I really don’t understand how to go about doing this.
- Attachment 1
- Attachment 2
- Attachment 3
Making Business Decisions:The Kentucky Milk Case(To accompany Chapters 1 and 2) There are many things that could be included in a report about the possibility of collusion. I have concentrated onthe incumbency rates, bid levels and dispersion, and average winning bids. With the data available, no comparisonof market share can be made since there was so much missing data. Actually, with the data available, the exactanalysis cannot be made, since only the winning bid information is provided. Thus, we have no idea what the losingbids were. I will present what I think is a reasonable solution. This is by no means the only solution to the case.Many other presentations could also be used.Incumbency RatesThe incumbency rate is the percent of the school districts that are won by the same vendor who won the previousyear. A table containing the incumbency rates is included as well as a plot. Notice in the plot that the incumbencyrates in the Tri-county market is higher than that in the Surrounding market. From 1985 through 1988, theincumbency rate for the Tri-county market was never lower than .923, while in the same period in the Surroundingmarket, the incumbency rate was never higher than .730. This implies the possibility of collusion in the Tri-countymarket. Year19841985198619871988198919901991 Surrounding MarketNumber ofSameIncumbencyDistrictsVendorsRate2616.6152719.7043219.5943727.7303725.6763723.6223424.70653.600 Tri-county MarketNumber ofSameIncumbencyDistrictsVendorsRate108.80012121.00013131.0001312.92313131.000139.6921310.7691311.846 90Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 91 The plot of the incumbency rates is: Bid Levels and DispersionSince we only have access to the winning bids in each of the school districts, we cannot make a true analysis of thebid levels and dispersions. As a compromise, I have used the winning bids of the two dairies in question—Trauthand Meyer. I have looked at only the winning bids of these two dairies in both the Tri-county market and in theSurrounding market. If there was no collusion, then the winning bids and the dispersions of the winning bids shouldbe similar in the two markets for the two dairies. I looked at the box plots of the winning bids of the two dairies ineach market for each type of milk: whole white, lowfat white and lowfat chocolate. I have included only a few ofthe box plots as illustrations. Those included are for 1985 and 1986. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 92 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 1985 Winning Bids: OBS MARKET WINNER WHOLEWHITE LOWFATWHITE LOWFATCHOCOLATE 1234567891011121314151617181920 SURSURSURSURSURSURSURTRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRI MEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERMEYERMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTH 0.12800.1200..0.12250.12300.12500.14400.14500.14100.13930.13400.1445.0.1449.0.14800.1310.0.1435 0.12500.11100.10790.11900.11300.11300.11450.14400.13500.14100.13930.13400.13450.13450.13490.12990.14800.12900.13800.1335 0.13150.10900.10790.12100.10990.11200.1140..0.1410.0.13400.1395.0.13990.12990.1480… Box Plots for Whole White Milk—1985Boxplots for Whole White Milk – 19850.1500.145 WWBID 0.1400.1350.1300.1250.120S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U NTYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 93 Box Plots for Lowfat White Milk—1985Boxplots for Lowfat White Milk – 19850.15 L FWBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Box Plots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk—1985Boxplots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk – 19850.15 LFCBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 94 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case For each type of milk, the mean and median winning bids for the Tri-county market were higher than thecorresponding winning bids in the Surrounding market. Also, the dispersion, indicated by the width of the boxesand the length of the whiskers, for the Surrounding market is larger than for the Tri-county market in most cases.This is indicative of collusion in the Tri-county market. This same pattern also existed in 1986.1986 Winning Bids: OBS MARKET WINNER WHOLEWHITE LOWFATWHITE LOWFATCHOCOLATE 123456789101112131415161718192021 SURSURSURSURSURSURSURSURTRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRI TRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERMEYERMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTH 0.11950.13300.11400.13500.1224..0.12500.14750.14690.14400.14200.13900.1470.0.1474.0.15050.1360.0.1460 0.11000.12400.10700.12500.11240.11100.11800.11250.14750.13690.13400.14200.13900.13700.13800.13740.13490.15050.13200.14300.1360 0.10850.12900.10500.13150.11100.11100.12000.1115..0.1395.0.13900.1420.0.14240.13490.1505… Box Plots for Whole White Milk—1986Boxplots for Whole White Milk – 19860.15 WWBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 95 Box Plots for Lowfat White Milk—1986Boxplots for Lowfat White Milk – 19860.15 L FWBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Box Plots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk—1986Boxplots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk – 19860.15 LFCBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 96 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case The same pattern that existed for 1985 and 1986 also existed in 1984, 1987, and 1988. From 1989 on, the patternno longer existed. Thus, from the plots, it appears that the two dairies were working together from 1984 through1988 in the Tri-county market.I also plotted the mean winning bids for the two dairies in each of the two markets from 1984 through 1991 for eachtype of milk. In all three plots, the mean winning bid in 1983 was almost the same in the two markets. Then, in1984, the mean winning bid in the Tri-county market was higher than in the Surrounding market for all three typesof milk. This trend holds basically through 1988 (the lowfat white milk mean winning bid for the Surroundingmarket was greater than the mean winning bid in the Tri-county market in 1988). After 1988, the mean winningbids in the two markets are almost the same. This points to collusion in the Tri-county market from 1984 through1988. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 97 The dispersion, measured using the standard deviation, of the winning bids for each of the three types of milk wasbasically smaller in the Tri-county market than in the Surrounding market for the years 1985 through 1988. Again,after 1988 this pattern no longer existed. Again, this points to collusion between the two dairies in the Tri-countymarket during the years 1984 through 1988. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 98 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making Business Decisions The Kentucky Milk Case To Accompany Chapters 1 And 2 T
/in Uncategorized /by developerI really don’t understand how to go about doing this.
