Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Education Saudi Electronic University المملكة العربية

Daddy Eco has utility function of , where x1 is his consumption

Daddy Eco has utility function of , where x1 is his consumption of pizza, and x2 is his consumption of coke. P1 and P2 are prices for x1 and x2 respectively and M is his income

Find the slope of Daddy’s indifference curve.

Find the slope of Daddy’s budget line.

Solve for x2.

Now you need to find his demand for Pizza as a function of her income and prices.

If Daddy has income of $200, P1 is $2 and P2 is $4, how much Pizza and Coke will he consume?[supanova_question]

1 Making Local Knowledge Global Keith Cerny As his airplane circled Heathrow

1

Making Local Knowledge Global

Keith Cerny

As his airplane circled Heathrow Airport for the fifth time, David Martin once again rehearsed in his mind how he wanted that afternoon’s meeting with Lexington Labs’ senior sales executives to play out. He had a feeling it wouldn’t go the way he hoped.

As chief operating officer of the Boston-area pharmaceutical company, Martin was responsible for motivating and guiding the operating management—from country managers to marketing executives—in Lexington’s international locations. When he had started at the company eight years earlier, gatherings with the sales force had been fun, informal celebrations of Lexington’s extraordinary success. Everyone knew one another, it seemed, and the sales conferences included as much socializing as they did sharing of information about customers, competitors, and new sales and marketing techniques. No longer. These days, with Lexington’s expansion to 60 offices in two dozen countries, many sales executives knew one another only by name, if at all. Moreover, in recent years, most of the company’s top sales personnel had begun to focus hard on their own businesses as major changes swept through the health care industry.

Indeed, those changes were already affecting Lexington’s bottom line. Eighteen months before, the company’s performance had begun to soften. Sales, which had passed $1 billion 10 years ago, were falling, as were earnings. Of course, Martin already had taken some measures to rectify what he saw as a major part of the problem—a lack of information sharing across borders—and he planned to take more. But as he anticipated that afternoon’s meeting in London with the company’s top sales executives, he was beginning to wonder if a more radical overhaul of operations might be in order.

The success of Lexington Labs was well known in the pharmaceutical industry. Founded in 2001 by three doctors and an M.B.A. who had been friends since childhood, the company leveraged the scientific and medical experience available in the Boston area and soon produced Azinomax, a leading blood-pressure medication. The product was a home run and swiftly seized a major share in several important markets. Azinomax’s success gave Lexington the resources to develop a half dozen other important drugs and to diversify away from cardiovascular products. Within 10 years, the company’s portfolio was diverse enough to include X-ray contrast media, synthetic hormones, and oral contraceptives.

At the same time that it was building its product-line breadth, Lexington Labs was establishing an international presence, moving aggressively into Canada, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Martin had worked closely with the company’s founding partners on the international expansion, and they all had agreed on their strategy: to set up decentralized, highly independent offices and give their managers the freedom to hire locally, as well as to develop local relationships and processes. The reasoning: Once you had good products, success in the pharmaceutical industry depended on whom you knew, from the government regulators who had to approve every drug to the doctors who prescribed or recommended them. With its decentralized structure, Lexington Labs was able to employ well-connected “locals” who could tailor their sales techniques to their country’s business environment and culture. Clearly, the plan had worked. Until recently, Lexington’s results spoke for themselves.

But as Martin gazed out the airplane’s window at the English countryside, he reflected that Lexington’s decentralized structure, once such a strength, had now become a serious weakness. Decentralization had worked well for the exigencies of the old health-care industry, in which representatives of pharmaceutical companies succeeded by developing personal relationships with individual doctors. The new health-care industry was strikingly different. A new sensitivity to price meant that governments were beginning to place restrictions on reimbursements and, in many cases, to recommend the use of generic drugs. It also was getting harder in some countries to obtain regulatory approval for new drugs; as a result, pharmaceutical companies no longer could rely on new products to boost sales.

