How to present a winning financially justification for new and replacement eq uipment e b ov em How to win th ean coun

Document Sample
How to present a winning financially justification for new and replacement eq uipment e b ov em How to win th ean coun Powered By Docstoc
					  How to present a winning financially justification for new and replacement
                                eq uipment.
  "             e b             ov            em
   How to win th ' ean counters' er and get th to b wh you want, en if its not b
                                                   uy at        ev                     "
                                                                                udgeted.

ABS   TRACT
How to present a winning financially justification for new and replacement equipment. From time to time it becomes clear that an
item of equipment is ex         e
                         pensiv to maintain and it would be cheaper to replace it. To get moneys for the change it is necessary to
justify the ex                    e
              penditure and prov that replacement is a better decision than k eeping the ex               n
                                                                                           isting item. I this guide you will be
   en                                                                        es.                                   e
tak through the necessary steps to fully compare and justify the alternativ You will be directed how to mak simple but
conv  incing presentations to the financial people and departmental managers. The appropriate formulas and spreadsheet layouts
will be dev eloped simply and ex   plained fully. By following the procedure and methods cov                                  e
                                                                                              ered in this guide you will mak such a
                                                  e                                               net
strong case for replacement that people will giv you the necessary money to do it. Keywords: present v         alue, hurdle rate,
inv estment proposal,  return on inv estment,

     . e
    1 Th HURDLE RATE

W hen inv                                                                       el
           esting your own money you lookfor the greatest interest rate at a lev of riskthat you can accept.
Businesses are the same. To insure they get an acceptable return on their money they set a minimum rate of
                                            hurdle rate’is used to mak a cut between projects. Those abov
interest that their money must return. This ‘                          e                                     e
                        ing
the rate are worth look at and those below are left alone.

                                                                                        ing
W hen you approach people to get money from them to buy new equipment they are look to see how
                     e
strong a case you hav to support your request. A business uses its money where it will return greatest value.
  o                               e
S your proposal will need to prov to people that their money is best spent on your recommendation and not
on some other requirement.

                                                                           f
The hurdle rate reflects where the money comes from in the first place. I the money is a loan from the bank
then any inv                                                                    e
             estments must return higher than the bankinterest plus a bit to mak it worthwhile putting effort
                  f
into the project. I the money is from shareholders then the inv estment must return a sufficiently greater
return than another project or inv                                          e                       f
                                  estment of equal riskthat they could hav put their money into. I the
                                                                                             s
money is from moneylenders then it must return a higher interest rate than the moneylender’ loan rate plus a
bit more to pay for the effort. At times funding can come from all three sources and the hurdle rate reflects
the proportionate mixof each source.

     .
    2 HARD EVIDENCE

W hen going to askfor money for replacement equipment or for an improv        ement project you need solid proof
                           ists                                              n
that a current problem ex and that it is wasting the business’money. I the case of replacement
equipment it is necessary to compile real costs of remaining with the current equipment. These typically are
cost of parts,cost of labour,   cost of power,cost of fuel,cost of subcontractors, cost of management,
engineering and superv                                                           e
                         isory time and cost of production losses that could hav been sales rev enue.

The strongest case is made when the real costs are faithfully quantified and recorded. There is nothing lik  e
an invoice from an ex         e
                       pensiv contractor, invan                                      e
                                                   oice for parts that should not hav been necessary to buy or
                                                       ,                 e
wages time sheets for unplanned maintenance work to clearly prov the true cost of remaining with the
                         f
current item of plant. I necessary start collecting this ‘ hard ev  idence’by hand and through the accounting
          f         e                                                                      CM
system. I you hav a fully integrated computerised maintenance management system ( M S then the    )
collection of real historic costs is extracted from the CM M S  .

This hard ev                                                                                       o
             idence is the foundation of your case and because it is true it cannot be disputed. S it is very
                                                                                                 e
worthwhile to trackit down and to analyse it and present it clearly and truthfully. Do not mak figures up –
                         but           e                       olv then estimate the cost and prov the
if they cannot be found, you believ that there is a cost inv ed,                                       ide
basis for your estimation.