Making Business Decisions:The Kentucky Milk Case(To accompany Chapters 1 and 2) There are many things that could be included in a report about the possibility of collusion. I have concentrated onthe incumbency rates, bid levels and dispersion, and average winning bids. With the data available, no comparisonof market share can be made since there was so much missing data. Actually, with the data available, the exactanalysis cannot be made, since only the winning bid information is provided. Thus, we have no idea what the losingbids were. I will present what I think is a reasonable solution. This is by no means the only solution to the case.Many other presentations could also be used.Incumbency RatesThe incumbency rate is the percent of the school districts that are won by the same vendor who won the previousyear. A table containing the incumbency rates is included as well as a plot. Notice in the plot that the incumbencyrates in the Tri-county market is higher than that in the Surrounding market. From 1985 through 1988, theincumbency rate for the Tri-county market was never lower than .923, while in the same period in the Surroundingmarket, the incumbency rate was never higher than .730. This implies the possibility of collusion in the Tri-countymarket. Year19841985198619871988198919901991 Surrounding MarketNumber ofSameIncumbencyDistrictsVendorsRate2616.6152719.7043219.5943727.7303725.6763723.6223424.70653.600 Tri-county MarketNumber ofSameIncumbencyDistrictsVendorsRate108.80012121.00013131.0001312.92313131.000139.6921310.7691311.846 90Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 91 The plot of the incumbency rates is: Bid Levels and DispersionSince we only have access to the winning bids in each of the school districts, we cannot make a true analysis of thebid levels and dispersions. As a compromise, I have used the winning bids of the two dairies in question—Trauthand Meyer. I have looked at only the winning bids of these two dairies in both the Tri-county market and in theSurrounding market. If there was no collusion, then the winning bids and the dispersions of the winning bids shouldbe similar in the two markets for the two dairies. I looked at the box plots of the winning bids of the two dairies ineach market for each type of milk: whole white, lowfat white and lowfat chocolate. I have included only a few ofthe box plots as illustrations. Those included are for 1985 and 1986. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 92 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 1985 Winning Bids: OBS MARKET WINNER WHOLEWHITE LOWFATWHITE LOWFATCHOCOLATE 1234567891011121314151617181920 SURSURSURSURSURSURSURTRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRI MEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERMEYERMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTH 0.12800.1200..0.12250.12300.12500.14400.14500.14100.13930.13400.1445.0.1449.0.14800.1310.0.1435 0.12500.11100.10790.11900.11300.11300.11450.14400.13500.14100.13930.13400.13450.13450.13490.12990.14800.12900.13800.1335 0.13150.10900.10790.12100.10990.11200.1140..0.1410.0.13400.1395.0.13990.12990.1480… Box Plots for Whole White Milk—1985Boxplots for Whole White Milk – 19850.1500.145 WWBID 0.1400.1350.1300.1250.120S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U NTYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 93 Box Plots for Lowfat White Milk—1985Boxplots for Lowfat White Milk – 19850.15 L FWBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Box Plots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk—1985Boxplots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk – 19850.15 LFCBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 94 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case For each type of milk, the mean and median winning bids for the Tri-county market were higher than thecorresponding winning bids in the Surrounding market. Also, the dispersion, indicated by the width of the boxesand the length of the whiskers, for the Surrounding market is larger than for the Tri-county market in most cases.This is indicative of collusion in the Tri-county market. This same pattern also existed in 1986.1986 Winning Bids: OBS MARKET WINNER WHOLEWHITE LOWFATWHITE LOWFATCHOCOLATE 123456789101112131415161718192021 SURSURSURSURSURSURSURSURTRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRITRI TRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERMEYERMEYERTRAUTHTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTHMEYERTRAUTH 0.11950.13300.11400.13500.1224..0.12500.14750.14690.14400.14200.13900.1470.0.1474.0.15050.1360.0.1460 0.11000.12400.10700.12500.11240.11100.11800.11250.14750.13690.13400.14200.13900.13700.13800.13740.13490.15050.13200.14300.1360 0.10850.12900.10500.13150.11100.11100.12000.1115..0.1395.0.13900.1420.0.14240.13490.1505… Box Plots for Whole White Milk—1986Boxplots for Whole White Milk – 19860.15 WWBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 95 Box Plots for Lowfat White Milk—1986Boxplots for Lowfat White Milk – 19860.15 L FWBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Box Plots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk—1986Boxplots for Lowfat Chocolate Milk – 19860.15 LFCBID 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10S U RRO U N D TRI-C O U N TYM A RKET Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 96 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case The same pattern that existed for 1985 and 1986 also existed in 1984, 1987, and 1988. From 1989 on, the patternno longer existed. Thus, from the plots, it appears that the two dairies were working together from 1984 through1988 in the Tri-county market.I also plotted the mean winning bids for the two dairies in each of the two markets from 1984 through 1991 for eachtype of milk. In all three plots, the mean winning bid in 1983 was almost the same in the two markets. Then, in1984, the mean winning bid in the Tri-county market was higher than in the Surrounding market for all three typesof milk. This trend holds basically through 1988 (the lowfat white milk mean winning bid for the Surroundingmarket was greater than the mean winning bid in the Tri-county market in 1988). After 1988, the mean winningbids in the two markets are almost the same. This points to collusion in the Tri-county market from 1984 through1988. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case 97 The dispersion, measured using the standard deviation, of the winning bids for each of the three types of milk wasbasically smaller in the Tri-county market than in the Surrounding market for the years 1985 through 1988. Again,after 1988 this pattern no longer existed. Again, this points to collusion between the two dairies in the Tri-countymarket during the years 1984 through 1988. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. 98 Making Business Decisions: The Kentucky Milk Case Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making Meaning Making Sense Children S Early Language Learning Chapter 9 Languag
/in Uncategorized /by developerRecommended Resource
Website
Week 5 Discussion 1
Language Acquisition Resource Discussion
Many resources are available to help us continue to develop our knowledge of language acquisition. As professionals, you will need to identify and evaluate the resources available to you. Please spend some time evaluating professional resources linked to language acquisition.
For this discussion, choose a specific language acquisition topic to explore further. Several examples include our previous topics of bilingualism, communication disorders, language developmental stages, brain research, supportive language acquisition practices, family support of language acquisition, etc. Write the topic you explored in the subject line of your discussion post. Then, provide three sources that can be used to learn more about this topic. Your sources may include a journal article, webpage, video, research, podcast, etc. Include links where appropriate, and be sure to cite all sources in APA format.
Your 300-350 word post should include the following for each selected source:
When you submit your assignments each week, they will be returned to you with specific feedback. This feedback should be used to revise the assignment for the Final Project. Please make the necessary corrections and apply them to your Final Project, which is due in Week Five.
Week 5 Discussion 2
Week 5 – Journal
Practice and Reflection
As an educator, a large portion of learning and growth comes from reflection and refinement.
For this week’s journal, use this self-reflection rubric to evaluate the effectiveness of your lesson plan from Week Four. Elaborate on the areas of strength in your lesson plan, as well as those areas in need of improvement.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making Moral Argumentsthis Week S Lesson Covered Four Different Moral Theories I
/in Uncategorized /by developerMaking Moral Arguments
This week’s lesson covered four different moral theories. In your assignment for this week, you will be working with a group to describe the four moral theories:
Use the following moral theory:
· Deontology
Create a Google Slides document that allows for collaboration across the group.
Each member of the group will be responsible for outlining and explaining one moral theory. Color code your individual contributions using slides with different colored backgrounds.
Your slides should contain at least the following:
· A description of the moral theory you have chosen.
· An explanation of the decision-making procedure that it describes.
· An application of the decision-making procedure to a specific moral issue of practical relevance (e.g. the morality of telling a lie).
· An evaluation of the merits or demerits of the moral theory. Does it offer a plausible account of right/wrong action? Are there any problems that it faces? What are these problems?
You should be as detailed as possible when putting together your presentation. Your presentation should contain an introductory slide, which should contain the name of the group members and the details of their contributions.