But most critical for Lexington Labs were the changes taking place in the way drugs were being prescribed. New decision makers—most notably government officials and hospital administrators—were now very much in the mix, often having final say on which drugs could be prescribed for a wide range of conditions. The impact on the sales process was enormous. Suddenly, sales reps had to develop new relationships with individuals they did not know and, perhaps more important, with individuals who demanded a whole new type of sales presentation, including complex information about a drug’s cost-effectiveness. Increasingly, Lexington Labs’ sales reps were finding themselves in front of medication-approval committees, bombarded with tough questions about health care economics and product efficacy. Many came away feeling that they needed backup in the form of an “expert team” from within Lexington, as well as much more financial and medical information to give their audience. They also came away feeling completely demoralized.

The problem seemed clear enough, and Martin sensed that the solution was, too. Lexington Labs needed a system to encourage and facilitate the flow of knowledge across borders. Sales executives around the world needed to communicate about team-selling techniques that worked and about the most persuasive presentations they had developed. Likewise, commonly confronted problems needed to be discussed so that the company didn’t keep making the same mistakes in one market after another. But what kind of system, Martin wondered, would work best? Lexington Labs was no longer a small start-up firm, easily adaptable to new forms of technology or efforts to shape a corporate culture. Simply assuming people would send emails or make phone calls to counterparts in other locations clearly wasn’t enough to ensure good communication.

As the plane circled above the airport one more time, Martin reviewed the steps he already had taken to try to resolve the failure to share knowledge. First, he had arranged for all the company’s senior sales managers to attend a so-called survival course in Canada designed to increase communication and trust among the participants. There had been a lot of excitement about the event, he recalled, but in the end only one-quarter of those invited had shown up. Most had given the same reason for not attending: Performance was too shaky to spare a week away from the office.

Martin had been more successful in creating international project teams to review manufacturing strategy, and that initiative had at least led to some contact between managers from different countries. In fact, two groups of senior manufacturing executives from seven different foreign offices had developed a proposal to rationalize the European plant network. Unfortunately, Martin recalled, Lexington’s board of directors had been reluctant to implement the plan, because they were afraid of undermining relationships with national governments.

Martin’s thoughts were interrupted by the pilot’s voice: The plane finally was cleared for landing, two hours late. By the time he was on the ground, Martin knew he would have to head straight to the hotel’s private dining room, which he had rented for the sales meeting. He hoped no one else had been delayed. He had invited only the company’s top eight sales executives to the session, and every voice mattered. But as soon as he entered the room, Martin noticed one important absence: Andreas Köhler of Germany. Köhler’s second-in-command, Karl Richter, was already present, however, and Martin hoped it would be just a few minutes before Köhler himself arrived.

He said his hellos and quickly invited everyone to the table to begin. Martin’s plan had been to hold a relaxed session over lunch that afternoon, with the main presentations and discussions the following day. But to jump-start what he hoped would be a productive use of time, he had asked all the participants to come to the meeting prepared to make a few comments about their country’s situation.

“I want to begin by thanking you for coming to London for this meeting,” Martin said when everyone was seated. “As you know, our performance has continued to decline, so this meeting has a particular urgency to it. I look forward to hearing from each of you about your own country.” Here Martin paused for emphasis and then went on: “And I would especially like this to be a forum where we all share our ideas about ways to bring Lexington Labs back to its feet. I am confident that, working together, we can leverage our world-class expertise into making this company a world-class competitor again soon.”

In the silence that followed, Martin noticed several executives shifting in their seats and one checking his watch. Martin almost smiled: It could turn out to be a long session.

He glanced at the agenda he had prepared for the meeting. Germany was first. But Köhler still had not arrived. Martin turned to Karl Richter. “Has Andreas’s flight been delayed?” he asked. “Delayed? Not at all,” Richter replied with a shrug. “Andreas is not coming,” he said. “He is meeting with an important customer tomorrow and sends his regards.”

Typical Andreas Köhler, Martin thought to himself. The German operation was one of the few Lexington businesses doing well—still holding top market share in several products. Köhler rarely responded to phone calls from headquarters, and he had flatly refused when Martin asked him to attend the survival course in Canada. “You can call and bother me again when we are losing money,” he had said. “Until then, please leave us alone to run our business.” The comment had been made with a laugh, Martin recalled, but that it reflected the unit’s attitude was no laughing matter.

