Supply Chain Management - Tasty Treats Example

Supply Chain Management Supply Chain Management What recommendations should Rachel make in her presentation to Tasty Treats senior management? Rachel should give advice that can help the business solve the challenge of how much stock to order from their suppliers. She should propose introduction of a system that gives Tasty Treats a real time analysis of stock levels. This would involve the introduction of computerized systems, such as QuickBooks, which provide an easy way of assessing stock levels. Such systems indicate the amount of stock at hand at any time, thus alerting the supply department of the need to make more orders when the stocks approach the reorder level. A just in time stock system would also minimize the levels of stocks that would lead to excessive holding costs. A reduction in holding costs minimizes the expenses of the business, which translates to a better bottom line, and more capital.The management of Tasty Treats faces a challenge of realizing the importance of high service levels, and Rachel should highli ght the integral role it plays in business. A high level of customer service, for instance, ensures that the business does not receive any stock outs, leading to customer satisfaction. Therefore, she should insist on Tasty Treat offering their customers impeccable service. Such service draws more customers to the business, thus increasing the average sales. An increase in sales would result in greater profits for the business. More to these, excellent customer service distinguishes an organization from competitors, leading to a competitive lead in the industry. Therefore, she should insist on a 99 percent service level for Tasty Treats.Tasty Treats faces a problem of not taking advantage of discounts offered by suppliers. If the business works at achieving a high customer service level, the company’s sales ought to increase. Consequent to these, Tasty Treats would be compelled to order more, thus take advantage of available discounts from suppliers. The discounts help in lowe ring the ordering costs, thus releasing substantial finances to other activities.

When Is Military Force Justified

When Is Military Force Justified Too Much, Too Often – the Giant Military State We Live In It’s a sad fact that this beautiful, magical world has become a military state. We just hear about it so much these days due to social media and the Internet. Because of greedy, immoral people, the assumed solution to today’s many problems, especially between countries, is war – killing, genocide, torture, violence, and suffering. It’s frightening how often a country relies on military force to defend its country’s major multi-billion dollar enterprises – like ones refining crude oil, and mining other valuable entities such as metals and gemstones. MLA ESSAY EXAMPLE WAR AS SEEN THROUGH THE MEDIA War as an Assumed Solution to Today’s Many Problems When exactly is military force justified? Is it ever justified? The answer lies, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. But when one considers the tumultuousness nature of today’s world, they eventually come to the realization that, yes, military force is often justified. The important question, however, is when it’s justified. Before answering this question and arguing for when exactly military force is justified, it’s important to consider what comprises â€Å"military force.†   It is when a country’s military, also known as its armed forces, has no other choice but to use deadly force and weapons to support the interest of the state and of its citizens – its main function. This means casting fire on the enemy, dropping bombs from planes, detonating nuclear warheads, even resorting to biological warfare. Military Force Is Justified When There Is an Impending Threat to One’s Borders So, when is military force justified? For one, when there is an impending threat to one’s borders. If a country is on the verge of being invaded, it has the right to use military force. When a country’s citizens are on the brink of being slaughtered, the country as a whole should be able to resort to military force. It comes down to defending one’s way of life, not lying down and dying. Fighting for one’s borders, freedom, safety, and happiness is surely one reason to use violence and weaponry as a means for peace, though it does sound like a contradiction. In World War II, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor – and rather than doing nothing, which would assuredly invite similar attacks and possible invasion, America went to war against the Axis Powers. The country came together and stood up for its right to freedom and happiness; it meant that no country would attack America and get away with it. This is one prime example of when military force is ju stified. Secondly, military force is also justified when a larger, wealthier and more powerful country or group of countries threatens invasion, invades or attacks a less powerful country. For example, in 2008, Russia attacked the former Soviet Republic Georgia. It was the typical David vs. Goliath scenario. Russia accused Georgia of foul play against the autonomous republic to the south, and sent in troops to negotiate â€Å"peace.† Instead, Russia got whatever it wanted, a buffer zone between Russia and the Middle East, in turn bullying the small country into submission. Military force was not justified on the part of Russia, but Georgian military forces surely had the right to defend its motherland. And Georgia was not a NATO country, like Turkey, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and many other countries with powerful armies that could have used military force to defend the weaker, less powerful and wealthy country of Georgia. This is a classic case of how military forc e should be enacted when it’s justified. A big, powerful country was bullying a small country that could not defend itself; therefore, it had the right to resort to military force. To conclude, military force is, unfortunately, a reality in today’s world. But the lines of what â€Å"justifies† it are quite blurry. What is wrong in one country’s eyes are righteous in another’s. That is the tragedy of our times. But as long as there is good in the world, as long as there are countries like the United States, France, Ukraine and Germany and others that stand for peace and Democracy, good will prevail over evil. Though not without too much bloodshed and hatred along the way. We can only hope and plan for the world with no war, though it is quite unlikely to happen anytime soon. We can be sure of that fact.