Creating Business Justification For RFID

A strong business justification is recommended before rolling out RFID in an enterprise because it enables you to accomplish fundamental goals below:

– Return Of Investment & Maximize return on investment. You need a careful analysis of business cases, so that you can quantify the benefits and the resources needed to implement an RFID solution. You can choose the areas that offer the maximum ROI as the potential candidates for RFID use.

– Objectively provides data about the benefits of RFID. With objective data, it enables you to determine whether to use the technology. Obviously, if RFID shows greater and substantial benefits, objective data will accelerate adoption of RFID in the business. Also, business justification is also build realistic expectations of the technology.

Although if the business has received an RFID mandate from the business partners, it still need to justify the use of the technology. Once the goals listed are achieved, it will definitely become apparent how and where RFID needs to be used and applied. Implementation and design of appropriate RFID solutions can then proceed. In general, a successful executing of these goals will set a solid foundation on which the RFID technology adoption can be built upon.

In total picture, you cannot just determine the ROI accurately just by making high-level assumptions regarding benefits. For example, the shrinkage in a certain type of business accounts on average for 30 percent of sales, a business of this type might be incorrect in assuming RFID will result in savings and cost down of 30 percent. Actually, the shrinkage of this particular business might be greater than or lower than this number. Secondly, the introduction of a nontrivial RFID solution in a business operations environment impacts the operations and the total business flows.

That is why, the final benefit numbers appeared might be off the mark. That is the reason an RFID solution cannot be designed in the technical space alone; we still need to look at business impact and analysis need to be performed, too.

A total RFID solution is a data-collection technology. With the data-collection part completed, you can address the fundamental question of how to use the analysis data. Obviously the answer will lies in re-factoring the flow of business processes so that you can extract maximum advantage from the available data. With that, business process and flow change will offer the ultimate benefit in using RFID technology. With that you can learn how to determine the benefit effectively. Our suggested method, the business process changes and flow for using RFID are determined first, follow by the impact of the changes is analyzed and the benefit determined as a result of the analysis. This approach can lead to accurate determination of ROI and hence realistic expectations regarding the use of RFID technology.

7 Essential Reasons Your Business Needs A CFO

If you’re a CEO or business owner then you will want to grow your business to a decent size. If you do, then there will come a point, early in the life of your business when you need to appoint a Chief Financial Officer (CFO). It doesn’t have to be full time and at the outset it is likely to be much better for the business to have a more flexible, part-time arrangement. However, the essential element is that you need someone (and this won’t be your accountant or book-keeper) with the right experience and qualifications to fulfill the role of your CFO.

Here are the main reasons you and your business need a CFO:-

1. Your business will fail without good financial control

The main reason businesses fail is because they run out of cash. The first thing a good CFO will do is to look at your business critically and identify where the cash is coming in and where it’s going out. They’ll then design a strategy for you to ensure that the leaks are plugged and the flows start to come in. This alone could potentially save your business.

2. They’re more than just bean counters

A CFO gives you a qualified and experienced business partner. You get someone who’s seen the successes and failures in business and knows what to look out for. With that experience, comes foresight and vision, the ability to see what is likely to happen to the business in the future and prepare for it. If a business is unprepared it can be just as devastated by a great business opportunity as it can by a disaster.

3. A CFO helps you make the tough decisions you’ve been putting off

In any business there are tough decisions that need to be made and often these involve personal relationships in the business. A CFO can help you clarify the business justification for the decisions and understand the impact of putting those decisions off. This helps you, as the CEO, to justify your decision to yourself and take the right course of action. Your CFO will also help you to step back from the business and see it in a new light. It’s often difficult to take that higher level view when you’re buried in the business unless you have someone to guide you.

4. You raise your credibility with customers, suppliers and investors

When customers, suppliers and investors get to talk to a CFO in a company, it raises their impression of the business, its size and its financial viability. Sometimes deals and investments are won on the credibility that a CFO brings. The biggest concern for your suppliers and your investors is that the business may fail and lose them money. A major concern for your customers is that you may not be around to complete a project or continue supplying them. When you have a CFO in your business it gives these stakeholders far more confidence in dealing with your business.

5. It shows you’re taking your business seriously

Is your business just a hobby or are you taking it seriously? Engaging a CFO even on a part time basis, is a commitment but one that shows that you believe in your business and its future. It shows that you are confident enough to bring a serious business professional into your organisation to help manage and support your business as it grows. It shows vision and good judgement. It shows that you’re a leader.

6. You need an exit strategy

If you have investors in your business they’ll be wanting to see their investment realised. And the biggest investor, certainly in terms of time and energy, is you. So how are you going to realise your investment? How are you going to strategically exit the business and enjoy the rewards of all your hard work? A good CFO will help you design the right exit strategy for you and your business.

7. It means you’re not alone

One of the most important roles that a CFO plays for the CEO is that of a sounding board and coach. As the CEO, the buck will always stop with you. Having someone you trust who you can turn to for sound, professional advice and guidance is invaluable. Having someone to discuss your plans, strategies and visions with has huge value and the fact that they can then help to bring those plans into practical reality is worth even more.

What you should find with any good CFO is that they are worth much more than they cost in terms of the value they bring to the business. Even if you already have a Finance Director (FD), a CFO can provide the higher level of additional experience they need to really make a difference to your business. And if you can’t make up your mind right now then perhaps you need to look back at reason number 3 and think again.

Coops and Condos – The Applicability of the Business Judgment Rule to Board Decisions

Cooperative and condominium directors owe a fiduciary duty to the membership to exercise their authority in the best interests of the corporation or association and all of its shareholders and owners. The concept of cooperative living is both utilitarian and libertarian. It embodies community and freedom.