                                       I
  Postal Address: FEED FORW ARD PUBL CATI                     8,
                                             ONS,PO Box57 BENTL           W
                                                                       EY, est Australi 6102. E- aiAddress: f orward@ bgpond.c
                                                                                      a,       m l          eedf       i      om
                    au
                Bec se the authors and publisher do not know the c     t n ih      n orm on           n e ly s
                                                                  ontex i whc the if ati presented i th f er i to be
                          c     o       si li or
               used theyac ept n respon bityf the c seq
                                                      on uenc ofusi the i orm ati c tai or i ed i anyartiles.
                                                                 es      ng   nf      on on ned     mpli n       c
 .             NG
7 M ODELI REPLACEM ENT EVALUATI                       ONS
There are three commonly used ways to present the comparison of old v      erses new. Each method will show
up the better option provided it is used consistently with each of the replacement options.

    .
   71 Payb  ack Period
                                       es
      This is the length of time it tak to recoup the cost of the replacement from the savings it provides.

       PaybackPeriod              =           Cost to buy the replacement                    .
                                  Average annual savings from replacement.

The average annual sav ings are the sum of the annual savings for the life of the equipment divided by the
years of equipment life. For ex        the                                           30 0
                                ample, paybackperiod for a machine that cost $ ,0 and has net av         erage
         ing   10 0
cash sav of $ ,0 per year is 3years.

    . imple Rate of Return
   72 S
                              ing
     This is the estimated sav as a percentage of the cost of the replacement. These are popular and
     widely used since they ex                    s erage annual earnings as a percentage of the initial
                               press a replacement’ av
     investment or av erage inv estment.

       Simple Rate of Return=              Average annual sav ings from replacement x1 0
                                                                                      0%
                                                Cost to buy the replacement

       Simple Rate of Return=              Average annual savings from replacement x1 0
                                                                                     0%
                                            Av erage annual cost of replacement

       This method is based on the v   alues in the accounts,which depend on the method of depreciation, and
                                                   n                       e
       so it is not based on precise cash flows. I addition it does not tak into account the time dependency
       of the v                 i.e.
                alue of money, inflation.

    .
   73 Net Present Value
                               ing
      This is the cash flow sav each year discounted for the effect of interest and inflation and deducted
      from the original cost. This is the most accurate method and the one most widely used but also the
      most complicated. A discounted v    alue is one that shows what a sum of money is worth today. For
      ex         10 0 ested at 1 % per year will be worth $ ,0 in a year’ time. That is, a discount
         ample $ ,0 inv             0                            11 0          s               at
               0        11 0 t                     10 0
      rate of 1 % the $ ,0 nex year is worth $ ,0 today.

       W hen using Net P                NP
                          resent Value ( V)calculations you workout what the future sav        ings will be in
              s
       today’ dollars and deduct them from the original ex            f                       e alue it means
                                                              pense. I the result is a negativ v
                                                                    V          e
       that the purchase will not be profitable. W hereas if the NP is positiv it means the proposal will
            e                                                                                       t
       mak money for the business. This method accounts for all effects on the flow of cash. I requires
       the use of a spreadsheet but can be done by longhand on paper for simple equipment replacement
       options.

                                                                                  ery
       The effect of inflation is a compounding effect. That means that it acts ev year on the previous
            s alue. Tak $ ,0 today with the inflation rate at 2 I a years time you will need $ ,2
       year’ v            e 10 0                                 %. n                              10 0
        $ ,0      .0 )                                        10 0
       ( 10 0x1 2 for it to be worth the same amount as $ ,0 today. The year after that you will need
        10 0 0 $ ,2           .0 )                   10 0       and
       $ ,4 .4 ( 10 0x1 2 for it to be worth $ ,0 today, so on in compound fashion.

                                                               V
       The same approach is used when determining the NP of replacement options. Each year the current
       costs are inflated. The net sav ings for each year are then calculated and converted backinto the
       equiv alent value today if the investment in the replacement had to meet the hurdle rate. Table No. 1
       shows it done for our replacement truck   .

                                      I
 Postal Address: FEED FORW ARD PUBL CATI                     8,
                                            ONS,PO Box57 BENTL           W
                                                                      EY, est Australi 6102. E- aiAddress: f orward@ bgpond.c
                                                                                     a,       m l          eedf       i      om
                   au
               Bec se the authors and publisher do not know the c     t n ih      n orm on           n e ly s
                                                                 ontex i whc the if ati presented i th f er i to be
                         c     o       si li or
              used theyac ept n respon bityf the c seq
                                                     on uenc ofusi the i orm ati c tai or i ed i anyartiles.
                                                                es      ng   nf      on on ned     mpli n       c
             So m e Q u a l i t y Pa r a d i g m s a r e Exp e n s i ve .
ABSTRACT
S ome quality paradigms are ex        e.                                                  en
                                pensiv Quality is a mindset! W hen a wise man is giv the chance to buy quality items he does so
because quality pays for itself. A quality item lasts longer,                      s
                                                              runs better and look good when others fade. To change the way you
                      es
thinkabout quality tak a lot of ex  perience with using poorer options. W hen you are sitting down with your head in your hands
                                                  to                                                      ey
wondering what can be done to get costs down, get production up and how you are going to hit the k performance indicators,
remember the importance of quality equipment,     quality systems,  quality training and your quality mindset!
Keywords:  quality control,

