Reference no: EM131856675

Thomas Perdue had built up a successful development company. When he became city commissioner, everyone said it was good to have a businessperson on the commission. They said businesspeople know how to control costs and make sound economic decisions, and Thomas could help the city tighten its belt. One of his first projects was an analysis of the human resources department. He claimed that if the whole function was outsourced, it would save the taxpayers money. A year later, after painful layoffs and a bumpy transition, the new contractor, NewSoft, was in place. Two years later, NewSoft’s billing rates had steadily increased, and there were complaints about service. After five years, the supposed savings had vanished, and Thomas had moved on to state government, his campaigns fueled by “generous” campaign contributions from companies like NewSoft.

Requirement: After reading all differential analysis resources and viewing the videos, answer the following question 2 questions in your own words, using complete sentence structure and grammar. Please use citations if applicable.

The attached rubric displays grading criteria.   For this specific assignment, feedback will be given 24 hours after the due date. There is one attempt on this assignment. This assignment should be submitted based on individual knowledge and is not group based.

Questions

Although this case differs from “fraud” in the usual sense, describe the conflict of interest in this case. Who benefitted, and who did not?

When making business decisions of this sort, some factors are quantitative, and some are qualitative factors. Discuss some of the qualitative factors related to this case.