Company Background

International Gadgets (IG) is a multinational company of 1,300+ employees and over $4 billion in revenue. Headquartered in Manchester, New Hampshire, the company designs, manufactures, sells, and supports a variety of low- and high-tech business productivity tools. 

 

IG has manufacturing facilities in Detroit, Michigan, and Shanghai, China, and sources component parts from suppliers in Vietnam, China, Brazil, and the United

States. While IG maintains sales offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Munich, Paris, Moscow, and Brussels, its products are sold throughout the United States and all of Europe and in China through a partner firm. IG employs both a direct sales force targeting its top 1,000 customers as well as selling via its website. Sales offices also include service and support operations, managed separately from the sales teams. The company is considering expanding more directly into China and exploring the possibility of opening a sales office in Beijing.

 

IG’s current top-selling product is the OfficeDrone, designed for workplace monitoring. The OfficeDrone is a small unmanned aerial vehicle for indoor use that includes real-time video monitoring and a targetable built-in water pistol and reservoir. The OfficeDrone is marketed to management and security teams to break up water cooler conversations and other non-productive behaviors among groups of workers.

 

IG has introduced several new products and experienced rapid growth during the past year with many new employees in all departments. The management team has greatly expanded as well, including several first-time managers, and is experiencing difficulties in functioning as effectively as in the past.

Communications within and between all parts of the organization, external partners, and suppliers and customers, are at serious risk of completely breaking down. 

 

As the new communications manager for International Gadgets, you have come across many examples of ineffective communications, including some older directives that were never carried out, mostly because of their unclear nature.

 

One example included an email stating that the recipient (within the R&D team) was to “create a presentation discussing the new product and send it to interested departments.” Others included a request from Sales to Technical Support for “a list of the biggest problems with our hot products” and a memo from Finance to all departments to “reduce the number of suppliers being used to better control costs.” 

 

By following the above case answer this question:

 

Q.In a memo to your team, describe what is wrong with directives such as these and how to improve these messages so that they are delivered to the recipient with clarity and conciseness. 

 

Guidelines for Submission: Review the Purdue Owl: Memo website for suggestions and formatting guidelines on memo structure.  

 

apa citation

single spacing 

two papers

no plagiarism

my professor follows below grading rubric while grading

 

Description of Directive

 21 (30%) points
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and ideas are substantiated with specific and relevant details
 18.9 (27%) points
Accurately describes areas of the directive that lack clarity and conciseness and uses specific detail in explanation
 14.7 (21%) points
Accurately describes areas of the directive that lack clarity and conciseness, but lacks specific details in explanation
 0 (0%) points
Does not describe the directive

Recommendations

 21 (30%) points
Meets “Proficient” criteria with substantial detail for the rationale
 18.9 (27%) points
Provides a discussion highlighting the recommendations with sufficient detail for rationale
 14.7 (21%) points
Provides a discussion highlighting the recommendations, but lacks sufficient detail for rationale
 0 (0%) points
Does not provide a discussion highlighting the recommendations

Conclusions

 21 (30%) points
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and conclusions are substantiated with specific and relevant research
 18.9 (27%) points
Draws informed conclusions that are justified with evidence
 14.7 (21%) points
Draws logical conclusions, but does not defend with evidence
 0 (0%) points
Does not draw logical conclusions

 

 

 


What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."


“Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!”