“So, Karl, why don’t you go ahead and make Germany’s presentation for us today,” Martin said. “Just a few minutes on current—”

“I’m not here to contribute,” said Richter, cutting Martin off, albeit affably. “I’m here to observe. Andreas asked me to take notes. I’m to report the proceedings to him next week—in detail.”

There was muffled laughter around the table.

Martin laughed, too, but he felt a pang of frustration. Köhler’s absence and Richter’s glib comments reinforced to him how complicated it would be to get Lexington Labs, with its independent managers, to take the challenge of knowledge sharing seriously.

Martin turned next to Rebecca Woo, vice president of sales for North America. Woo had been with Lexington Labs for five years, and although she was based in New York City, she and Martin had lunch together once a month. They sometimes discussed the poor coordination among sales operations, and Martin knew that Woo shared his concerns about the lack of communication across borders.

Woo stood up to make her presentation. “At the moment, Lexington Labs is holding steady in the United States, but we’re in for a tough battle as a result of the increasing power of pharmacy benefit managers,” she began, and around the room a few others nodded their heads. “We’ve had some success with aggressive counterselling to individual doctors, but what we really need to do is create teams to make sophisticated presentations to centralized purchasers such as HMOs—”

“We, too, need to persuade centralized purchasers,” interrupted Elaine Rosen, the lead sales executive of Lexington’s British operations. “But we can’t seem to put these teams together.”

Woo nodded and went on: “One problem I’ve noticed again and again is that salespeople prefer to spend their time with loyal doctors, not with the new types of decision makers. Second, even when the salespeople work together on teams, they don’t have the skills to prepare the detailed pharmaco-economic analysis required to justify the purchase of Lexington products. And third, our sales reps just aren’t used to price negotiations, and they end up over-discounting for large purchases.”

“Is any kind of team selling working well?” asked Martin. This was exactly the kind of discussion of common issues he had hoped the meeting in London would spark.

Woo was quick with her answer. “Actually, yes,” she said. “We had a very successful experience selling as a team into New Hampshire Home Care, a leading nursing-home chain in the Northeast. A dedicated team of our people worked intensively with the chain’s executives to put together a detailed plan and economic justification.”

Martin asked Jorge Quesada of the company’s Spanish operations to present next. He knew Quesada had had some experience with team selling in a previous job, and he thought he might elaborate on Woo’s points. But instead, Quesada focused his remarks on what he called “the unique context” of the Spanish marketplace. “We will never have budget limitations in Spain—the government won’t allow it,” he asserted.

“That’s what we said in Germany five years ago,” Richter countered.

“Maybe so,” Quesada replied, “but right now we have other, much more pressing concerns. We are having a great deal of trouble getting Oncoser approved by the regulators. They’re worried that the randomization approach may have introduced some bias in the trial—”

“Oh, we had that problem, too, in Sweden,” interjected Ulf Olsson, that country’s sales manager.

“When?” Quesada asked.

Olsson squinted as he tried to remember. “I’d say about a year ago,” he said at last.

“Why weren’t we told?” Quesada couldn’t hide his exasperation. “Perhaps we might have anticipated the regulators’ criticisms and been ready with some intelligent answers.”

“I told headquarters,” Olsson said. And indeed he had, Martin recalled. The information then had been faxed to each country’s office, but Martin realized he had not followed up after that. In Sweden, Oncoser finally had been approved, but not without a struggle.

Next to make a presentation was François Dupuis, the chief sales executive from France. Educated in Paris and at the London Business School, Dupuis spoke English with almost no accent and his message was clear: The previous year had been dismal for the French operation. The government was attempting to shift Lexington products into categories with lower levels of reimbursement, and at the same time there was concern about the possible introduction of generics to the marketplace.

“Have you considered applying the initiative Rebecca just mentioned—aggressive counterselling to doctors?” Martin asked. “That technique seems to be working in the United States—”

Dupuis stopped Martin with a wave of his hand. “That was something we did look into,” he said. “I spent some time on the phone with a manager in the Chicago office, and he seemed to know a lot about the process; but to tell you the truth, we never really got past generalities. What he was saying made sense for the North American operations, but it didn’t quite fit ours.”

