incorporating
innovative engineering and construction
solutions and logistics planning that

significantly increased the rate and reliability
of trackworks construction;
• drew on the sponsors’ collective experience
in the construction of railways in remote
locations, and experience in working with
indigenous communities and maximising local
content and labour – this in turn enabled a
reduced cost structure;
• negotiated to include the existing railway from
Tarcoola to Alice Springs in the project from
commencement of construction of the new line,
giving the benefit of the operational revenue to
the project finances;
• structured the rail access code to provide a
commercial framework to the consortium
and its financiers for other competitive access
seekers;
• gained support from the transport industry;
• negotiated a Concession Deed with the
AustralAsia Railway Corporation that placed
project and operational risk with the party
best able to manage risk; in this respect the
AustralAsia Railway Corporation accepted
risks associated with land title, legislative
requirements, indigenous matters and other
matters outside the control of the consortium;
• maximised the opportunities provided by the
recently completed Port of Darwin, which
has a dedicated freight terminal giving direct

access to the railway. This combination
of infrastructure enabled the consortium
to develop a business plan that combines
domestic business with international trade.
Construction risk was supported by joint and
several completion guarantees from the consortium
members’ parent companies for fixed-time, fixed-
price project delivery.
Having regard to the linear construction risk of the
project, liquidated damages were provided for 6%
of the construction contract value. Additionally, the
project sponsors used insurance bonding to provide
additional security support for the government
funding program, particularly over the first
24 months of construction.
2.1 Scheduling
As shown in Table 1, the time from project initiation
to project delivery was a little over six years. This
is a real achievement, considering the challenges of
this greenfield project. The construction schedule
was especially tight – just 30 months. Financial close
was achieved later than expected, which put further
pressure on the schedule.
28
Lees 29

Lees
Table 1: Project milestones
November 1997 Submission of expression of interest to tender
for the BOOT project.
Approximately 26 EOIs were received by the AustralAsia
Railway
Corporation
February 1998 Shortlisting of 3 tenderers
March 1998 to March 1999 Tender submission was prepared in
this period including design and
construction; maintenance plans; business plans; financial
packaging,
equity, debt and government contribution to the project; traffic
forecasts
for domestic and international freight; financial models;
company details
in support of consortium make-up, structure and ability to
deliver;
concession deed compliance
June 1999 Asia Pacific Transport achieved preferred tenderer
status to enable
further negotiations to take place with the AustralAsia Railway
Corporation on key contracts and financial matters
November 1999 The consortium received the mandate from
governments to deliver
the project and to go forward to complete the project and

financial
documentation, finalise equity and debt provisions and achieve
contractual completion and financial close
April 2001 Financial close was achieved, enabling the design
and construction
joint venture to commence construction of the Alice Springs –
Darwin
line (and the consortium to take over operation of the existing
Tarcoola
– Alice Springs line)
October 2003 Design and construction of the railway and the
Darwin port was
completed and handed over to the consortium
January 2004 Accreditation was obtained, commissioning
testing of the railway
completed, rolling stock procured, access agreement prescribed
to
enable operations to commence
The contractual date for completion of the design and
construction works was 30 March 2004 to enable
operations to commence on 1 April 2004. However, there were
obvious advantages in commencing operations
early, so the start-up date was moved forward to 15 January
2004. Construction was formally completed on
31 October 2003 with the issue of the Design and Construction
Completion Certificate by the Independent
Certifier. Progress and controls are shown in Figures 4, 5, and
6.
2.2 Project management
Asia Pacific Transport let the design and construction

contract to ADrail, an unincorporated joint venture
comprising KBR, John Holland, Barclay Mowlem
and Macmahon.
All personnel who worked on the design and
construction project were either seconded by the
ADrail partners, or directly employed by ADrail.
The selection criterion for project personnel was best
candidate for the job, regardless of which company
he or she came from. The Project Management
Team, however, was structured to include a senior
representative of each the partners:
• Project Director: KBR
• Commercial Manager: Barclay Mowlem
• Design and Construction Manager: John
Holland
• Design Manager: KBR
• Construction Manager: Macmahon.
The Joint Venture Management Committee comprised
the CEOs of John Holland, Barclay Mowlem and
Macmahon, and KBR’s General Manager, Special
Projects. This structure helped ensure fast and
effective decision making.
28

Lees 29
Lees
Figure 4: Track laying progress compared to baseline
Figure 5: Line of Balance construction schedule
30
Lees 31
Lees
Additionally, each partner was called on to sponsor
aspects of the project for which it had special
expertise. This included:
• KBR: project management, cost control,
procurement, design, environmental
management
• Barclay Mowlem: trackworks (north), major
bridges