 t
I is the way of people in many cultures to lookat the purchase cost of a thing and not its life cycle cost.
          e
They hav been taught short-            ing
                            term think at the ex    pense of long-
                                                                 term benefits. I is an ex
                                                                                  t                 e
                                                                                             pensiv paradigm
               e
by which to liv your life.

W hen you go to buy a suit do you buy the least ex      e
                                                  pensiv suit that will fit you? That is what I            n
                                                                                               used to do. I
my ignorance I thought I          ing                     did
                         was mak a smart purchase. I not understand why it was cheap.

 t                                    ,         en       it                          the
I was cheap because it was not a thick well wov fabric, was not double stitched, thread holding the
                                 the                                e
buttons were not ended properly, person sewing the suit would hav been paid a meagre wage and it
           e                         . uch         by
would hav been made on piece work S a suit, the nature of its manufacture,         could not be a quality
                                               e
product. Ineeded to buy two such suits and leav one in the wardrobe awaiting the failure of the first. Itook
this philosophy with me into my engineering career. Idid not know better at the time.

     0
For 5 % more I            e
                could hav got a quality, world-                          e
                                                class suit that would hav lasted twice as long as the two
                            tra                  e                                             uch
cheaper suits. And for no ex cost it would hav been altered for free to lookgood on me. S a fine suit
          e
would hav told the world that here is a person of quality with high standards and high ex pectations from life.

                                                          …                               er
But Ihad been brought up with the wrong paradigm. Rather, the effect of my choices had nev been
ex                o
  plained to me. S in my ignorance I thought buying cheap was buying smart.

 t       en                                            en       k
I has tak me a long time to realise my great error. Ev today, nowing full well the consequences of
                the                                                          e
buying cheaply, first thought that comes into my mind is how little do Ihav to spend to get the job done.
         e                                  ing                 t
Iwill hav to fight against that way of think till the day Idie. I is the wrong paradigm to use to make
equipment purchase choices,  terribly wrong!

 f                                                                                                       term
I such an approach to doing business is ingrain in an organisation it will lead to loss of potential long-
         t
profits. I must,                                                       ust e
                because that which is cheap must be replaced often. J lik buying a cheap suit.

Suppose that instead the paradigm was turned around!

As an ex         tak                                                         en             e
         ample, e an equipment design engineer or project design engineer giv the taskto mak a thing
                            5
do a job. But it must last 2 years without a single failure.

 t                                   ery                                                         5
I now becomes critical to consider ev possible failure cause and design adequate protection for 2 years
     free
fault- serv                                           e
           ice. That is a totally different perspectiv to what we are used to today.

                                  er. nstead quality,
Now cost is not the decision driv I                           ity,
                                                      creativ craftsmanship,     degrees of perfection and
      free        ity      ice
fault- longev of serv become the decision driv                                                    t
                                                         ers. That would be something wouldn’ it! W hat
great pride that would bring the persons that built with perfection as the aim and not the least cost to get
through the warranty period. And what great benefits such a piece of equipment would bring its user. For a
few dollars more they would get quality production ,             free     5
                                                       problem- for 2 years.

 f
I you thinkthat such a requirement would cause the equipment to be too ex      e                      …
                                                                         pensiv to sell or buy? W ell, .
let me tell you what Ilearnt long ago about buying suits… !
Mike Sondalini - Equipment Longevity Engineer.
                                       I
  Postal Address: FEED FORW ARD PUBL CATI                     8,
                                             ONS,PO Box57 BENTL           W
                                                                       EY, est Australi 6102. E- aiAddress: f orward@ bgpond.c
                                                                                      a,       m l          eedf       i      om
                    au
                Bec se the authors and publisher do not know the c     t n ih      n orm on           n e ly s
                                                                  ontex i whc the if ati presented i th f er i to be
                          c     o       si li or
               used theyac ept n respon bityf the c seq
                                                      on uenc ofusi the i orm ati c tai or i ed i anyartiles.
                                                                 es      ng   nf      on on ned     mpli n       c
          Be n c hm a r ki n g u s i n g R e p l a c e m e n t A s s e t V a l u e
ABS    TRACT
             ing                                                                                            n
Benchmark using Replacement Asset Value. A benchmarkis the end distance point from the start. I the world of maintenance
it is the name for the targets that an organisation sets for itself in an improv                           ing
                                                                                ement program. Benchmark is often against world-
                                     ide                                         s               e.
best practice and it is used to prov direction and focus in an organisation’ efforts to improv W hen RAV is chosen as the
benchmarkit means that the annual cost of maintaining the plant will be measured against the v    alue of the plant. RAV is a
                                                                                     e
percentage of the cost to replace the plant. The lower the RAV the more effectiv the maintenance effort. Keywords:      metric,
maintenance cost,   percentage replacement v   alue

