Answer to Week 2
D. B & C
Both of these responses are typical of a Zone 2 ‘pure thinking’ answer because they are starting to interpret the information given, not just describe it (description is the threshold requirement for Zone 1). You’ll notice that both answers come to different conclusions – that’s fine, we never look for a ‘correct’ answer, but we are concerned with the thinking that has lead to an answer.
Week 3 – Case Study*
Having talked to Ms Carrow (ProSuccess proprietor) about her business idea & reviewed her plans and financial projections, you decide to recommend to the BtoB board that ProSuccess progresses to the final stage of applicants for investor funding. This means that ProSuccess can present its case to potential investors. (The funding model is designed in order that around half of the businesses which progress to the final stage actually get funding).
ProSuccess will be joined in the final stage by another IT start-up servicing the resources sector – “MineScan”. MineScan’s main offering is an IT platform able to sift through enormous quantities of data in order to support the identification of new coal deposits. This company is headed by the son (Mr Jones Jnr) of the former head of the Minerals Department (Mr Jones Snr) – the same person who fronts PTwhy, one of your main investors. Your company policies specifically prohibit members of BtoB staff (including you) of being associated with people (for example, close family members) who submit applications for investor funding, but there is nothing in your internal policies specifically stopping the son of a person associated with an investor, receiving funding from that investor.
Nevertheless, after hearing industry gossip about the matter in the papers, a representative of the corporate regulator has asked to meet you, the General Manager of BtoB.
Challenge question: what are the underlying issues that this scenario presents for companies like BtoB? What alternative ways are there of looking at the challenges presented here?