Case study 2

October 12th, 2008

My scribbling on this case, so far, are here at Case study 2…thanks very much for the comments so far. Feel free to slice, dice and edit to your satisfaction; I have the original file with me as well. I thought the observations were outstanding, done from the diverse perspective we have in private entierprise, and government. 

I understand the misgivings of working in groups. I have them as well…but I assure you, I rather like the way this is coming together. Tolerance to diverse ideas—even when they go against the grain of established thought on what we think is “right”, and an open mind are key to making this work well…and it is working well, I think.

This will be good!

Mark

Posted in FSC | No Comments »

Case 2 discussion-FSC

October 11th, 2008

I thought to create this posting on my website, to enable us to comment and discuss the current case…One person bought up her discomfort about posting it on Blackboard, and I hear that there are some complaints about the e-mail aspect of it; even the professor had difficulties sending me e-mail through it. I give you the following warning on posting anything here in this forum: while the rest of the class does not know about this particular blog, they can find this entry via the front page of my website, because this blog currently displays the latest posts…and since this entry constitutes the latest post, it will be plainly visible right now to anyone who clicks on the commentary blog link on the index page of my website. I can set my blog so that this entry is not immediately visible…but I can’t hide it entirely. The only way I could do that would be to set up this application on my web server—and that is flatly impossible right now, as they ask for money to do so.

The first attempt I made at this was rather a false start; I’m still trying to figure out how to use and arrange material using this program.  I know now I made a mistake creating a page rather then a post. Type your comments below in the box, then click submit. I will post my the draft of this case on this site as soon as I have it on me; 4 pages are done right now. I don’t have the draft on me presently(!!!), and once I go home, I don’t have Internet access (can’t afford it, because I’m severely short on cash…). I realize this is tough…sorry about the inconvenience.

A few observations about this case study:

A number of things stand out in reading this second case. One is the antagonism that appears to exist between the “official” MIS arm of this organization (MSD—Management Sciences Division), and Wagner Development, the main focus of this case study. I sense the other divisions don’t have a good working relationship with MSD, because they already have their IS departments, and second, because MSD has a different role in this company; instead of being the main IS arm (as they had been originally), they appear to be more concerned with coordinating the different infrastructure items (e.g., hardware, software, routers) so that each division is able to utilize them.

I got the sense that in this case study, James wants to solve the present problems all by himself, without involving either an outside consultant or MSD. The sense I get is that MSD is to be left out for being “unresponsive.” It appears that the major problem that presents is that Wagner Development was unable to get the amount of support they felt they should have received (this case study does not mention exactly what actions, or lack thereof, caused Wagner development to come to this conclusion.), and so they developed their own MIS/IT arm, with Weeks as the head of IT.  I have comments and issues about his ability to head IT, which I’ll mention later on.

I suspect the issues here are political, with respect to competition for MSDs resources, along with Week’s ego…and I do suspect he has one here. I sense at the end of this case study, Weeks is getting ready to make his argument that he is capable of running IT on his own, and that he wants to convince the others (French and Barber) that he has the situation in hand. I think he does not…because his background is incorrect, and because he is excluding his resources at hand from helping out—a giant mistake in light of what the current situation is. The problem is, as I see it, is that the situation is not in control, and because of the initial setup for the software system, won’t be without utilizing some of the resources available to him; specifically, MSD and the software vendor. They should be bought in to help resolve the situation…unless it can be shown that they can’t work together. I see the probelm, in part, as a function of political relationships within the company, perhaps bought on by a sense of autonomy that Wager fostered for its divisions. I think the autonomy was a mistake…in part, with respect to IT and MIS.

This case study points out where some problems are with the current IT setup (inability to access prior year data, change data that appears to need it on a routine basis and the need to have some enhancements to their present program.). The memo shown as Appendix 1 points out the IS problems that Wagner Development is having…and levels an accusation at Weeks that he is not being “responsive.” Appendix 2, from Stacy to French and Weeks, attempts to refutes what are considered shortcomings with support from MSD. It appears that Weeks has a particular problem with MSD; why this situation exists cannot be ascertained directly from either memo…but only indirectly.

My thought is that Weeks isn’t the right person to head the IT department in Wagner Development, because of his background. The bio notes that his background is in accounting…not in computers and IT. That in and of itself shouldn’t disqualify him, but it appears in this case, he knows just enough to be a danger to himself and to the unit. His unwillingness to involve other parties in solving the problems in his unit indicates to me he might have too big an ego for the position.