The standard by which decisions of a board of directors of a cooperative or condominium are to be reviewed by the courts is known as the “business judgment rule.” In its simplest terms, the business judgment rule provides that a board action is protected from challenge if there is a good business justification for the decision and it isn’t fraudulent or an abuse of discretion. When the business judgment rule is applied, the burden of proof to establish the impropriety of the decision is on those challenging it.

In lawsuits claiming directors violated their duty in finding a tenant conduct “objectionable”, the courts have routinely applied deference to the cooperative directors determination. However, is the reasonableness of the directors determination better standard? Below is a discussion of the evolution of the business judgment doctrine as it applies to cooperative and condominium directors.

As is discussed below, it is clear that New York courts generally defer to cooperative and condominium board decisions. Nevertheless, if board action is taken for a purpose other that that of the entity, is beyond the scope of the board’s authority or is in bad faith, the courts are authorized to strictly scrutinize such action.

In the 1990 seminal decision of Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., the Court of Appeals held that the business judgment rule was the standard for judicial review of actions taken by cooperatives and condominiums boards. The business judgment rule set forth in Levandusky bars judicial review of a board’s actions if the court finds that the actions were taken in: (i) futhe4rance of the purposes of the entity; (ii) within the scope of the board’s authority; and (iii) in good faith. However, Levandusky does not automatically preclude judicial review. If an owner can prove that a board’s actions were taken for: (i) purposes other than those of the entity; (ii) beyond the scope of the board’s authority; or (iii) in bad faith, the courts will review the challenged action.

If a unit owner can demonstrate that the actions appear to b discriminatory, Levandusky established that a court may review the actions of a board. Decided nearly eighteen years ago, Levandusky continues to be a weapon for co-op and condo boards as it mitigates suits brought by apartment owners against boards. In the recent cases, the issues covered include discriminatory actions, claims of bad faith, board managerial decisions and the enforcement of house rules and proprietary lease provisions. The bulk of the cases indicate continued adherence to the Levandusky judicial deference principle.

In 1997, the Appellate Division, First Department in Goodman v., 225 East 74th Apartments Corp., judicial review was held to be warranted when the plaintiffs, two shareholders, alleged that too many shares had been allocated to their studio apartment, and, as a result, they overpaid maintenance charges for more than ten years,. The shareholders owned 460 shared allocated to an apartment in the co-op building. They had bought the apartmne3t from the sponsor’s assignee and when they purchased the apartment, rent-regulated tenants occupied it. After the tenants vacated the apartment, the shareholders learned that they had bought a studio apartment, not a two-bedroom apartment as described in the offering plan, As a consequence of the mis-description in the offe3ring plan, the shareholders had been paying maintenance charges based on a share allocation that exceeded their share allocation by 210 shares.

The shareholders demanded that the co-op correct the improper number of shares allocated to their apartment, but the board refused to do so. Subsequently the shareholders commenced an action against the co-op. The court, citing Levandusky, stated that the standard for judicial review of the actions of co-op is analogous to the business judgment rule applied by courts to determine challenges to decisions made by corporate directors. However, in light of the individual interests of the board members in the maintenance charges, it could be argued that the directors were not disinterested parties when responding to the shareholder’s claim.

Similarly, in Cooper v. Greenbriar owners Corp., judicial review was denied. In Cooper, the court held that the business judgment rule protected a board’s decision to reject a prospective purchaser of a co-op apartment. The shareholders commenced an action against the co-op to recover monetary damages contending in their complaint that the board acted in an arbitrary, capricious and illegal manner when they rejected a prospective purchaser. Their complaint alleged that the rejection was based on the possibility that the prospective purchaser might have a baby-sitting business in the apartment.

A lower court dismissed the shareholders’ complaint finding that there was a reasonable bias and support for the rejection of the applicant, that the proceedings used by the board were fair and did not differ from the established procedures used by the board in such matters and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the board’s actions were unfairly motivated or made in bad faith. The boards’ counter claim was also dismissed. On appeal, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court and cited Levandusky stating that when the co-op board “acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith, courts will not substitute their judgment for the board’s.

In 1998, the Appellate Division First Department in Elkman v. Southgate Owners Corp., declined to substitute its judgment for that of the co-op’s board. Shareholders commenced an action against the co-op to recover damages for breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of fiduciary duty, partial constructive eviction and breach of express lease covenants. Shareholders claimed there was a noxious odor emanation from a retail fish store in an adjacent building that was not owned or controlled by the co-op.

The alleged that the odor permeated their apartment, making certain portions of their apartment uninhabitable and that the co-op and its board had failed to do anything to remedy the situation despite numerous requests to do sol, The lower court dismissed the shareholders’ complaint except for the cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. On appeal, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court. In upholding the dismissal of the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the court, citing Levandusky, stated that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the board of directors when there were no allegations of fraud, misconduct or self-dealing.

In 2003, the Court of Appeals in 40 West 67th Street Corp. v. Pullman extended the reach of the business judgment rule. In that case, Mr. Pullman accused his upstairs neighbors of noise violations, running a bookbinding business and housing toxic substances. Upon investigation, the board of directors ascertained that the upstairs neighbor had no such equipment and didn’t even have a television. Thereafter, Mr. Pullman initiated four lawsuits against the co-op. After a period of time, the co-op decided to evict Mr. Pullman for “objectionable conduct”.

A special meeting of shareholders was called for this purpose and the requisite super majority was reached to terminate his lease. The case went to court and the co-op encountered Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 711, which essentially required the co-op to prove a person’s actions to be objectionable. The court found that the determination of the shareholders itself constitutes satisfactory proof that Mr. Pullman acted objectionably, and the cooperative did not have to bring in witnesses to testify as to what he did. Pullman further demonstrates that the trend continues to be deference to the business judgment of the cooperative housing corporation.