                                            as
The percentage of annual maintenance costs, a proportion of replacement asset v       RAV)is becoming
                                                                                 alue (
the univ                       ing                                         t   olv
        ersal way of benchmark companies across a particular industry. I inv es collecting the total
annual maintenance costs and then div                                          0        e
                                     iding the RAV into it and multiplying by 1 0to giv a percentage.

The RAV is,   strictly speak     the
                            ing, current cost to rebuild your plant today ex                         t
                                                                               actly as it is today. I is the
                                                                            es
current cost to construct the plant to its present design. This approach tak in the effect of inflation on both
the project costs and the spare parts and maintenance costs. The difficult part is how can you cost the rebuild
of your plant today.

                                   e                                                                     it-
The most accurate way is to giv all your design and construction drawings of the plant and facility as- is-
                                                                                                         t eep
today to a contractor and askfor a current price to build it. But that is a huge job and most people don'k
that sort of detail on their plant. You can go to your insurer and askthem to let you use their replacement
cost data for the equipment in your plant and then,                                   giv
                                                      asset number by asset number, e it a current cost. But
                          e
few insurers would hav all the data you need. The last option is the one most used and that is to get the as-
constructed asset v  alue from the company accountants for each asset and then increase the as- constructed
                      er
cost for inflation ov the interv   ening years since construction.

The last option is not to hard to do if you use an av erage annual inflation increase on all the as-constructed
v alues. S                                            e
           ome complications arise if the assets hav been rev   alued. W hen assets are rev alued the rev aluation
                                                          it
is the monetary worth of the asset at that point in time, is what people will pay for it and not actually what
          n               e
it costs. I that case tak the as-  constructed figure and multiply it by the average annual inflation rate.
Complication also arises if a lot of capital workwas done on maintenance and ex                n
                                                                                     pensed. I that case the
asset v alues in the asset register are undervalued. This is not usually a major issue.

Unfortunately using as-                                e
                        constructed costs does not tak into effect the savings made from the introduction of
new technology into the plant. Using new and better technology means the plant can now be made for less
                         s      s
cost. But the accountant' book only register actual historical costs and would show a higher v  alue than it
would really need to be. This also is not usually a problem unless your plant has had a major technological
change introduced into it since construction. Talkto the accountants in that case and come up with new asset
values that they are happy with.

 f
I you cannot get as- constructed v        the                             e
                                   alues ( asset register should hav them)then a rough way to estimate
RAV is to get the total asset value for the entire plant as it is today from the accountants. The current v  alue
allows for depreciation. Then factor backin the av    erage depreciation and the av  erage inflation rates by asset
                                    e
number. The accountants will hav both those rates.

                                 ing
The other side of the benchmark equation is the annual maintenance costs. How true are your
                      f
maintenance costs? I you include plant improv      ements,safety improv         env
                                                                       ements, ironmental improv   ements,
site security improvements,                      s
                             small capital work and equipment modifications in the maintenance cost then
         e
you hav an unreal,   higher figure than the true maintenance cost for maintaining your plant. Your
benchmarkresult will be higher than it should be.




