CAE is technological giant whose operations are limited to simulations of aerospace, defense and forestry. The company evolved through a number of challenges and opportunities. The opportunities existed in form of funding, market size, and appreciation of their shares as compared to those of the rival companies. The challenges that CAE was faced with involved the managerial, depreciation of shares, depreciating investor confidence and bad media publicity, and lack of strategic planning. In relation to bad planning is the role that was played by the mangers at the top. They were capable of taking the company to its full potential, but with the opportunities that were there to be seized CAE continued to drift south further and further. Given that the government gave CAE incentives and a lot of support, planning seemed to have been an issue that David Race and John Caldwell could not implement strategically given their majority control of the company.
After the exist of David Race and John Caldwell the company which had deteriorated immensely had to be put back to the status it so deserved to be. The fall of the company in terms of financial and economic elevation is attributed to the fact that the former majority shareholders had no strategic planning that could have redirected funds to better work. Instead of keeping the company at its rightful tracks of simulations on aerospace, defense, and forestry the management had thought that investing in other business would diversify the company even further and aid in its quest to compete effectively with the other companies. Once the mood was set, many of the reliable stakeholders who enjoyed working with CAE as a technological firm downed their tools. In the recovery process; the appointed CEO Derek Burney improvised mechanisms that would get back the CEA to its rightful place both financially and instilling back the lost investor confidence.
Amongst the recommended alternatives that the CEA management would have opted for before this company could deteriorate financially include; Going for majority votes in terms of decision making; stripping majority shareholders the rights to be the runners of the company; involving in accountability activities that would make the operation of the company divided in to departments run by most reliable personnel; and having a person whose judgment is sound and based on experience when making the decisions of the company.
Amongst the alternative recommendations the best one to be implemented would be putting the right personnel in the management team so that decisions that have to be made would rely on experience and unbiased judgment. To implement this recommended alternative, the board of governors and all stakeholders to decide on the best way forward. The predetermining method of securing CEA’s financial and diversification needs would have to be in place so as to convince the majority shareholders to let the decision making process be the business for better qualified people. Convincing one to let go of his/her powers in decision making is a difficulty task whose objectives can easily be mistaken with petitions to overthrow management. For this reason, the company records will have to play and role in telling the direction the company is likely to go if nothing is done. With stakeholders involving the government in the form of the support it has to give the company; means that the government would have to be involved in one way or another. With stern decisions made to reflect on the motives of the government in aiding with these projects, interests and more opportunities for further funding would be drawn from the government.
CEA’s foundation is made up with customer base that does not change at all. Aerospace and the defense departments are some of the department that does not run of operation. For this case, if the operations of the company they seek services and product from do not perform in accordance to their expectation opens a chance for them to seek the products and services from other companies. With this knowledge, CEA incompetence in maintaining their strong base and financial strength was a result of unfavorable decisions and planning being implemented in a competitive field. The fact that David Case and his co-founder thought they could run the company and control it operation was a wrong move that did not exercise diplomacy. On the other hand, the managers who were below them had all it took to change this trend but with the limited power they had, it had to come to the point of shares dropping by 37.5% from $12 to $7.5.
With the government offering support to CEA, it was hard to find project to redirect the funds to. In this case, the role of the management at the top rank hadn’t be sound enough to make strategic decisions that would have made good use of the government support. Given that CEA had specialized in one sector and was pretty good at it but the thought of getting involved with in other business was a wrong move long before wit was even implemented to effect. An open market is a wrong place to make uninformed decision especially if potentially capable competitors exist. The reason why investor confidence went down in the case of CEA is due to the fact that less and less people were willing to buy shares given the bad trend CEA was assuming. The aspect of other companies that were doing well during the same time when CEA was going down acted as another factor that killed investor confidence even more. Top ranked officials, CEOs or even managers; every one of them had the duty to take care of the situation inspite of the underlying decision making opportunities and constrains.
Inspite of the positions that David and John had in CEA, it is worthy noting that they were highly vulnerable to making wrong decisions and applying inapplicable strategies and certain times in the existence of the company. To rectify this, if voting sequence was applied within the managerial positions, better planning would have been adapted. Voting for or against a decision that would affect many people should be in format that affects the least people negatively with the benefits that it brings able to compensate for the negative affects. The managerial position of any firm are occupied by personnel of sound minds whose purpose of being there is to implement policies, operational models, and steer the firm towards success. In the case of CEA, if the voting for or against the choices that were made by David and John had happened, the sound minds of the managers and stakeholders would have prevented the uncertainties that occurred (Charles, Benjamin, 1965).
Majority share holders tend to get carried away by business decisions because their preconceived ideas and strategies are assumed to be better than those drafted by the right personnel. The right personnel in business decision making involves economists, analysts, and strategies whose responsibility is to monitor the general business trends of existing rivals, new comers, and those choosing to expand their firms. With the benefits that come with the right personnel in place, the risks involved in having founders and majority share holders make decisions can be eliminated through stripping them the decision making power.
The founders of any firm are very important people in any organization and their presence and decisions is crucial to the survival of firm. In this case, transparency is a principle that is supposed to be exercised always before and during decision making sessions. For this reason, the decisions of the founders and top officials should be tabled in front of a panel of qualified personnel to review the variables of the decisions.
Finally on the alternative recommendations that would work for the advantage of CEA; choosing a CEO who understands the operations of the firm and the areas that would require special attention. Considering the impacts that Derek Burney had on the revival of the CEA, it is clear that the success of a company is not guaranteed due the fact that is getting lots of government support but in the fact that decisions and courses are followed to the latter (Monahan, G. 2000).
SELECTING MORE EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION,
To select a more effective alternative recommendation depends on how much each of the options has been explored and the results it has brought back. With leadership being the only thing that would navigate a firm towards success; the task of finding a more effective alternative would depend on the models and strategies that take decision making seriously. For this matter, placement of a capable leader to steer CEA to success would be the best alternative to go with. Considering the reason why the firm collapsed in terms of financial strength, one would understand that the problem was associated with decision making. Inspite of the fact that the firm engaged in other businesses that were not related with its original operational model, the firm would still have made it through successfully if the aim of management was to embrace diversification.
In the event that there are opportunities that need to be seized, monetary funding is not the main problem that a company would have to worry about. The planning on how the funds and support would be used depends solely on the dependency on the kind of decisions to be made. Deciding is not just the act of speaking out in front of a panel and implementing some of the opinions that would be raised. Decision making involves taking care of loopholes that may present themselves after implementation of a strategy. These loopholes are responsible for the crashing of the entire mechanism. Once one variable starts affecting other variables negatively, the whole package is deemed to collapse – a situation well illustrated by the operations under David and John’s decisions in the case of CEA.
IMPLEMENTING THE NEW BEST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE
Implementation of the best effective alternative would not be dependent on how potentially promising one looks. For this case, in the duty of managing assets and operations of a firm, the member with the best experience in terms similar to the ones in need of special attention requires a consideration. In big firms, the probability of having more than one person with such potential is very high. However, if they are ranked according to how well they have handled other situations doesn’t mean they would tackle the task at hand with the same success. To exercise integrity, the firm through the stakeholders and shareholders, should come to a conclusion on who to place in the position by considering the following: The ability of the person to solve the current and future problems by use of the least available resources, the potential of that individual to take the company to the next level by the use of readily available human and monetary resources (Blackhart, Kline, 2005).