• Macmahon: earthworks, culverts, minor
bridges
• John Holland: trackworks (south).
One of the keys to the project’s success was the
consortium members’ ability to work effectively with
each other, putting aside their competitive instincts
and focusing on the same goal. Management was
open and transparent.
Initially there were difficulties in distilling the wishes
of individual Management Committee members.
This was overcome by appointing an independent
executive chairman, who was successfully able to
bridge the gap between the Management Committee
and the Project Management Team.
3 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
As well as good project management, the keys to
meeting the challenges of distance, climate, scale
and budget were simplicity of design and speed of
construction.
3.1 Design achievement
The KBR-led design team had a lead-time of just eight
weeks between financial close and the start of field
construction, including time for approvals.
The original scheduling placed various bridges on the
critical path, particularly those at the Katherine River
and the Elizabeth River estuary. The simplicity of the
design so speeded their construction that not only
was this criticality removed, but the program was
shortened. Once the designs were agreed, no changes

to detail of bridges or culverts were requested by field
staff and there were no errors requiring reworking
of documentation.
All design documentation was reviewed by the
Design Working Group, which represented the South
Australian and Northern Territory governments,
Figure 6: Example of progress chart
30
Lees 31
Lees
AustralAsia Railway Corporation, the banks and
Asia Pacific Transport. Construction was never
held up by lack of design documentation. Design
and construction progress north of Tennant Creek
is shown in Fig 7.
3.2 Whole-of-life approach
From the beginning, the railway was designed with
operations and maintenance as key considerations
in assessing whole-of-life solutions and ensuring
value for money.

• Track design: KBR carried out computer
simulations of train operations in either
direction to confirm optimum operating speeds
related to gradient, locomotive power and
hence fuel economy for all sections of the track;
these were then used to calculate optimum
rail cant (cross slope) to minimise wear and
maintenance. The rail selection was based
on wear considerations; the rail clips were
designed to be removable (with special tools)
for ease of sleeper replacement as necessary.
Soft rail pads were not used because of life and
replacement issues.
• Flood management: by investing in
hydrological analysis, the consortium has
minimised a major risk – flooding and track
wash-aways – thereby substantially reducing
operating and maintenance costs.
• Access: the consortium negotiated with
AustralAsia Railway Corporation to secure a
nominal 100-metre-wide operating corridor;
this provided access and provisioning during
operation and maintenance.
As part of the process for the design and construction
of the railway, the maintenance and operations parties
were required to sign off on the documentation.
Accordingly, these parties were actively involved
in the review of the construction to ensure that
operational and maintenance parameters were
included in the final product. Again this enabled the
operator and the maintainer to accurately determine

their commitments and ensure that a ‘whole-of-life’
approach to delivery was considered in the design
and construction phase of the project.
3.3 Quality assurance
The consortium’s strategy was to achieve full
certification for the track as it was progressively built,
so that construction traffic could travel at design
speeds in order to support the very tight schedule
and to ensure appropriate rail working safety.
The project quality management system was
established as an intranet-based system, giving
access to all documentation via servers located at
Figure 7: Design and construction progress north from
Tennant Creek
32
Lees 33
Lees
all sites. A comprehensive system of planned and
documented internal quality audits was established.
These included 55 internal audits, and a further 26

external audits conducted on subcontractors. Lloyd’s
Register Quality Assurance conducted a total of five
audits during the contract.
At the commencement of the project the consortium
set a nonconformance frequency rate (NFR) of 400
and a defect rate (DR) of 100, based on industry
standards. The project achieved an average monthly
NFR rate of 82.86 and a monthly DR of 2.05.
3.4 Logistical planning
The consortium’s logistical strategy was a major
factor in the early completion and overall success
of the project. Using a ‘fast-tracking’ approach,
the consortium divided the planning, engineering
design and construction stages of the project into sub-
projects that could proceed simultaneously, each with
an area manager who reported to the Construction
Manager.
3.4.1 Climate
Without doubt, the biggest logistical challenge was
climate – the 1420-km rail route stretches from the
monsoonal and tropical climate of Darwin to the
relative aridity of Alice Springs. The potential for
disruption to the tight construction schedule was
high.
Rather than the more obvious solution of working
from each end, using the larger centres of Alice Springs
and Darwin as bases, the consortium established the
major construction depots at Katherine and Tennant
Creek. These towns are almost at the quarter points of
the whole project, which made them ideal locations