                                       I
  Postal Address: FEED FORW ARD PUBL CATI                     8,
                                             ONS,PO Box57 BENTL           W
                                                                       EY, est Australi 6102. E- aiAddress: f orward@ bgpond.c
                                                                                      a,       m l          eedf       i      om
                    au
                Bec se the authors and publisher do not know the c     t n ih      n orm on           n e ly s
                                                                  ontex i whc the if ati presented i th f er i to be
                          c     o       si li or
               used theyac ept n respon bityf the c seq
                                                      on uenc ofusi the i orm ati c tai or i ed i anyartiles.
                                                                 es      ng   nf      on on ned     mpli n       c
              M a i n t e n a n c e p l a n n i n g a n d s c he d u l i n g
ABS  TRACT
                                                 M NTENANCE P
M aintenance planning and scheduling. The book“ AI                        NG
                                                                  LANNI AND S                  NG
                                                                                      CHEDULI HANDBOOK”by Doc
Palmer and published by M cGraw Hill presents the recommended way to plan for a maintenance crew. Keywords: maintenance
planning,scheduling, planner,performance,          ity,
                                         productiv planner.

The book begins with the sentence -“ The M aintenance P lanning and Scheduling Handbook shows how to
       e                         ity
improv dramatically the productiv of maintenance.” But what else would you ex    pect the author to say?
       er
Howev the book soon starts quoting v                        ity
                                         erifiable productiv improv              0         e
                                                                      ements of 5 % abov the results
      ed
achiev when not using planning.

Doc P                                                            es
      almer separates planning and scheduling. For each he giv 6principles to workby. He sees planning
as an entirely distinct step to scheduling. The planner is located separate to the maintenance department so
he cannot be div erted from the job of planning by sudden problems.

The planner is not the scheduler. The maintenance superv  isor schedules. The planner provides a complete
work pack age – purchased materials,tool list,procedures,drawings,past equipment history,job times,
manning requirements and ex                                                             s
                             ternal resource requirements such as cranes – and then walk away to prepare
       t
the nex workorder.

Break down jobs cannot be planned and Doc adv      ises that breakdowns go directly to the maintenance
       isor                                            olv
superv to run with. The planner does not become inv ed in break     downs or in any job once started. The
                                        to-
planner is there to get ahead of the day- day workso that fresh workis always prepared for the crew before
they finish their current jobs.

 f                                                                      es                     es
I the crew find a problem once a planned job is started the crew solv the problem themselv without
   olv
inv ing the planner. The planner is adv  ised of the problem in the report when the workorder is returned.
       es                                                               t
He mak a note in the plant records so he can plan and prepare for it nex time.

P        ity
 roductiv is max   imised because all the planning,parts and information is provided and the tradesmen can
be immediately put onto the tools to do the job.

Doc also indicates that a good planner has particular attributes that are critical for success and provides a
useful list of them in the appendixto his book.

This bookis well worth reading if you are interested in max                     ity
                                                           imising the productiv and performance of your
maintenance crews.
          y
Reviewed b Mike Sondalini




                                      I
 Postal Address: FEED FORW ARD PUBL CATI                     8,
                                            ONS,PO Box57 BENTL           W
                                                                      EY, est Australi 6102. E- aiAddress: f orward@ bgpond.c
                                                                                     a,       m l          eedf       i      om
                   au
               Bec se the authors and publisher do not know the c     t n ih      n orm on           n e ly s
                                                                 ontex i whc the if ati presented i th f er i to be
                         c     o       si li or
              used theyac ept n respon bityf the c seq
                                                     on uenc ofusi the i orm ati c tai or i ed i anyartiles.
                                                                es      ng   nf      on on ned     mpli n       c
Understanding the W eibull shape parameters prov  ides the owners, users and maintainers of equipment with a
tool to predict the behav                                                  e
                         iour of engineering components and select effectiv maintenance strategies.

                                                                               e
 <1 implies infant mortality. Electronic and mechanical components often hav high failure rates initially.
 




Some components are ‘ burnt in’prior to use,others require careful commissioning after installation.

β= implies random failures. These failures are independent of time where an old part is as good as a new
   1
part. M aintenance ov   erhauls are not appropriate. Condition monitoring and inspection are strategies used to
                            and
detect the onset of failure, reduce the consequences of failure.

1 β< implies early wear out. Failures of this type are not normally ex
 < 4                                                                  pected within the design life. Failure
mechanisms such as corrosion,         low
                             erosion, cycle fatigue and bearing failures fall in this range. M aintenance
         olv
often inv es a periodic reworkor life extension task.

β> these are wear out or end of life failures. They should not appear within the design life. Appropriate
   4
                                                                        e
maintenance is often renewal. An ideal profile for equipment is to hav a negligible failure probability
throughout its design life followed by a steep b where the replacement age can be predicted. Age related
failures include stress corrosion cracking,creep,                   and
                                                 high cycle fatigue, erosion.