“I heard about that conversation,” Woo said. “Afterward, the manager called me in New York and asked if Lexington had any kind of manual about counterselling that he could send you—something you could adapt to the French environment.”

“And?” Martin prompted her, but he already had guessed the answer. There was no manual, and, beyond that, Lexington’s financial situation wasn’t exactly conducive to freeing up someone’s time to create one.

After presentations from Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands—all sounding by-now familiar themes—Martin turned to Elaine Rosen of the British operations to close up the session. Rosen had been with the company almost since its first days, and Martin knew she had an enormous stake, both financially and emotionally, in its success. In addition, her attitude had always been upbeat. Just a month before, when they had talked about Lexington’s future, she had told Martin she was confident that the company’s international operations could be encouraged to share knowledge to everyone’s benefit.

But Rosen’s tone now was somber as she described the challenges her business was facing. The National Health Service was emphasizing generics, she said, and hospital committees were becoming increasingly important decision makers. To compete, Lexington Labs needed both a team approach and the expertise to make it work.

“Do you have any sales and marketing initiatives planned?” Martin asked Rosen.

She sighed deeply before answering. “Frankly, I’m not sure what we can do at this point,” she said after a moment had passed. “I called on the North American operations for information about their success with New Hampshire Home Care, and while they tried to help, I didn’t really have the sense they had the time to spare,” she said.

“We’re giving as much time as we have,” Woo came back quickly. “I’m sure everyone in this room agrees that we have to run our own operations first before we can afford to take on the problems of the others.”

“But we’re all part of the same operation,” Martin broke in. Woo looked at him but did not reply, and Rosen quickly wrapped up her presentation and sat down.

That evening after dinner, alone in the hotel bar, Martin reflected on what he had heard and seen at the meeting. It struck him how little the managers talked to one another, how little they seemed to connect on a personal level. If Lexington could use anything right now, it was friendships among its salespeople. Friends make phone calls and send E-mail; friends share information; friends want one another to succeed. But now Lexington was too large, mature, and complex an organization to allow Martin to create this kind of network among his salespeople. What was left for him to do?

Just before turning in for the night, Martin was surprised to see Elaine Rosen come into the bar. She looked exhausted, but, more than that, she looked upset.

“I hoped you’d be here,” she told Martin tersely, sitting down beside him. “I’ve just checked my messages and, just as I feared, I received a call from the field this afternoon. It’s very bad news, David. We’ve just lost a major national hospital account—a real opinion leader in the U.K. as well as one of our few profitable customers—and we’ve lost it to Cutler.” Martin knew that Cutler was Lexington’s major competitor in the United Kingdom and that it was doing extremely well lately, mainly on the strength of its sophisticated team selling.

“I’m sorry, Elaine,” Martin said. “Maybe at tomorrow’s sessions, we can talk a bit about Cutler’s techniques—at least what we know about them—and use them as an example of an effective approach—”

But Rosen stopped Martin with her expression. “I won’t be there tomorrow, David,” she said. “I’ve had a long-standing offer to join Cutler and I think that now is the time to accept.” Rosen stood up to leave. “I’m sorry,” she added, and it was clear to Martin how much she meant those words. “Lexington used to be the best, most terrifically fun place to work. But it seems those days are over.”

They certainly were, Martin reflected as Rosen left the bar. The question, however, was not how to recapture the old days but how to help Lexington Labs catch up to the present and prepare for the future. He knew a big part of the answer lay in getting Lexington to function as one global company, freely sharing best practices and critical information across borders. But how?

How can David Martin save the company and take it into the future?

(The above case was adapted from Harvard Business Review, May-June 1996.)[supanova_question]

Using the provided spreadsheet of 0NF data(here), normalize that data into second

Writing Assignment Help Using the provided spreadsheet of 0NF data(here), normalize that data into second and third normal form. You will create the script to create this database in SQL server. You will submit a formal report explaining the normalization process, and why you broke the data up in the way you did. (You can use set notation, or diagrams to help explain this). Your report should only include the column names, no need to list the data. To summarize, this assignment should include:

A report written in APA format with:

A Normalization section with second and third normal forms diagrammed out, or using set notation and should answer the following questions:

There is a concern that the spreadsheet will get out of hand, as the number of pay periods increase, how does your 3NF solve this issue?