Let me stop here, for the time being…to allow comments and observations…

Case Study 2…click here

Mark

Posted in FSC | 18 Comments »

Who said it would be easy? From the Boston Globe, 4/8/08…(our take)

April 8th, 2008

Universal health coverage. On paper it looks good, but I take issue here with some of the assertions this Globe editorial makes, especially its assertion that money be pumped into the initiative only when absolutely necessary. We think this initiative needs far more money then the General Court will ever give to it, or else a bigger investment from business. Lacking either of those, we think this ambitious law will die before it even knows what happened to it.

 

There are major problems with mandating that every citizen in the Commonwealth obtain health insurance, under penalty of law, and then barring people from using the health clinics without having said insurance. When I first heard of the law, I was all for it…until I was actually required to pay for health insurance. The rub? The cost. The health insurance premiums weren’t priced to be within reach of the poorest individuals and families in the State. Prices are high here; an ever-increasing amount of cash goes for rent, food, utilities, and transportation…and lately, those costs have been going up at a rate that outpaces raises—if the person is lucky to get a raise (in my case, I got a 5% salary cut for going from full-time permanent to relief on my job). And I haven’t even gotten to clothing, laundry, dining out (which is so prevalent with our on-the-go constantly lifestyle, almost every American can say they ate out during this past year.). And for no small portion of the citizens of this State, the cost will continue to be a real deterrent for them to obtain health insurance. This law did not adequately address the cost to those poorest individuals here in Massachusetts. As written, this law will never cover them, because it demands payment from those who are near-poor: The ones who make above the official poverty level…but not rich enough to be able to pay for the health insurance. What makes this law so bad, in its present form? A cost is now imposed on those who cannot afford it, at penalty of paying the Department of Revenue half of what buying health insurance through the Commonwealth Connector would cost. That imposes an economic hardship on the poorest of the poor. Couple that with a nearly 10% rise in the premiums charged by Commonwealth Care, and it is a recipe for disaster for the poor in this State.

 

We think this law is no good, as it is written; perhaps because the coalition that formed this law put more of the responsibility of paying for health insurance on the individual…and not enough on either government or business. And that is precisely the problem…an intractable problem for the poor who do not make a living wage, which I’ll define as one that, once the taxes are paid, provide enough for a person to pay their rent or mortgage, pay for essentials such as heat and other utilities (including the phone and high-speed Internet), and transportation, be it for subway/commuter rail passes, or gas, insurance, and maintenance for the family car. We also think that universal health coverage is something that has been long, long overdue—not only in Massachusetts, but throughout the Nation. We propose that anyone—individual or family—making less then $40,000.00 a year ought to be entitled to obtain free health insurance from Commonwealth Care. We concede that even that might not be totally acceptable for every individual or family…but it would be a better position then those poor have now. The additional burden of paying for health insurance will bring people to the breaking point financially. And that’s not acceptable for individuals and families who presently must chose between what expenses they will or will not pay, with respect to necessities. Pay the insurance…or the rent. As things currently stand, if you fall ill and do not have health insurance—because you can’t afford even the cheapest health insurance offered by the Commonwealth—you can’t see the doctor in the clinic you have been using. I am in that position now, and it’s dangerous for me, having high blood pressure. I don’t have to worry, if I get the same treatment in the hospital, as I did just a few days ago. But, as the experts will tell you, it’s not a cost-effective way to spend health care dollars. All agree that it is better to finance the trip to the clinic, then it is to have the uninsured person go off to the hospital when he is sicker, and it’s more difficult to treat their ailment.

 

We think there is something fundamentally wrong with a law that prevents individuals who are sick from going to their doctors, in their own health clinics. We think the other, more sensible solution, is to fully fund the neighborhood clinics, and then allow them to see everyone within the community, without charge—regardless of the person’s ability to pay for his or her own health insurance (which we think ought to then be provided without charge for those making less then that $40,000.00 a year mentioned above). That encourages people to see their doctor, rather then waiting for an expensive condition to rear its ugly head, putting the person in the hospital and costing all parties much more to cure then it would have been to either prevent or treat early, when the problem was still small.

In order for this health insurance to truly work, and deliver the promise of health insurance for 100% of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we think the Federal government must also have a role in infusing money into this program. Without that buy-in…health care reform will remain elusive, and too expensive for the Commonwealth to handle alone.  

Posted in Commentary | No Comments »

Some thoughts about the Health Care Law in Massachusetts…

March 28th, 2008

On Monday, as part of our class on Human Resource Management, we are to debate the health care law in Massachusetts. I have a lot to say about this law, as it impacted me directly…and not in the way I had hoped it would. It’s a prime example of a good idea gone bad, because of poor implementation and lack of foresight. I say that nicely, because the other thing that could be said about this law is that it is a collateral attack against the poor of this State.

