Violación sexual de menor de edad (art 173 del c.p.)

The main dilemmas that the FGC faces with regard to SME’s is the cost, and hence affordability, of their courses and the SME’s perception that the cost of training outweighs the benefits to the company. The current investigation identifies that SME’s are the greatest potential users of the FGC courses as they generally can not afford the development and use of “in-house” training courses. Unfortunately, most of them can not, or perceive that they can not, afford training for their staff. As the Director from Company E noted “the smaller companies are the ones who need the training and staircasing most, but usually they have less of a commitment to training than most. In the current tight financial times businesses are focussing on “what don’t we have to spend right now” and in SMEs training is one of the first things to stop.” As 85% of the FMCG industry are SME’s, if they can not afford to send their staff on training courses

then this severely limits the number of people who will use the FGC courses. Hence FGC’s dilemma is how to convince SME’s that the benefits from training are such that they should “afford” the money to send their staff on the training courses. Construction of the polarity map for this dilemma is based on identifying the opposing “cost/benefits” to the company of training their staff as opposed to maintaining the (do nothing) status quo.

 No financial outlay – cheaper for company

 Allows company to apply all of its resources to doing its business

 Improved staff performance leading to increased customer satisfaction, sales and company profitability

 Motivates staff and improves staff satisfaction and retention

 Builds capacity and flexibility in company g  Future proofing for company against

unforeseen market changes

 Better/more efficient ways of doing things  Market best practice

 Improved recruitment potential for business  Customer focus

 No future proofing  Staff dissatisfaction  High staff turnover  Stagnation of business

 Business continually in survival mode

 Customer dissatisfaction

 Training is a significant cost to the business

 Cost and affordability of courses.  No guarantee of improved staff

performance

 Training requires staff to be away from their everyday jobs

 Increased staff portability

Management of the polarity: This is the major dilemma for the FGC as it has the potential to be a significant cause of the SME companies not using their courses. From the FGC perspective this is a seemingly unsolvable problem. If a company perceives that it does not have the money to afford training for its staff then that perception and financial reality can not be “solved” by an outside agency such as the FGC.

Benefits of status quo: Can you afford not to train

your staff?

Benefits of training: Can you afford to train

your staff?

L+ R+

The reality of this was demonstrated in the current investigations when a small company (Company F) was asked for an interview. The first point of contact was the standard “request for an interview” emailed to the CEO explaining the focus of the investigation and requesting an interview. As there was no response the company was telephoned to speak to the CEO. When the purpose of the call was explained to the receptionist she stated that “the CEO is too busy and would not be interested in being part of such a project.” When the Marketing Manager was finally contacted he stoically refused to be interviewed on the grounds that “we are a small company which does not have a view on the industry and do not undertake any training of our staff”. In this context it is interesting to note that whilst they do not fund training for their staff, they pay $30,000 to be a member of the FGC.

Construction of a polarity map identifies two strategies that the FGC can use to manage this dilemma. The first is to address SME’s belief that there is little or no benefit from training staff. It requires development of documentation that explains to SME’s the value of undertaking staff training (R+) versus the cost of not doing it (L+). This should be done in such a way that company managers can relate the benefits and down sides to their company. This can be achieved by providing documentation, with examples, of the benefits, and particularly bottom line improvement, to be gained by small companies “affording” training for their staff. The dedication of Company D to training, and the performance that company has achieved from that training, is one example that could be used.

Addressing the “affordability” issue however involves money, and as such is more complex and difficult for the FGC to manage. Consequently it creates another dilemma for the FGC to manage. Company B, the only small company interviewed, indicated that the current FGC course fee ($2,000 plus GST) is at the top limit of their affordability. An obvious solution to this affordability dilemma would be for the FGC to offer “easy pay” options, deferred payments, fees spread over several months at a level the company can afford and even a “scholarship” with the best performer at the course having their fees refunded. However the “deferred” payment option has been tried, but none have taken it up.

Another obvious and practical solution to this affordability dilemma would be to reduce the course fee to say $1,000 plus GST, thereby making them significantly more affordable. However, the FGC courses are provided by the FGC but managed and delivered at no cost to the FGC by a management company. As this fee is the only payment the management company receives for its services, clearly reducing the fees would not suit them. Fee reduction is not therefore not an option for the FGC.

The FGC could fund a staff member to manage and administer these courses, and pay the management company a fixed fee for their services, all from the course fees. However, the combined cost of this staff member, plus the fee to the management company for delivering the courses, would be greater than the current arrangement. In addition, as the management company owns the intellectual property rights to the courses, the FGC can not use another management company or person to deliver the same, or similar, courses,

The FGC could fund the delivery of the courses from its membership income and provide the courses as a free service to the industry, including SME’s, whether they are members of the FGC or not. However, a free service to one group is a tax on another. Hence, the industry as a whole would benefit from these SME’s receiving the training they require free of charge. However, the companies who pay their $30,000 membership fee to the FGC would be funding attendance of none FGC member SME’s at the courses. This is clearly not a position the FGC would wish to adopt as it would not promote membership of the FGC whilst depleting the membership income they currently receive.

Hence this issue around affordability for SME’s has no obvious solution and can only be addressed by construction of another polarity map based on the relative drivers of the FGC as an industry representative and the management company as the provider of the FGC courses.

 Goal to maximize number of people on courses to thereby upskill whole industry  Cheaper the courses more small to medium

companies will use them

 Goal to maximise number of people on courses thereby

 Maximise income

 Affordability issues for small to medium companies.

 Can not resolve by subsidising small to medium companies

 Discounted fees get more people on courses but significantly increases fixed costs and reduces profit.

Management of the polarity: The polarity map demonstrates that both sides of the polarity, the Management Company and FGC, want to maximize the number of people using the courses as this achieves both of their goals. The dilemma to be managed is that the management company want to maximise the price charged for the courses whist the FGC want to minimise it. Hence, to manage this dilemma the FGC must identify an inducement to the management company to significantly discount the course fees, but an inducement which will not cost the FGC in real money terms. The answer to this dilemma therefore lies in identifying and matching the capabilities of each of the two “players” in the polarity.

For the management company their capabilities are in the design, development and delivery of training programmes to the FMCG industry which they do for the FGC. However, independent of the FGC, the management company also provides consultancy services and tailor made in-house training programmes to individual FMCG companies. For the FGC, one of their key capabilities is their access to and the ability to influence the FMCG industry as a whole. Hence, the FGC can manage this dilemma by providing a “none cash” benefit to the management company by undertaking a marketing campaign that would promote their consultancy services to the industry. In this way, if this generates sufficient new business and hence income to the management

FGC representing industry Management Co as Provider L+ R+ L- R-

company from their consultancy services to offset what they would lose by reducing the course fees, this achieves the FGC’s desired outcomes.