Global Communication: Gap Analysis

Gap Analysis: Global Communications

University of Phoenix

Introduction

Global Communications (GC) is a company is distress. Competing in an industry with very little distinct between competitors, GC must establish itself as something different. GC is planning to unveil a new means to take advantage of existing technology, also in order to reduce their cost of doing business, GC executives proposed a plan to outsource a number of GC's domestic jobs to India and Ireland. GC's collective bargaining unit, the Technologies Workers' Union is not receptive to the outsourcing proposal.

This gap analysis will review the GC situation, in-depth and provide insights on the concerned parties. This analysis will also establish an end state vision for GC and identify techniques GC executives can use to achieve said vision.

Situation Analysis

Issue and Opportunity Identification

Global Communications (GC) is facing a crossroads in its corporate direction. Due to the increased competition in the telecommunications arena, GC must forge a new corporate path to take advantage of changing markets. GC has seen its stock prices drop more than 50 % over the last three years.

GC's problems have been evident: too much competition for the same product and the same business. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has allowed cable companies to establish a marketplace in the telephone and Internet marketplace. GC's efforts to take advantage of foreign markets have met with limited success. In order to re-structure, and revitalize the product line, GC is introducing a new line of satellite-based, broadband Internet and video services, remotely accessible virtually anywhere in the world.

While competing in the domestic markets with new products, GC executives have also determined that significant savings can be realized by outsourcing call center labor to Ireland and India. An internal business case analysis of cost saving measures, revealed that GC could save approximately 40% in unit costs in moving the call centers to Ireland and India. Executives have resolved that GC will be fully entrenched in its globalization efforts within three years.

In order for GC to implement its call center globalization plan, it must receive approval from the Technologies Workers' Union, GC's employee's collective bargaining unit. In the previous rounds of contract negotiations, the Technologies Workers' Union relinquished, in dollar value, 20% of previously negotiated health and education benefits. The collective bargaining unit agreed to this concession because, as had been asserted by GC executives at the time, it would assist the company in growing, therefore, adding to the labor force and those requiring Technology Workers' Union representation.

When presented with GC executives plan of globalization, whereby domestic call center jobs would be outsourced to India and Ireland and those domestic operators who remained would experience a 10% salary reduction, union representation was not cooperative. When presenting the plan to union officials, GC executives tied increased competition to workforce reductions. This distributive form of negotiations was what, the union felt, was represented in the last round of contract negotiations that resulted in subsequent concessions (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2004). GC executives also represented to union officials that the outsourcing plan was the only means by which the GC could remain viable and that this decision would be made, ultimately, regardless of the union's position on the matter.

Furthermore, GC executives also did not present to union officials alternatives or data that indicates savings and future growth of the GC domestic workforce. For instance, a “zero-based” analysis of company operations was not presented to union officials (Zero-Based Budgeting, 2006). GC executives were exhibiting behavior, not representative of integrative decision making (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2004). Consequently, union officials, in the end, determined that the only recourse, to represent adequately their membership, was to seek restitution through legal and political means.

Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical Dilemmas

Global Communications Board of Directors are the ultimate stakeholder of GC's viability. The Board of Directors is responsible for ensuring maximum financial return for GC investors and shareholders. Considering the plummeting market capacity of GC, the Board of Directors are very much concerned with issues that will generate revenue as opposed to those that create less than generous headlines.

Global Communications executives are charged by the Board of Directors to ensure that the operations of the business coincide with the objective identified by the Board of Directors. Their plans are the road map by which GC will achieve the vision of the Board of Directors. Considering the plan and discussions between GC executives, innovation and creativity are not exhibited The outsourcing plan has several of the GC executives trying to determine how to reconcile their personal issues with domestic layoffs and meeting the financial objectives, as defined by the Board of Directors.

The Technology Workers' Union is very much concerned with GC executives' plans, considering the concessions made during the last round of contract negotiations. The difficulty the union has is that if GC goes out of business, all employees become unemployed. While exhibited a degree of dissatisfaction with GC executives, the union must decide if further concessions will improve the health of GC or if GC executives truly want more for less.

The GC employees, specifically the call center employees will be impacted the most significantly. Many will lose their jobs and those that remain will have to do so at a cost of 10% less than their previous salary.

India and Ireland are also stakeholders in this scenario as they stand to gain as they stem national brain drains. Ireland in particular, faces problems so significant respective of brain drains that the government had to offer $67 million in incentives in 2001, between 10 scientists, to keep them in Ireland (Pickrell, 2001). But while this keeps some technical proficiency in the host nations, the pay will not be commensurate with the responsibilities and expertise. Hence, GC's willingness to take engage with the nations: cheap, capable labor. India and Ireland