strategically.
This approach provided the opportunity for four
work fronts (working north and south from each
depot). In principle, three earthworks teams worked
simultaneously, which meant the northern section
was worked in the dry season, then that team moved
south during the wet season, which stretches from
December through March, sometimes later. Two
track-laying crews were deployed, each laying
1.8 km a day.
At the northern end of the rail corridor, effective
construction was halted during the wet season.
The rains penetrate inland but their duration is
progressively shorter, historically interrupting
construction for approximately a month at the
southern end of the line. However, nature makes its
own decisions, and in 2001–02, the rains arrived early
in the south and there was more rain than anticipated,
requiring swift rescheduling and the redeployment
of materials, camps and labour, together with daily
reassessments of the situation. By contrast, in 2002,
the rains didn’t start until February.
3.4.2 Distance
Remoteness was also a major logistical challenge.
Temporary construction camps were located
approximately 100 km apart and had to be self-
sufficient for water (reverse osmosis), power
(generators) and sewage treatment. The camps were
moved along the four sectors, and accommodated
construction teams for earthworks, culverts and
minor bridges.

It was recognised early that sleepers would be on the
critical path, no matter how fast earthworks went,
and that tracklaying required a steady material flow.
One of the earliest moves, therefore, was to establish
sleeper factories at Katherine and Tennant Creek to
begin fabricating the more than 2 million prestressed
concrete sleepers required, as shown in Fig 8.
The rail was rolled at Whyalla, South Australia, in
27.5-metre lengths and transported by train to a
siding just south of Alice Springs. From there it was
trucked to Tennant Creek or Katherine, then welded
into 375-metre lengths, which were carried by train
to the work fronts, together with a day’s supply
of sleepers. After laying, the rail was made fully
continuous by site welding, and then the clips were
fixed to complete the track laying prior to ballasting.
Likewise, the rolling stock for the make-up of the
construction trains was railed to Alice Springs then
transported to Katherine and Tennant Creek for rail
laying and ballasting.
The earth embankment was constructed from locally
available materials, and KBR designed the track bed
to take these differing materials into account. Ballast
was sourced locally near Katherine and Tennant
Creek.
KBR also considered the logistical challenges when
designing the track and other infrastructure. For
example, pre-cast concrete bridge beams, which
were made in Darwin, had to conform to road freight
limitations on weight and size. Major bridge progress
is shown in Fig 9. Culvert design allowed the metal
pipes to be spiral wound virtually on site.

The consortium subcontracted services wherever it
would be more efficient (in cost or time) to do so.
These subcontracts included ballast transport, fuel,
work trains, air travel and camp operations.
4 PROCUREMENT AND COST CONTROL
The task the procurement team faced was daunting:
sourcing the materials and services required for
1420 km of rail line. These goods and services
all had to be sourced, purchased and supplied
32
Lees 33
Lees
Figure 8: Sleeper production
Figure 9: Major bridge process
within a very short period. Accordingly, effective
procurement management played a key role in the
overall efficiency of the project and was vital to
keeping construction ahead of schedule.

The goods and services needed can be broken down
into the following main groups:
• High-cost items: this was the main
procurement task, involving around
700 packages totalling approximately
$600 million; the packages in this group
included some very large single items, for
example, the steel rails, and the sleepers and
sleeper clips for the trackworks.
• Goods and services required for temporary
facilities; this category included the drilling
and equipping of bores for supplying the water
needed for construction, and all the day-to-day
living facilities such as construction workers’
camps, sewage treatment and water supply.
Where possible the consortium used existing
facilities (for example hotel accommodation)
in line with its commitment to maximise local
involvement.
• Consumables: as well as purchasing the main
goods and services required for permanent
and temporary facilities, the Procurement
Team set up a field procurement group for the
purchase of consumables/expendable items;
these included spare parts for mobile and
fixed plant, fuel, fencing, flagging and signage;
more than 25,000 orders were placed for over
100,000 individual line items, valued at around
$70 million.

34
Lees 35
Lees
• Rolling stock: the consortium contracted EDI
Rail to design, manufacture and deliver the
rolling stock, including four 4000-horsepower
Q-Class diesel electric locomotives and fifty-
five 48-foot 5-pack articulated container
flat cars; the consortium also has a 10-year
maintenance agreement with EDI to maintain
the rolling stock it supplies; Bluebird Rail
Operations is supplying and maintaining five
crew cars, and other rolling stock are leased
from Australian Railroad Group.
At the peak of the project, 2000 requisitions a month
were processed. The Procurement Team had up to
12 staff dedicated to purchasing, and a further five
who took care of subcontracts. A key measure of
the success of the procurement task was the cost of
processing the field orders: this was achieved at an
average of $50 an order.
Apart from the sheer amount of goods and services
required, there were a number of other procurement
challenges; the main ones are outlined below.