 

What went wrong…so utterly wrong as to cause me to look down at this law with disdain? When I found out that I could not obtain a certificate of exemption…despite having the proofs necessary to do so. When I found out that the premiums I would have to pay would be prohibitively expensive. When I found I could not get my wife insured under the Commonwealth’s insurance scheme, forcing her to go through her school, and thus costing us more money then we both have to pay for the commodity.

 

This law wasn’t supposed to work like that…I don’t think. The premise was simple: require every citizen of the Commonwealth to carry health insurance, and to subsidize the bill for those who couldn’t afford to pay. You could almost see where it was going to go: it required a good deal of compromise before it was passed, over the concerns of the business community, who stated they would have to pay too much. You knew right then, that the end result was that the workers were going to be made to foot most of the bill over this…

 

And that was exactly the case. A person making roughly $30,000 a year in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be expected to pay $134.00 a month for health insurance. Looks affordable…right? Or is it? Let’s look a little bit at how much it would take from the person making that amount of money. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your tax bite is about 22%. That’s about reasonable, if you’re single. Your check then gets shrunken to about $23,355.00 for the year. Your net is roughly $1,946.25 per month. Now you see where the problem lies? Let’s say you’re really lucky, and you pay $875.00 a month for rent. If you’re married, living in Boston, and you’re riding the subway, you’re buying passes that cost you $118.00 a month. You food is going to run you another $400.00 a month (it has been rising precipitously in recent months…). With a lot of doing, your expenses might look something like this:

 

Rent

    

$ 875.00

Food

    

$ 390.00

Transport

    

$ 118.00

Dining

    

$ 260.00

Health Insurance:

  

$ 135.00

Utilities

      

Gas

  

$17.00

 

Electric

  

$60.00

 

Phone/TV/Internet:

$120.00

 

Total utilities

  

$ 197.00

Laundry:

    

$ 43.33

Misc.

    

$ 50.00

       

Total monthly expenses:

  

$ 2,068.33

     

As you can see…your expenses would outstrip your income. Mind you, I’m assuming you get a break on the rent: the average one-bedroom in this city runs about $1,500.00 a month. If that were the case…you would still be left in a very bad position financially. And this is if you have a really simple life. Now…let’s assume for a moment you’re married, and both you and your spouse go to school. Let’s say (again, for the sake of argument) you’re paying at least one tuition, and receiving money back from financial aid. You still have a problem which is still worse then the average person, because the Commonwealth will counter by saying because your spouse goes to school, she can obtain health insurance from her school. Even if she can’t…that will still be the assumption. And if the other spouse is attending school—even only part-time—the argument will be, he can also obtain health insurance through the school—even if, again, this isn’t the case (you could go to grad school, and the school would technically call you a full-time student. Yet you wouldn’t get the school’s insurance, because you don’t take enough units. I know this happens to grad students…).

 

If you work full-time and your employer offers you health insurance…you could refuse it, but you do so at your peril. Because the Commonwealth can deny you their insurance on the grounds that you already have other insurance you can obtain. Maybe…sound confusing yet? It should! But if it isn’t affordable, you could then get Commonwealth Care, the State’s health insurance. At least you can…now. One day, you might not be able to, because they will run broke or they will end up at a point where they can take no more persons onto their rolls. It’ll be like Welfare…you know, the government program whereby a person could apply for cash benefits if they had absolutely nothing going for them.

 

Too many people I see now can’t pay the required health insurance premiums…and there is very little relief for it. Sure, you can ask for a waiver…under very specific circumstances, and at specified times. You can’t simply write and ask for a waiver, as far as I can see; if you want relief, you have to do it when you file your tax return with the Commonwealth.

 

More to follow…

Posted in Commentary | No Comments »

Important news from New England Press

March 15th, 2008

On March 2nd, we began the process of moving our website to a new hosting server. This move has proven to be somewhat more involved then originally planned for. As you have no doubt noticed, more then a few links to our former content are no longer in use. We are now in the process of restoring our content and pictures that were part of the old New England Press; until then, some of the pages you formerly were able to access before won’t be visible. We expect it will take about a week to restore most of the content I had on these pages before. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 

We plan to improve our content on New England Press, with a special emphasis on carrying financial aid news for U.S. college students. We think it is a high priority for our college readers, and we will be giving it more space and attention in the coming months.

 

This website is a one-man operation…built with the backing of many people behind the scenes at our web hosting site. Please bear with us during this time of transition. We will be back…better then ever.

 

Sincerely:

Mark Murphy

New England Press.

  

Posted in News | No Comments »