Planning Function of Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Planning Function of Management - Essay Example Introduction Before going to evaluate the planning function of an oilfield company, let us get a better understanding of what planning actually is. Planning is one of the core functions of management. â€Å"Planning involves selecting company goals and department objectives, then finding ways of implementing them† (Hahn, 2011). Proper planning by the managers provides a number of benefits to their organizations, such as, avoidance of confusions, reduction of risks, improved production services, completion of tasks within deadlines, and correct use of all available resources. Let us discuss planning function of management in some detail in order to know the role that it plays in the success of a company 2. Name of the Selected Company The company whose planning function we are going to evaluate is Schlumberger, which is an oilfield company. Employing over 110,000 employees from different parts of the world, Schlumberger is the world’s biggest oilfield services providing company. Schlumberger is a provider of different products and services to the energy sector of different countries. Some of the core business operations of this company include managing geological data, locating hydrocarbons, construction of the wells, drilling, and managing lifecycle of the reservoirs. 3. Planning Function For the managers at Schlumberger, planning holds great importance in all processes of management. â€Å"At this stage, the company is given an objective† (Spindler, 2008). Planning means to recognize organizational goals and to develop proper strategies to meet those goals. Planning not only includes setting goals for the future but also includes development of tactics and strategies to meet those goals. Wijesinghe (2010) states, â€Å"Planning requires administration to assess; where the company is presently set, and where it would be in the upcoming†. Managers at Schlumberger firmly believe that they cannot achieve desired goals without doing prop er planning based on the analysis of facts and figures. Moreover, they also develop separate plans for different business operations. The reason is that every operation has a different set of requirements, so different type of planning needs to be done in the beginning of any specific operation to complete the operation successfully. Rothbauer-Wanish (2009) states, â€Å"Planning may take time in the beginning, but it saves time and reduces difficulties that may occur in the future†. 3.1 Types of Planning For proper planning, managers consider many factors, such as, availability of resources, assessment of organizational environment, future trends of the oil and gas industry, assessment of industrial demands, and proper use of capital. At Schlumberger, managers need to do different types of planning to. Some of those types of planning include marketing planning, construction planning, production planning, and project planning. Marketing planning means to develop appropriate s trategies for the marketing of the company’s products and services. For marketing planning, Schlumberger’s managers consider 4Ps of the marketing mix to develop a proper marketing plan. For construction planning, managers consider different aspects of a project to develop a plan for that project. Some of the major aspects, which managers consider, include site of the project, needs of the client firm, geological survey, and feasibility of the project. Production managers also do proper planning to enhance production services, such as, pipeline process services, well intervention

BUSINESS LAW Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

BUSINESS LAW - Essay Example Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and 28 United States Judicial Code 1332(a)(2). U.S. Const. art. III, 2, cl. 1. grants federal judicial power over all cases that are between a U.S. State or the citizen of a U.S. State and any "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects". 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2) provides for jurisdiction over a civil action that is between the citizen(s) of a U.S. State, and the "citizens or subjects of a foreign state". The plaintiff attempted to sue Albert Khalily and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear, Inc., in the Southern District of New York, on the basis of alleged breach of contract. Both defendants were incorporated in the State of New York. The plaintiff claimed the right to bring suit in a U.S. court under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2), which grants jurisdiction to the court over civil disputes between U.S. citizens and "citizens or subjects of a foreign state". During the breach of contract case, in June 1996, the court, of its accord, brought up the issue of whether it had proper jurisdiction over the matter. After the parties involved had briefed the issue, in August 1996, the court dismisssed it on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, having determined that, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Hong Kong is not a "foreign state", and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be considered a "citizen or subject" of one. (a) No. Issue(s): (a) Does "Hong Kong" merit the legal status of a "foreign state", thus allowing Matimak the status of a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction; (b) Does Matimak have the status of a "citizen or subject" of the United Kingdom because of the Hong Kong's status as a "British Dependent Territory", when Matimak brought suit; (c)Does every non-U.S. citizen, in fact, have the right to claim alienage jurisdiction, when engaged in a civil dissent with a U.S. citizen Holding: (a) No. Hong Kong is not recognized a "foreign state" by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, therefore, Matimak is not a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction. (b) No. Matmak is not a "citizen or subject" of the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom does not recognize corporations founded in Hong Kong as its "citizens or subjects". (c) No. Only the "citizens or subjects" of foreign states which are recognized as being sovereign states by the U.S. Government may claim alienage jurisdiction. Reasoning: (a) The definition of "foreign state" is not explicitly provided within the Constitution, nor in the relevent law. However, 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure 3604 (1984) holds that the generally recognized definition of a "foreign state", for purposes of U.S. legal status is a state that is recognized formally by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The Court used this definition to provide a ruling on the question of alienage jurisdiction in Iran Handicraft and Carpet Export Center v. Marjan International Corp., 655 F. Supp. 1275 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 868 F.2d 1267 (2d Cir. 1988). At that time, the Court determined that because only the President has the power to receive Foreign Ministers, formal recognition of "foreign states" is solely the realm of the Executive Bra