4.1 Time
It was critical to the project’s success that there be
no delay in securing the high-cost, long-lead items.
However, as noted above, financial close took longer
than anticipated. Purchase arrangements were
finalised prior to financial close, but obviously no
commitments could be made until financial close had
been achieved. The team had to keep these suppliers
interested without making any commitment that it
would possibly not be able to keep.
The Procurement Team was established in KBR’s
Adelaide office in early June 2000, nearly a year
before financial close was achieved. It commissioned
the survey and site investigations needed for the
design work, and procured minor materials and
services to support early works at the sleeper
factories under construction in Katherine and
Tennant Creek. It tendered as many subcontracts
as it could, and negotiated with subcontractors and
suppliers for major cost centres to the ‘letter of intent’
stage. The Procurement Team established an office
in Darwin in late March 2001. All of this preparation
meant that just six days after financial close on 20
April 2001, the team was ready to issue several key
formal commitments, valued at approximately $300
million.
By the end of July 2001, just three months after
financial close, the team had awarded a further 21
packages worth more than $1 million each and 41
packages in excess of $50,000 each. In addition, 20
new packages had been put out to tender.
4.2 Cost

Since the new line was constructed under a BOOT
contract, for the project to be viable, construction cost
had to be strictly limited. Given the stringent target
cost per kilometre, the Procurement Team was under
considerable pressure. It made sure it stayed attuned
to local and non-local pricing by constantly studying …
QSO 300 Final Project Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: You will submit a sustaining operations case study
analysis that will discuss the emerging concepts of
sustainability in business management,
specifically the topics of corporate responsibility and
environmental compliance. This case study analysis will be
incorporated into the final summative analysis.
This milestone is due in Module Five.
Prompt: Refer to the case study (located in the Reading and
Resources area of Module One) and the course materials to
answer the following items. Specifically,
the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Theories and Techniques
A. Summarize the following theories: just in time (JIT), Toyota
Production System (TPS), and Lean. How are these concepts
related? Describe the
advantages and disadvantages for using each of these concepts
at the company presented in the case study.

II. Sustainability
A. Describe how the emerging concept of the triple bottom line
can be used to enhance operations management at the company.
Be sure to
address each component of the triple bottom line.
B. Explain how the company integrates ISO 14000 standards in
its manufacturing plants. Support your explanation with
citations from your
textbook or outside sources.
C. Describe ways by which the company can integrate corporate
responsibility principles into their operations. Which of these
do you believe to be
the most effective? Why? Support your opinions with citations
from your textbook or outside sources.
Guidelines for Submission: The format for this assignment will
be a Word document using a business writing format of your
choice. There is no minimum page
length requirement, but the submission should be double spaced,
and no more than four pages in total. Copy and paste any data
analysis from Excel into your
Word document for submission. You may include your original
Excel documents as supplementary material if you believe this
will strengthen your contribution.
Rubric
Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (75%)

Not Evident (0%) Value
Theories and
Techniques:
Summarize
Summarizes JIT, TPS, and Lean
and explains how the concepts
are related, integrating the
advantages/disadvantages of
using each in the case study
context
Summarizes JIT, TPS, and Lean
but does not explain how the
concepts are related, integrating
the advantages/disadvantages of
using each in the case study
context
Does not summarize JIT, TPS, or
Lean
20
Sustainability:
Triple Bottom
Line
Describes how the triple bottom
line can enhance OM and
addresses each component of
the triple bottom line concept

Describes how the triple bottom
line can enhance OM, but does
not address each component of
the triple bottom line concept
Does not describe how OM can
enhance triple bottom line
20
Sustainability: ISO
14000
Accurately explains how the
company integrates ISO 14000
standards in the manufacturing
plants and provides support
Explains how the company
integrates ISO 14000 standards
in the manufacturing plants but
does not provide support or
explanation is inaccurate
Does not explain how the
company integrates ISO 14000
standards in the manufacturing
plants
20
Sustainability:
Corporate

Responsibility
Describes ways the company can
integrate corporate
responsibility principles into
operations and defends opinion
of the most effective way with
support
Describes ways the company can
integrate corporate
operations but does not defend
opinion of the most effective
way with support
Does not describe ways the
company can integrate corporate
operations
20
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of

main ideas
Submission has critical errors
that prevent understanding of
ideas
20
Total 100%

Volume 17, Number 1 Printed ISSN 1078-4950 PDF ISSN.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Volume 17, Number 1 Printed ISSN 1078-4950 PDF ISSN.docx

Similar to Volume 17, Number 1 Printed ISSN 1078-4950 PDF ISSN.docx (20)

More from adkinspaige22

More from adkinspaige22 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Volume 17, Number 1 Printed ISSN 1078-4950 PDF ISSN.docx