1-)

Which of the following frameworks helps a firm make trade-offs between innovation, customer experience, employee engagement and learning, and profitability of the firm

S-Curve Framework

Balanced Scorecard

Value Innovation Framework

Lead User Approach

2-) In the context of corporate social responsibility, strategy is ultimately a comprehensive service to the company’s stakeholders

True

False

3-)

Agency theory posits that in the relationship between Principal and Agent the Principal often has the information advantage as it relates to operations and market trends

True

False

4-)

The Importance Performance Framework helps identify the most fruitful areas of innovation that can boost short term profits

True

False

5-)

The Toyota Production System or Lean Manufacturing can be considered a great example of successful strategy execution

True

False

This issue will surely be contested in accordance with the political party and the dominant political philosophy at national and national levels and at the Supreme Court. Many people with a family history or another scenario that may have to determine whether or not their genetic sequence or mutations are monitored. This option will play a crucial role in the way these data are used and who will have access to the results. In the fear of future prejudices, patient testing may be abandoned, which may save their lives or improve their quality of life. Employers that provide group insurance may wish to learn if one of their employees has a genetically modified susceptibility. The insurance firms strive to get information from genetic testing to help the creation of policies. These two impacts will likely lead to discrimination or exclusion from work and some people’s insurance coverage. Cases such as those that raised concerns about employment discrimination based on genetic data and completeness of the problem have shown significant disparities and flaws in existing legislation to protect the rights of employees. This is the first EEOC effort to implement the GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008). This case, like the previous one, reveals the close link between GINA and the 1990 American Disability Law revised to 42 US$12,101 et seq.; Pub. L. 101 – 336, as in the April 2001 carpal tunnel syndrome (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railways in Fort Worth, Texas). ‘GINA Title II must prohibit the collection and use of genetic information.’ Jones, Rhonda Fabricut, Inc. was hired as temporary billing staff by Rhonda Jones. Her contract with the company was finished when she sought a permanent job at Fabricut. It was first used by Rhonda Jones as part of its pre-employment health assessment in contravention of GINA Title II on various listed ailments. The GNI Non-discrimination Law (GINA) expands to incorporate the idea of ‘genetic information’ in family medical history. GM discriminatory discrimination According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, genetic discrimination is ‘a prejudice against persons who have or are expected to have genetic disorders.’ Scientific advancements demonstrate the existence of particular gene mutations and the likelihood of the condition of a person according to the existence of these mutations. This has led to public issues such as privacy and the potential of job losses. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has expressed concern that persons who do these tests have a good chance of refusing health insurance or job. A important motivator in genetic testing and genetic analysis was the Human Genome Project. In 1990, a human genome project was begun by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy. project project The project was conducted with six objectives: (3) store this information in databases; (4) build data analysis tools; (5) market-related technologies; and (6) analyse issues relating to ethics, law and society. (1) identify 20, 000-25, 000 human DNA genes; (2) identify a 3 billion chemical base package composed of human DNA; (ELSI). The project’s successes helped to fulfil these goals and led to considerable advances in scientific and health research, notably in the fields of medical and genetic testing. Understanding prominent genes and sequences of diseases has far-reaching effects on all individuals, helping to detect and cure diseases via more concentrated treatments. Reaction of the company In this novel technique to study human illnesses and illnesses, biotechnology firms and other researchers have started to create applications even before the whole human genome is sequenced and published, as well as the consequences of the results to set standards and borders. Who, if anybody, would have gene sequences and the right to genetic information in line with this new branch of medical science? Long before the human genome map can be completed and the implications of such patents fully investigated, the subject of patenting gene sequence has been discussed. Companies have already begun to apply and get permits for gene sequence with undetermined future applications and potential revenues. “Patent applicants often want to protect investments in research in one of the two markets: gene and protein-based pharmaceutical developments or gene sequence diagnostics related to a specific illness,” explains Charles W. Schmidt from Modern Drug Discovery. Genetic testing firms have found that patenting is necessary in order to secure a corporation which anticipated millions of dollars in future revenues even in the absence of sound government legislation on the use and ownership of tests and on control of public test resistance. For many who disagree with this notion, it is difficult to embrace anything so personal. The fundamental issue is that these patents limit and inhibit the industry’s capacity to find new uses and advances in patented gene sequences. Companies may decide not to investigate unless the outcomes of the study are exclusively owned. In the realm of genetic testing and DNA sequencing, the fundamental goal of major trade reactions is to ensure that laws and regulations conform to technological developments and advancements in medical in order to prevent significant misuse, ownership and privacy problems. The following two incidents demonstrate the progress achieved by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunities Council) from 2001 to 2013 in applying the Title II genetic non-discrimination regulation. Burlington North and Santa Fe Railways The equal employment opportunity was made in February 2001 against Burlington North and Santa Fe Railway, claiming that it has carried out covert testing on certain of its personnel (EEOC). Burlington Northern uses genetic testing conducted by Athena Diagnostics in Worcester, Massachusetts to verify and prevent carpal tunnel syndrome complaints from workers. In the following years, the event highlighted concerns about companies’ access and rights to medical and genetic information, along with others throughout the United States and Europe. Burlington Norther may have claimed that the disease was not linked to their job and hence refused to pay any healthcare expense had the company concluded that Carpal Tunnel Syndrome personnel were genetically predisposed to conditions. The EEOC based its complaint on the American Disabilities Act’s determination that “genetic testing is banned to discriminate in the workplace.” According to Fabricut, he was on the basis of the pre-employment exam, “Jones sought further testing to eliminate CTS.” Despite subsequent tests, Fabricut found that they had no CTS, his job offer seems to be cancelled on the basis of a pre-employment evaluation of medical care and his evaluation that he had CTS. As a follow-up to the company’s information, Fabricut reportedly stopped his offer to work “by medical examination before employment and decision on CTS.” In accordance with the settlement agreement Fabricut agreed to pay damages of $50,000. The corporation has also committed to taking corrective action, such as publishing a notice of non-discrimination for all employees. Employers must display non-discrimination notices under GINA and the ‘Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law’ is included on the EEOC website. Fabricut also dedicated its team to educating and delivering anti-discrimination regulations to its personnel.” ” ” Government reaction to genetic testing and prejudice Just like with other human resources difficulties, companies can’t be dependent on operating in the best interests of their individual employees, especially with regard to privacy rights. During the last two decades, many initiatives have been presented in the United States to deal with employer discrimination and discrimination against private enterprises as well as to defend employees who speak out against prejudice. One of the most well-known regulations is the 1990 American Disability Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability. Title VII of the 1974 Civil Rights Act also excludes discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, gender or national origin in employment. The National Institutes of Health Consultant Robert B. Lanman, J.D., who was commissioned by the Genetics, Health and Societies Advisory Committee in May 2005 to study the adequacy of existing laws prohibiting genetic discrimination, said that these laws have not been specifically updated to combat genetic discrimination. to the extent that theysafeguard