Mica Green Team Report
- 1. MICA Post - Debate<br /> Report on Tai Po Fruits Ltd.<br />Green Team<br />Sofia<br />Eleonora<br />Shaloo<br />KaranTable of Contents<br />1) Mica lead team preparation notes 3<br /> 1.1) As a team pre and post debate 3<br /> 1.2) During the debate 3-4<br />2) Ice breaker 5<br />3) Brief summary of other teams’ reports 5<br /> 3.1) Issues prepared by gold team 6<br /> 3.2) Issues prepared by blue team 7<br /> 3.3) Issues prepared by yellow team 8<br />4) Debate 9<br /> 4.1) first conflict 9<br /> 4.2) second conflict 9-10<br /> 4.3) third conflict 10<br />5) Feedback 11<br />6) General remarks 11<br />7) Scoring sheet 12<br />1) Mica lead team preparation notes<br />1.1) As a team Pre and Post debate<br />Our team prepared a compilation report that included all the other team’s family and business issues. We added value to the process by discovering missing information such as the lack of discussion of the role of women in the business. We added this point to be discussed in the debate.<br />The focus of the debate was on conflict (no succession plan), the possibility of selling the business and the role of women<br />1.2) During the debate<br />Make sure all roles are understood and clear to both lead team and other teams <br />Have PowerPoint with debate structure- refer back to it during debate<br />Keep motion- bring people in by asking questions<br />Rephrase points by each team to recap<br />PersonRoleResponsibilityKaranIce-breaker presentationExplain the rules of the gameConduct the ice breaker while integrating all members of the teamsShalooModerator 1Kick off debate by explaining rules, members, their responsibilitiesPick on arguments from groups and say how they link. E.g. this group doesn’t agree with the other-why?EleanoraModerator 2Start debate by summarizing case study in question SofiaObserver and Feedback giverFollow up closely and write a summary of all pointsWrite down strengths & weaknesses of argumentsRe-cap main discussion points raised Feedback at the end<br />2) Ice breaker (5min)<br />The lead team tested the different teams in their knowledge of Asian fruits. <br />Several pictures were displayed and each team had to answer in order.<br />During the first round the blue and the gold team answered correctly, the yellow team incorrectly. During the second round all teams guessed correctly and fruit juice was distributed to all participants. During this exercise all team members were actively participating, including Ed and Assam.<br />3) Brief summary of other teams’ reports (5-6min)<br />All of the teams had to provide a short summary of the case study. Moreover they had to submit 3 business issues and 3 family issues with their respective recommendations.<br />The lead team presented a concise summary of the key points each team (blue, yellow and gold) had sent in advance in order to re-cap the content of the case study and refresh their minds before the debate took place. <br />Brief Summary of the Case Study:<br />Tai Po Trader Limited was created in 1971 in Hong Kong by David Chan and his uncle, Jimmy and Donald. David Chan is the general manager and believed that Hong Kong’s fruit trading industry was relatively undeveloped at that time and help very good long term prospects for success which will basically ensure economic security for both families for several generations. The company main focus is fruit importing business from suppliers such as Dole and Del Monte which are located in the Philippines, the US and Chile. The focus on selling fruits such as bananas, grapes, oranges, apples and plums which were distributed by three customers groups as whole sales, institutions and re-exports. <br />While expanding to China, David discovered that doing business is more complex than in Hong Kong and required considerably greater financial and Human Resource supports in order to ensure success for the family and for the business as well.<br />3.1) The issues in the report sent by the Gold team were as follows:<br />Family IssueSolutionBusiness IssueSolution1. NepotismFamily should establish the rules according to which the key top management positions can be undertaken by family members. 1. Absence of strong management team1. Hire external professional CEOs.2. Absence of formal rules on valuation of projects investmentThe Company must have a list of criteria for investments, which should be developed2. No clear strategy (loss of market share) and clear mission statement 2. Establish clear strategy and create mission statement according to family values. 3. Relationships within the family3. Create formal board of directors, and formal procedures for decision making. Hire professional CEO.3. Selling a business: how to maintain the profits for 3 years and sell at appropriate price3. They should think of external management. <br />3.2) The issues in the report sent by the Blue team were as follows:<br />Family IssueSolutionBusiness IssueSolution1. No clear succession plan.1.The management consultancy should carry on implementing a long term succession plan with David.1. Too many business diversifications (e.g. Garuda Footwear, FDI to China). 1. There should be more concentration on the core competence of TPF in the future. 