ITS 360 Chapter 2

Nathan Magnuson

Document Download


What would you do?

1.)  Meeting Quota: It would depend on when the company wanted the software. If they were not going to acquire the service until the next quarter, than I would put the transaction on the follower quarter. Otherwise, I would put the transaction on the present quarter to accurately show when products were being purchased.


2.)  Two Companies, One E-Mail: If it ever got to the point where the real estate job required that much work I would evaluate which job would benefit me more if I had to choose between one or the other. In this case I would assume that because the real estate job is part-time I may not be making as much as a full time IT Consultant and would have a conversation with my real estate boss. I would tell him/her that I would only be able to respond to the emails during my lunch break or after work. If this was a serious cut in pay, than it would be time to look for another part-time job and/or pick up more hours at the consulting job.




1.)  In this case, the whistle-blower is probably the main person who had to suffer affects from this. The reputation of SucessFactors does not matter since they are being bought out by a different company. Potential tax issues could be a concern, but because SAP did not find a merit to the claims, conducted by an outside team, it would not appear to be a large issue.


2.)  It depends on how much influence the reporting have on decision making on the part of the investor. It would be better to report everything and make it seem like the company wasnít trying to hide anything from its investors or potential investors.


3.)  There should be multiple points of review for contracts by different positions within the company. This is ensures that all levels of the company are in agreement on the accounting measure, and helps to catch possible mistakes which can be corrected and addressed.

IBM/State of Indiana:

1.)  If IBM encounters future opportunities to work with state social services, the contract should state what IBM will work on and outline what it will attempt to do if the guidelines of the state are exceeded. Change of contract should loosen time restrains for IBM. If the state doesnít completely agree that time restrains can be loosen due to unforeseen effects of technology and consumer affect, than IBM should not involve itself in something that could harm it both in reputation and financial harm.


2.)  Indiana: State warned that the system had problems with it. IBM added $180 million dollars to costs to fix problems. Mishandling of claims jumped from 4% to 18% in IBMís system, and needed to outsource 1500 former employees to IBM. Errors and backlogs grew under IBMís system.


IBM: New FSSA secretary changed contract when the system didnít meet expectations. IBM listed cost to fix problems due to unforeseen work load on system. FSSA unfairly expected IBM to work with 10,000 claims per month when the original contract stated that the system only need to handle about 4,200 applications per month, and that it was Indianaís idea to change approach. IBM says that implementation of system helped FSSA save over $100 million dollars per year and after the canceled contract FSSA still had about $53 million dollars worth of equipment in place from IBM.


3.)  IBM should be the one who should get paid for work done and equipment given to the state of Indiana, but should not be given fines due to breach of contract because the expectations of FSSA exceeded what was agreed in the contract of what the system was made to handle. (4,200 application per month to 10,000 per month). The state still benefited from IBM system when it implemented its hybrid system.