Bankruptcy Situation Model in Small Business: The Case of Restaurant Firms

The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the current bankruptcy prediction models. This is done in the context of pros and cons of proposed models to determine the appropriate factors of failure phenomenon in cases involving restaurants that have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. A sample of 11 restaurant companies that filed for bankruptcy between 1993 and 2003 were identified from the Form 8-K reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). By applying financial ratios retrieved from the annual reports which contain, income statements, balance sheets, statements of cash flows, and statements of stockholders’ equity (or deficit) to the Atlman’s mode, Springate model, and Fulmer’s model. The study found that Atlman’s model for the non-manufacturing industry provided the most accurate bankruptcy predictions.

A methodology to select an enterprise resource planning system for a small or medium sized enterprise

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are software programs designed to integrate the functional requirements, and operational information needs of a business. Pressures of competition and entry standards for participation in major manufacturing supply chains are creating greater demand for small business ERP systems. The proliferation of new offerings of ERP systems introduces complexity to the selection process to identify the right ERP business software for a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME). The selection of an ERP system is a process in which a faulty conclusion poses a significant risk of failure to SME’s. The literature reveals that there are still very high failure rates in ERP implementation, and that faulty selection processes contribute to this failure rate. However, the literature is devoid of a systematic methodology for the selection process for an ERP system by SME’s. This study provides a methodological approach to selecting the right ERP system for a small or medium-sized enterprise. The study employs Thomann’s meta-methodology for methodology development; a survey of SME’s is conducted to inform the development of the methodology, and a case study is employed to test, and revise the new methodology. The study shows that a rigorously developed, effective methodology that includes benchmarking experiences has been developed and successfully employed. It is verified that the methodology may be applied to the domain of users it was developed to serve, and that the test results are validated by expert users and stakeholders. Future research should investigate in greater detail the application of meta-methodologies to supplier selection and evaluation processes for services and software; additional research into the purchasing practices of small firms is clearly needed.^

"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.

Managing small-scale commercial fisheries for adaptive capacity: Insights from dynamic social-ecological drivers of change in Monterey Bay

Globally, small-scale fisheries (SSFs) are driven by climate, governance, and market factors of social-ecological change, presenting both challenges and opportunities. The ability of small-scale fishermen and buyers to adapt to changing conditions allows participants to survive economic or environmental disturbances and to benefit from optimal conditions. This study presented here identifies key large-scale factors that drive SSFs in California to shift focus among targets and that dictate long-term trends in landings. We use Elinor Ostrom’s Social-Ecological System (SES) framework to apply an interdisciplinary approach when identifying potential factors and when understanding the complex dynamics of these fisheries. We analyzed the interactions among Monterey Bay SSFs over the past four decades since the passage of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976. In this region, the Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), and market squid (Loligo opalescens) fisheries comprise a tightly linked system where shifting focus among fisheries is a key element to adaptive capacity and reduced social and ecological vulnerability. Using a cluster analysis of landings, we identified four modes from 1974 to 2012 that were dominated by squid, sardine, anchovy, or lacked any dominance, enabling us to identify external drivers attributed to a change in fishery dominance during seven distinct transition points. Overall, we show that market and climate factors drive the transitions among dominance modes. Governance phases most dictated long-term trends in landings and are best viewed as a response to changes in perceived biomass and thus a proxy for biomass. Our findings suggest that globally, small-scale fishery managers should consider enabling shifts in effort among fisheries and retaining existing flexibility, as adaptive capacity is a critical determinant for social and ecological resilience.

The IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements

In his study -The IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements - by John M. Tarras, Assistant Professor School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, Michigan State University, Tarras initially states: “The collection division of the internal revenue service is often the point of contact for many hospitality businesses. The author describes how the division operates, what the hospitality firm can expect when contacted by it, and what types of strategies firms might find helpful when negotiating a settlement with the IRS.” The author will have you know that even though most chance meetings with the IRS Collection Division are due to unfortunate tax payment circumstances, there are actually more benign reasons for close encounters of the IRS kind. This does not mean, however, that brushes with the IRS Collection Division will end on an ever friendlier note. “…the Tax Reform Act of 1986 with its added complexity will cause some hospitality firms to inadvertently fail to make proper payments on a timely basis,” Tarras affords in illustrating a perhaps less pugnacious side of IRS relations. Should a hospitality business owner represent himself/herself before the IRS? Never, says Tarras. “Too many taxpayers ruin their chances of a fair settlement by making what to them seem innocent remarks, but ones that turn out to be far different,” warns Professor Tarras. Tarras makes the distinction between IRS the Collection Division, and IRS the Audit Division. “While the Audit Division is interested in how the tax liability arose, the Collection Division is generally only interested in collecting the liability,” he informs you. Either sounds firmly in hostile territory. They don’t bluff. Tarras does want you to know that when the IRS threatens to levy on the assets of a hospitality business, they will do so. Those assets may extend to personal and real property as well, he says. The levy action is generally the final resort in an IRS collection effort. Professor Tarras explains the lien process and the due process attached to that IRS collection tactic. “The IRS can also levy a hospitality firm owner's wages. In this case, it is important to realize that you are allowed to exempt from levy $75 per week, along with $25 per week for each of your dependents (unless your spouse works),” Professor Tarras says with the appropriate citation. What are the options available to the hospitality business owner who finds himself on the wrong side of the IRS Collection Division? Negotiate in good faith says Professor Tarras. “In many cases, a visit to the IRS office will greatly reduce the chances that a simple problem will turn into a major one,” Tarras advises. He dedicates the last pages of the discussion to negotiation strategies.

In Favor of Hospitality-Management Education

Despite the almost one-hundred-year history of hospitality-management education; the hundreds of well-established two-year, four-year, and graduate programs worldwide; and the hundreds of thousands of graduates those programs have prepared for careers in the industry, hospitality-management education’s merit and place in higher education are still questioned at times, to the dismay of hospitality educators the world over. This article delineates several features of hospitality management that make these programs valuable and unique and provides compelling arguments in its favor. The arguments include: 1) courses tailored to the hospitality industry, the world’s largest industry; 2) focus on small-business management as well as corporate enterprises; 3) emphasis on services and service management, not manufacturing; 4) programs and coursework focused on people management, which it at the core of the hospitality businesses; 5) unique focus on the specific issues of food and beverage management, the largest component of the hospitality industry; and 6) transferability of graduates’ knowledge and skill sets, which are in high demand among other service industries. While business programs focus on the fundamentals of management and production, hospitality- management programs prepare graduates who are aware of general management principles and are particularly well-versed in managing the guest experience and employees in a service environment.

Entrepreneur's Dilemma: Hotel Investments in Emerging Markets

Estimating the required rate of return for hotel properties is a daunting task because a lodging property is considered a hybrid between a real estate asset, and a revenue-generating enterprise affiliated with a hotel brand. Computing the expected rate of return for a hotel becomes even more complicated when a third party foreign investor/entrepreneur is the one performing the computation for an investment hotel in an emerging country. This clinical case illustrates the challenges surrounding the estimation of a project’s cost of equity in the multinational hotel industry. The results reveal that estimating cost of equity in emerging markets for hotel investments continues to be a conundrum. Future investors should make multiple adjustments and use several models when making their capital investment decisions.

Social-cognitive Antecedents of Ambidextrous Orientation in Family-owned Startups: The Role of Family Ties, Achievement Motivation, and Internal Locus of Control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore “new ideas”, exploit “old certainties” and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research --achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.