                                                                     als
Today W eibull analysis is commonly being used to predict safe interv for operation in applications such as
warranty periods,                als
                  shutdown interv and increasingly in setting maintenance and inspection interv  als. W ith
                                  the
more sophisticated CM M S in use, collection of failure mode data is more reliable and data analysis can
be handled electronically.

                          e
M any organisations hav been k                                                                  but
                                   eeping records of failures manually or in computer systems, not using the
data in any useful way. Failure data is the best source of reliability information av            t
                                                                                       ailable. I has relevance
and is easy for site people to relate their own ex perience to. By transforming it into useful information from
                                                                                               e
which failure forecasts can be made it can then be used to model the benefits of alternativ strategies or to
analyse the reliability of current systems and the capacity to meet operating needs.

Life cycle S  imulation
     ing
Hav determined the W eibull parameters that best represent failure mode behav   iour,they can be used to
simulate performance ov ex   er tended periods of time. M odern simulation pack        olv
                                                                               ages inv e a simulation
                                                                                    er
engine that generates random numbers in accordance with the W eibull parameters ov a specified system
lifetime. Used in conjunction with Reliability Centered M aintenance (   RCM )principles,the process of
                                              als
selecting maintenance and inspection interv becomes a process of playing “       what if” by comparing
different reliability strategies.
   h               tor,
Mic ael Drew –Direc ArmsReliab               T is ec     as een
                              ility Engineers( h s tion h b edited)

                                ide
ARM S Reliability Engineers prov training in the use of these methods and can assist companies with introduction of the methodologies into their organisations.
          ing
For improv maintenance decisions and optimising plant up-  time see www.reliability.com.au for more information.




FEED FORW ARD PUBLI CATI               8,
                        ONS,PO Box57 BENTL         W
                                               EY, est Australi 6
                                                                a, 102 W eb www.f orward.c
                                                                           :    eedf               mai nf eedf
                                                                                           om.au E- l: i o@ f orward.com.au
            au                 li er d
         Bec se the authors,pub sh an resellers do not know the c tex i whih th i orm ati presen i the f er i to be
                                                                 on t n     c e nf      on      ted n   ly s
                       c     o      si li or
            used theyac ept n respon bityf the c seq
                                                 on uenc ofusi the i orm ati c tai or i li i anyartiles.
                                                           es      ng    nf    on on ned     mp ed n       c
                  e
How To Complete Th 5W hys
                                                                         e
1 W rite down the specific problem. W riting the issue helps you formaliz the problem and describe it
 .
            t
completely. I also helps a team focus on the same problem.

2 AskW hy the problem happens and write the answer down below the problem.
 .

 .f
3 I the answer you just prov          t
                            ided doesn'identify the root cause of the problem that you wrote down in step
 ,
1 askW hy again and write that answer down.

                                                                   s
4 Loop backto step 3until the team is in agreement that the problem' root cause is identified. Again,
 .                                                                                                   this
       e                            e
may tak fewer or more times than fiv W hys.


Problem Statement: are on your way home from workand your car stops in the middle of the
                  You
road.

1 W h did your car stop?
 . y
-Because it ran out of gas.
2 W h did it run out of gas?
 . y
                t
-Because Ididn'buy any gas on my way to work      .
             t
3 W h didn'you buy any gas this morning?
 . y
                t      e
-Because Ididn'hav any money.
             t          e
4 W h didn'you hav any money?
 . y
                                         er
-Because Ilost it all last night in a pok game.
                                              s     er
5 W h did you lose your money in last night' pok game?
 . y
          'm       ery
-Because I not v good at "                       don' e
                                  bluffing"when I t hav a good hand.

                  in
As you can see, both ex                                                             root
                           amples the final W hy leads the team to a statement ( cause)         that the team can
   e                 t             er
tak action upon. I is much quick to come up with a system that k         eeps the sales director updated on recent
sales or teach a person to "                                               e                           e
                            bluff"a hand than it is to try to directly solv the stated problems abov without
further inv estigation.




                                  //
                       W eb http: www.feedforward.com.au. E- ai mailto:
                           :                                       m l:         info@ feedforward.com.au.
                   DISCLAIMER: Bec   ause the authors and publi
                                                              sher do not k ow the c
                                                                           n             t n ih     n ormati
                                                                                    ontex i whc the if     on
                             s     e sed theyac ept no responsi li f the c seq
                   presented i to b u           c               bity or                es    si   e n orm on.
                                                                             on uenc ofu ng th if ati

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:187
posted:12/21/2010
language:English
pages:7
Description: Asset Purchase Justification document sample