When turning in your presentations, each member of the group will submit the entire group’s final presentation as a single document.
View your assignment rubric.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making Norwich Tools Lathe Investment Decision Norwich Tool A Large Machine Shop
/in Uncategorized /by developerMaking Norwich Tools Lathe Investment Decision. Norwich Tool, a large machine shop, is considering replacing one of its lathes with either of two new lathes lathe A or lathe B. Lathe A is a highly automated, computer-controlled lathe; lathe B is a less expensive lathe that uses standard technology. To analyze these alternatives, Mario Jackson, a financial analyst, prepared estimates of the initial investment and incremental (relevant) cash inflows associated with each lathe. These are shown in the following table.Lathe A Lathe BInitial investment (CF0) $ 660,000 $ 360,000Year ( t) Cash inflows ( CFt)1 $ 128,000 $ 88,0002 182,000 120,0003 166,000 96,0004 168,000 86,0005 450,000 207,000Note that Mario plans to analyze both lathes over a 5- year period. At the end of that time, the lathes would be sold, thus accounting for the large fifth-year cash inflows. Mario believes that the two lathes are equally risky and that the acceptance of either of them will not change the firms overall risk. He therefore decides to apply the firms 13% cost of capital when analyzing the lathes. Norwich Tool requires all projects to have a maximum payback period of 4.0 years.To Doa. Use the payback period to assess the acceptability and relative ranking of each lathe.b. Assuming equal risk, use the following sophisticated capital budgeting techniques to assess the acceptability and relative ranking of each lathe:(1) Net present value (NPV).(2) Internal rate of return (IRR).c. Summarize the preferences indicated by the techniques used in parts a and b, and indicate which lathe you recommend, if either(1) if the firm has unlimited funds(2) if the firm has capital rationing.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making Reference To Two Specific Incidences Described In Your Reading Explain Ho
/in Uncategorized /by developer"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making Sentences Economical Revise The Following Sentences For More Economical W
/in Uncategorized /by developermaking sentences economical
revise the following sentences for more economical wording
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making The Case For Quality July 2009 Optimizing Purchasing Processes Saves 1 Mi
/in Uncategorized /by developerRead the case study that explains how optimizing a purchasing process saved $1 million. Explain how you, as a quality manager, would apply at least three of the 7M tools for the purchasing process identified at MWM International.
7 M tools are : 7M ToolsAmong the many tools used in Six Sigma projects, the following 7M (the M stands for “management”) tools are popular for their advantages and ease of use:Affinity diagramTree diagramProcess decision program chartY-shaped matrix diagramInterrelationship digraphPrioritization matrixActivity network diagram
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Making Using Selling Or Offering To Sell A Patent Invention Without The Permissi
/in Uncategorized /by developerMaking, using, selling or offering to sell a patent invention without the permission not a patent owner is considered a(n) ____________.
Patent deception Patent breach Patent infringement Patent encroachment
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Mal Procedure For Handling The Collection Of Accounts Receivable Previously Writ
/in Uncategorized /by developerWhat is the normal procedure for handling the collection of accounts receivable previously written off using the direct write-off method? Using the allowance method? What is the accounts receivable turnover ratio, and what type of information does it provide?
In the direct write off method the bad debt is recorded as an expense in the period in which theaccounts receivables become uncollectible. The loss is recorded by debiting the Bad DebtExpense…
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Malcolm In The Middle Season 1 Episode 16
/in Uncategorized /by developerDirections: After watching season 1, episode 16 the “Water Park” episode of Malcolm in the Middle, write an essay that answers the following questions.
1. Integrity is an extremely interesting concept. When we use it to refer to a building or a bridge, we are referring to structural issues: the building or bridge’s ability to withstand not only normal uses but also extreme circumstances: storms, earthquakes, and floods, for example. When we use this term to describe people, we can mean their ability to maintain their moral standards even in the face of temptation. What is your definition of integrity?
2. Using your definition of integrity, analyze the following parts of the episode:
a) Hal and Lois’s decision to procure a babysitter–any babysitter–for Dewey so that they can have fun at the park.
b) Hal’s decision to smuggle a pint of rum into the park.
c) Hal and Lois’s decision to ignore their two sons and concentrate on each other. d) The behavior of the attendant at the top (entry point) of the monster water ride.
e) The decision by Francis and Spangler to deliberately lose each game of pool that they play against each other.
f) The fact that after the elderly babysitter is taken away via ambulance, both the emergency medical technicians and the neighbors fail to realize that Dewey has been left home alone.
Guidelines: Use the following guidelines for this assignment
1. Use a minimum of 700 words
2. The essay must be typed, double-spaced, and follow MLA format
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"