Business Problem at Uit. As You All

Business Problem at UIT.

As you all know, there is a serious problem of lack of profitability in the Unit Investment Trust. Before taking any action, management would like to get an idea of the ideas and suggestions that might be out there that we haven't looked at. This is your chance to possibly make a difference. (If you need more room, please feel free to write as much as you wish.)

Are you aware that there are problems in the Unit Investment Trust department? ____Yes__No

What is your perception of the problem/s in the Unit Investment Trust?

Do you think there is some way this problem could have been prevented?

One of the problems identified is the fact that UIT uses a whole different accounting system.

Is there some way besides converting to another system or other departments converting to UIT's system, to solve this problem?

5. Is there justification for this particular expense? How is it that it worked without being an undo expense previously?

6. Personnel Costs are another identified area of concern. The suggestion has been made to downsize this department. Is there some other way besides downsizing? Why weren't department Personnel costs an issue previously?

7. We have had some suggestions as to how to solve the problem of this unprofitable cost center. One of those suggestions is to sell off the Unit. Do you think this is possible?

8. How would this be possible?

9. Is it possible that there are other issues under the company's control that could make UIT more profitable?

10. If your were offered the opportunity to re-organize UIT what steps would you take, what changes would you institute to bring profitability back to this section?

Analyses of Survey

The point and purpose of this survey would be to get as much input and as many different viewpoints as possible. Just because people are managers in a big corporation like JP Morgan, does not mean they necessarily have all the answers. First of all there is the possibility that they are locked in to some old ideas and old ways of doing things. The fact that the management only identified three major ideas for solving the problems attached to this cost unit speaks loudly for a fairly narrow viewpoint on the part of everyone who participated in whatever discussions went on over this matter. One purpose of the survey would be to create a deeper, larger pool of ideas.

Another purpose of the survey is to get everyone asked thinking about the whole issue. People might stand around the water cooler discussing various aspects of this problem, but those discussions, no matter how fine an idea might be generated, won't do any good unless the ideas get to the right people.

The purpose of question #1 is to get a general feel for the overall level of knowledge about the problem is in circulation. While it is usually true that a problem of this nature is common knowledge it is, I think a good idea to find out just how quickly and far the stories have spread.

Question #2, Is designed to find out the exact nature of the information in circulation. Anyone who has worked in any kind of workplace knows how stories spread and change as they spread. One of the functions of management should be to get good information out about an issue to try and stop the rumor-mongering.

Question #3 is a venting question. I don't know as it would garner a great deal of useful information, but, it is supposed to allow people to express any anger or frustration there might be before getting into the rest of the survey.

Question #4 This question comes in because it seems that if this was a particular problem, causing the UIT to be less profitable than it otherwise might have been it should have shown up as a problem previously. Perhaps there was something else going on that caused a difference.

Question #5 is obviously a follow-up to #4 and is still looking for information about this aspect of UIT that might generate new information as to why this particular accounting system did not cause a problem previously. It seems there just must be some explanation, first, as to why this cost center uses a different system than everybody else and, two, why it didn't seem to cause problems earlier. Has something changed?

Question #6 kind of runs along with #5. If there are the same number of people working in the unit, is it a matter of there were always too many people for the department and it wasn't an issue because there was plenty of money being made, or is there some other factor at work here? Even though 40% for personnel costs may be high?, is this an attention-intensive business where as much one-on-one attention as possible is needed? Sometimes, if you are going to keep clients, you just have to be able to give them attention when they want or need it.

Question #7. This question is actually pretty much a knee-jerk question. The idea is first to get a count for and against.

Question #8 is designed to get people to thinking about the whole idea of the unit in trouble. If it is indeed in too much trouble for JP Morgan to hold on to, why would another a company want it? If someone else is willing to buy this cost center, then does it have something going for it that JP Morgan is missing? Maybe everyone should be taking a close second look at what is going on. Even if JP Morgan is interested in getting away from this particular kind of business product, are they giving away something they are going to wish they had held on to?

Question #9 is aimed at encouraging everyone who takes the survey to think on different levels and in different ways. I have heard it described as, "thinking outside the box and around corners." In the research I have been doing for this project, the one idea that comes up over and over again in articles about companies that worked through problems and came out the other side better, stronger and with a much larger bottom line is that someone in the company started looking at company issues from different viewpoints. Someone convinced the company to try something different, to diversify in some way. The forms diversity takes usually are a good fit with whatever the company is already doing, but from a very different angle.

Question #10 is obviously an invitation to, forgive the word, play. It is an invitation to look at the problem and speculate on a large scale. This is a survey, not the business plan someone was told to come up with, so it wouldn't matter if it got rather far out in some ways and it might be those various "far out" ways that could revitalize a situation like the one in the model. Again, that is the constant, the common denominator in all the articles I've read. Why would a company that specialized in high level "head hunting," CareerLink, normally think in terms of healthcare as a market. It took creativity and a willingness to risk for that company to not even improve their bottom line, but to save their company. It took a boss who was willing to admit he could learn something from a field supervisor to save Action Environmental from going under.