The “Glass Ceiling”

Lisa Weber never doubted that she would be a partner in her Wall Street firm. A graduate of a prestigious business school with a doctorate in economics, she had taught briefly at a major university. She was the first woman hired as a market analyst in her well-regarded firm. Within two years, she became one of four senior portfolio managers reporting directly to a senior partner. Her clients give her the highest commendations for her outstanding performance; over the past two years, she has brought in the largest number of new accounts to the firm.

Despite the admiration of her colleagues and their seeming acceptance of her, there is a disturbing, if flattering, aspect to her job. Most of her peers and some of the partners visit her office during the day to discuss in private her opinions on market performance and financial projections. She enjoys these private sessions but is dismayed that at the weekly staff meetings the CEO, Michael Breyer, usually says something like, “Okay, let’s get started and bring Lisa up to date on some of the trouble spots.” None of her peers or the partners mention that Lisa knows as much as they do about what’s going on in the firm. She never protests this slight to her competence and knowledge of firm business, nor does she mention the almost-daily private meetings where her advice is sought. As the only woman on the executive level, she prefers to be considered a team player and one of the boys.

In the past year, one of her peers has been promoted to partner, although Lisa’s performance clearly surpassed his, as measured by the success of her accounts and the amount of new business she brought to the firm. Having heard no mention of partnership for herself, she approached her boss, one of the partners, and asked about the path to a partnership. He replied, “You’re doing great, Lisa, but professors do not partners make. What happens if you are a partner and you make a huge mistake? How would you take it? And what about our clients? There’s never been a female partner in the 103 years of our firm. ”Shortly thereafter, another woman, Pamela Tobias, was hired as a marketing analyst. Once, when the CEO saw Lisa and Pamela together, he called out to the men, “Hey, guys, two women in one room. That’s scary.”

During the next six months, Lisa meets several time with the CEO to make her case for a partnership on the basis of her performance. She finally realizes that there is no possibility of change in the foreseeable future and decides to leave and form her own investment firm.

Questions

1. What advancement barriers did Lisa encounter?
2. What should the firm’s top executives, including Michael, have done differently to retain Lisa?
3. What type of organizational policies and opportunities might have benefited Lisa and Pamela?
4. What could the organization do to raise the gender consciousness of Michael and Lisa’s male colleagues?

(25points)EOQ / (Q,r) policy: This question is motivated by the Littlefield game, but is on (Q,r) inventory control. Notes about data:The data here may or may not correspond to the data in the dry-run or actual Littlefield game play. In fact, the data in this question is customized to each student. Let n = integer corresponding to the sum of the last four digits of yourUC M# -if you are taking this in a group, you may pick either student’s M#to answer this question. For instance, if the last 4 digits of your M# is 1234, n= 1+2+3+4 = 10. Suppose you will play the Littlefield Game and you forecast that the daily demand rate is growing from day 1till day 120 and then stabilizes (stays flat after simulated day 120) at a mean value of 9units per day with a standard deviation of 3 units per day, where std.dev. is approximated by sqrt(mean). In answering these Littlefield related questions, pretend that you are planning for the interval of time after day 120. Each customer demand unit consists of (is made from) 60 kits of material. The cost per kit is 10$ and so the unit cost is 600 $/unit. The effective annual interest rate for working capital (carrying WIP inventory) is 10%$/$, year; and the company operates for 350 working days each year. The fixed order cost is 500*(1+??18)$/order, where n was discussed above; where you may round the fixed order cost to the nearest integer. The lead time for delivery of kit replenishment orders placed with the supplier is 4 days. Item inventory replenishment is automatically controlled using a computer program that follows a (Q,r) policya)

a.) (9points)Calculate a good value for the order quantity Qand a good Power-of-Two reorder interval in days(clearly show the approach you used to pick your Power-of-two reorder interval). Calculate the order quantity corresponding to your Power-of-Two Interval. By what percentage does the power-of-two reorder interval increase relevant annual fixed order and inventory cycle-stock holding costs, relative to the optimal [economic] reorder interval?

b)(*9points)Calculate a good reorder point, r, corresponding to a target in-stock service level probability or critical ratio of min(70+n, 98)%, where nwas discussed in the preface to these (Q,r) questions. For instance if n= 10, the target in-stock service level is min(70+10, 98) = 80%; if n = 35, the target in-stock level is min(70+35, 98) = 98%. How much cost does the demand uncertainty add to your relevant annual inventory cost(due to the safety stock)? How would you decide if these costs areworth adding or not?

c.) (*7points)This question is not related to a and b above. Answer any one of questions, below either EOQ or Reorder Point; treat each question as ceteris paribus (all other things being equal / unchanged).EOQ/ Cycle Stock:Suppose you take one large warehouse serving demand in all of the United States for a single product (with an annual demand of 20,000 units) and you replaced it with four similar-sized warehouses (each with an annual demand of 5,000 units). Each warehouse independently follows its EOQ for reordering the product from the supplier. Assuming the cost parameters A and h remain the same, quantify the effect of splitting the large warehouse into four smaller warehouses on the system’s total cycle stock. Pick your answer from the following (circle all that apply)and explain your choice: 1. It doubles2. It increases by less than double 3. It increases by more than double4. It is halved. 5. It decreases6. It does not change7. Cannot say what will happenWhat is a summary takeaway lesson from this question and its answer?OR