Supervisors often manage several departments, for example, Chad Long is managing butchers and bakers, how did you address this problem?

Employees often server on multiple committees at once, how did you address this?

Person hours worked is calculated (it represents information, not data) for all hours worked by all employees for that week, is there a better way to handle this rather than record it in the database? Implement your solution in the queries section.

A ERD section that will include a full physical ERD of your database.

A queries section, that will include a screen snippet with the answer and the SQL code to answer the following questions:

Who worked more than 35 hours in any pay period?

Who worked overtime hours in the 30-May-13 pay period?

I want to enter an employee id and find their job code, their manager’s name and their manager’s cell number

I’d like to know the skill sets we have by city.  I want to enter a city and get a list of the people who live there and their job descriptions.

Given a committee name, I’d like a list of people who work on it and their job description.

Given a supervisor last name, provide a list of employees being supervised and their job code.

A query that calculated person hours worked (as mentioned above). It should also include overtime.

Separate to the report you should also include a .sql script that contains the scripts to create your 3NF model (with relationships) as well as the inserts to fill your tables with data. This file should create your database with a single click (ie I should be able to open it and click run in SQL management studio). [supanova_question]

Visual Studio WPF c# help

hi
I have completed my design and I need someone who is good at coding to help me code login and sign up sheet. I just need help with the C# code to complete log in and sign up. For example if user doesn’t put down email and presses log in it does not log in and tells user enter email etc.

done
Seen
1 min ago[supanova_question]

Writing Question

Write a 3-page paper on the topic of video games and aggressive or violent behavior, including a thesis, arguments to support your thesis, and evidence to support your arguments.Introduction
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:Competency 2: Apply foundational psychological principles to relevant topics in psychology.Apply psychological principles to the creation of arguments and counterarguments.

Competency 3: Apply critical thinking to problems in the field of psychology.Write a conclusion with a statement of point of view and implications.

Competency 6: Demonstrate effective oral or written communication skills.Write an introduction with a clear thesis statement to introduce the arguments.
Address assessment purpose in well-organized paragraphs, incorporating credible sources, accurate paraphrasing, tone, and citations

Overview
For this assessment, you will write a paper that clearly states your thesis, introduces two or more arguments that support your thesis, and uses evidence to support your arguments. Remember that your thesis should be taking a stance on one side of the issue; your reader should be able to clearly be able to tell how you feel about video games and aggressive or violent behavior.Assessment Instructions
Use the Argument Template [DOCX] to guide your work. Be sure to delete any explanatory instructional text before inserting your writing.In your paper, address the following:Write an introduction with a clear thesis statement to introduce the arguments.
Apply psychological principles to the creation of arguments and counterarguments.
Write a conclusion with a statement of point of view and implications.
Address assessment purpose in well-organized paragraphs, incorporating credible sources, accurate paraphrasing, tone, and citations.
Refer to the scoring guide to ensure that your work meets the grading criteria for this assessment.Submission Requirements
Save the completed Argument Template as a Word document (.doc or .docx) on your computer. Then, attach a copy of this document as your assessment submission.Competencies Measured
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies:Competency 2: Apply foundational psychological principles to relevant topics in psychology.Apply psychological principles to the creation of arguments and counterarguments.

Competency 3: Apply critical thinking to problems in the field of psychology.Write a conclusion with a statement of point of view and implications.

Competency 6: Demonstrate effective oral or written communication skills.Write an introduction with a clear thesis statement to introduce the arguments.
Address assessment purpose in well-organized paragraphs, incorporating credible sources, accurate paraphrasing, tone, and citations.

SCORING GUIDEUse the scoring guide to understand how your assessment will be evaluated.VIEW SCORING GUIDE

done
Seen
5 mins ago[supanova_question]