2. Lack of communication between the family members.2. Organise monthly meetings (including family and non family members)2. Absence of strong management, human resource department, clear company strategy, policy and culture. 2. The company’s documentation system should be developed and improved in their monthly meetings clarifying its future strategy followed internal policies. 3. Family is always before business, hiring many relatives 3. In the monthly meetings, members will have to vote for others if they have poor contribution in the business. 3. The company has not negotiated the shipment costs well, as it is based on old contract made by previous managers. 3. TPF should review these contracts and renegotiate prices with suppliers.<br />3.3) The issues in the report sent by the Yellow team was as follows:<br />Family IssueBusiness IssueSolutions for all Issues1. Internal dispute about the allocation of shares as well as the direction of the company2. Change in family dynamics3. No clear succession plan 1. Employee uncertainty 2. Financial 3. No clear company structure situation1. Implementation of a HR structure within the company.2. Place Jimmy on the non-executive board.3. Make David Chairman of the Board as he seems to understand the business well.4. Hold events and employ a ‘management by walk around’ approach to enable relationship building.5. Follow the ‘Professionalization’ advice given by Howarth International. Create a board of directors. - Establish clear dividends for the family members, to decide a clear asset allocation scheme. - Supporting managers should be hired on merits and not family ties. - Hire non-family CEO to run the firm.<br />4) Debate (~20min)<br />After having analyzed every team’s issues and recommendations, we managed to generate some points on which a debate could be developed. <br />Several conflicts were presented on the PowerPoint (based on contradicting arguments from the teams’ reports) and the respective teams had to defend their ideas against each other. In general all arguments were well constructed and good evidence from the case Tai Po Fruit was given, however, no team used arguments that showed further research of the market conditions or other information outside the case. <br />The main conflicting arguments that came up from their reports were:<br />4.1) First conflict:<br />Gold Team: Cause of Jimmy and Emily’s conflict is because of no Succession plan after Donald’s death.<br /> V/S<br />Blue Team: Conflict between Jimmy & Emily is due to lack of communication between the two which is also caused by David as he underestimated importance of communication between them.<br />4.2) Second Conflict:<br />Gold Team: agree to sell business, questions “how to sell at a high price & maintain profits for 3 yrs”<br /> V/S<br />Yellow Team: “It would be crazy to sell business under the conditions.”<br />4.3) Third Conflict:<br />Yellow Team: recommends a ‘HR structure within the company”<br /> V/S<br />Blue Team: recommends “outsourcing of human resource department”<br />To close the debate, the lead team made a link to this week’s topic, the role of women in family business and asked all teams to contribute their thoughts on the topic related to the specific case study under discussion.<br />We presented the conflict relating it to the case as shown below:<br />Dorothy (Jimmy’s wife) was brought into the business despite the family tradition of keeping the wives out. <br />This created another set of issues<br />She took over admin functions on a part time basis<br />She wanted to establish herself as an equal with Emily. <br />5) Feedback (5min)<br />At the end of the debate, a feedback was given to all teams. First of all, a re-cap or summary of the different points and outcomes discussed was presented followed by specific examples of arguments presented by the teams.<br />For the purpose of evaluation, the lead team used a score sheet, which used the criteria below for each of the arguments under discussion. Then, teams were scored between poor, good and excellent based on that criterion. <br />Validity of argumentsDepth of explanationsAdditional sources<br />6) General Remarks<br />The dynamic of the debate was very active and the majority of the class participated. We can say that overall, everybody understood the points being presented and were engaged by the conversation.<br />7) Scoring Sheet <br />This was the scoring sheet used to create our feedback:<br />TEAMCRITERIAPOOR (P) GOOD (G) EXCELLENT (E)BLUEConflict 1Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 2Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 3Validity of argumentsEDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 4Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesEGOLDConflict 1Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 2Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 3Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 4Validity of argumentsEDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesGYELLOWConflict 1Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 2Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 3Validity of argumentsGDepth of explanationsGAdditional sourcesPConflict 4Validity of argumentsEDepth of explanationsEAdditional sourcesG<br />