THE POLITICAL LEGACY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

 

In an age where there was no photography, no television, and no mass media to bombard the American people then, with sense impressions of what Lexington and Valley Forge and Yorktown must have been like, Lincoln in his attempt to define the legacy of the American Revolutionary War, used the memories of the remaining old men to make tangible the remembrances of this historic event.   Lincoln provocatively asked whether, in the long run, the war, except for its obviously crucial outcome made any real difference? Or had its effects faded quickly after the fighting had stopped in 1783? (Basler, et. Al, 1953)

Historians have suggested two contradictory conclusions: one is that the important effects of the war are too obvious to need discussion: and the other is that the war itself, as contrasted with its outcome, was actually not very important.  This study bodes closer to the former conclusion as it explores three interrelated arguments assessing the political legacy of such revolution.

The first argument finds its setting on November 25, 1783, during the public dinner hosted by Governor George Clinton of New York where George Washington and his generals were present. After dinner, they raised thirteen toasts, three of which touched on the cause of liberty in the world (Hastings, 1914). 

The international character of the Revolution, as invoked by the toasts, was underscored by other Revolutionary Americans like Thomas Paine who declared in Common Sense, that "the cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind" and that "we...have it in our power to begin the world over again."  (Foner, 1945). Thomas Jefferson struck much the same note: "We feel that we are acting under obligations not confined to the limits of our own society. It is impossible not to be sensible that we are acting for all mankind." (Lipscomb & Bergh, 1904) This leads us to the first argument of this study which states that the Revolutionary Americans inspired oppressed people abroad to follow their example and eventually rise up against repressive regimes. The colonists regarded their campaign against British imperial policies as an episode in the   struggles between liberty and tyranny, then under way in different countries worldwide, like Ireland, Scotland, Spain, France, Turkey, Poland, Corsica, England, and Russia.

One important contribution of the American Revolution was the invention of the "constitutional convention" as the means of making, unmaking, and remaking a written constitution, a method which had never before been tried by any other nation. The resultant constitution, embodying the sovereignty of the people, created and defined the powers of government and spelled out the "inalienable" rights of the people. The governments emerging from the constitutional conventions were hamstrung with checks, balances, restrictions, and prohibitions, while the rights and liberty of the people were jealously guarded. Having escaped from "a long train of abuses and usurpations" by the British government and impressed with the prevalence of European autocracy, the Americans were determined to make their government limited and moderate.   The second argument posited by this study states that the Revolutionary Americans took theoretical republican ideas out of its ivory tower and turned them into an effective revolutionary instrument and a workable governmental institution.

Related to the second argument is the observation that the Revolutionary Americans feared power, regardless of where it was located and who wielded it, because they understood the inevitable tendency of its possessor to abuse it. The most dramatic illustration of this fear of power was the incorporation into the new state constitutions of various bills of rights, giving such things as religious toleration, freedom of press and assembly, freedom of person under the protection of habeas corpus, and trial by juries, and subordination of the military to the civilian authority.  Using this train of thought, the study wants to argue (third argument) that, in the hands of the Revolutionary generation, the fear of power was made into an innovative force of liberty that aided in the transformation from British rule to independence and from the state constitutions to the federal system.

These political legacies of the American Revolution are still very relevant in this day and age, in a world where tyranny (which finds its guise in terrorism), still grips the world in ways which are more dangerous than what happened over 300 years ago.  This study aims to point out that these three chosen arguments illustrate some of the more enlightening lessons from the American Revolution.

References:

 

Basler, Roy P. ed., et al. 1953. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols.  New Brunswick, N.J.

 

Foner, Philip S. (1945). The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine. 2 vols.

 

Gerlach, Larry R., Dolph, James A., Nicholls, Michael L. (1978). Legacies of the American Revolution Utah State University Press: Logan, UT

 

Hastings, Hugh ed., (1914). Public Papers of George Clinton, First Governor of New York, 1777-1795, 1801-1804, 10 vols. New York and Albany.

 

Lipscomb, Andrew A. & Bergh, A.L. eds. (1904). Jefferson to Joseph Priestly, June 19, 1802, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

 

 

Industrial Espionage in Asia: Current Practices and Perceptions

 

 

            This paper discusses in detail the research proposal on industrial espionage in Asia. In particular, the research will focus on the current practices and perceptions on this international spy game (Fraumann, 1997). In this research proposal, the background, context and theme of the study; the objectives of the study and the research statements are presented. Here, vital concepts, questions and assumptions are formulated. Finally, the scope and limitation of the study, overview of the methodology to be used and the significance of the research are discussed.

 

1.0. Background of the Study

            Espionage has generally been viewed as an activity conducted by spies to obtain the military secrets of an enemy: the use of spies helped England to defeat the Spanish Armada in 1588; the Allies to defeat the Axis powers during World War 11; and the Soviet Union to steal atomic bomb secrets from the United States and Britain (Fraumann, 1997). However, because of the increasing international economic competition, spying conducted by intelligence services has been expanding from its original focus on military secrets to collecting economic secrets (Fraumann, 1997).

Industrial espionage of all varieties is an elusive and secretive field that must be given careful attention by industrial managers and corporate executives world wide (Madsen, 2003). Meyer (1987) contends that throughout the world of commerce and industry, intelligence is on its way to becoming a key management tool for the corporate executive. Meyer (1987) suggests that the emergence of business intelligence systems is the most striking and potentially significant business trend of our time. Here, intelligence becomes the means by which companies chart their future course (Joyal, 1996). Because of the intensifying economic the importance of acquiring information concerning economic plans and intentions becomes more acute (Joyal, 1996).

A survey of 173 nations found that 57 were actively running operations to obtain proprietary economic information and technologies from U.S. corporations, and that some 100 countries spent a portion of their gross national product on collecting proprietary economic information (Richter, 1995, 8)

As the general standard of living in Asia increases, industrial security and safety concerns take on an increasingly higher profile; Asian nations have seen large increases in security and safety purchases aimed at arming themselves against general security problems and corporate intelligence initiatives (Joyal, 1996). This implies that as wealth increases, fears of increased intrusion, data collection, and industrial espionage also increases (Joyal, 1996).

Many spy agencies around the world are adapting classic spy techniques from military and political espionage endeavors to conduct industrial espionage. Agencies use a number of "intrusive" methods such as electronic and physical access of protected environment and access to personnel working in the protected environment. On the other hand, “nonintrusive” method includes the processing of data, collecting information, and forming it into intelligence for distribution (Fraumann, 1997).

 

2.0. General Purpose of the Study

            Generally, the purpose of the research is to conduct a descriptive study on the current practices and perceptions on industrial espionage in Asia.

 

2.1. Research Questions

            To support the aforementioned fundamental purpose, the research will specifically attempt to answer the following questions:

1.    Why are Asian countries turning into industrial espionage?

2.    What methodologies in data collection do Asian industries employ in their espionage activities?

3.    How do business Asian societies perceive industrial espionage in Asia?

 

2.2. Objectives

            To carry out the purpose of the study, and to address the research questions, the following aims will be realized:

1.    Examination of the current practice of industrial espionage in Asia.

2.    Review of the related literature on industrial espionage.

3.    Identification of issues and problems.

4.    Conducting survey and interview on the perception on industrial espionage practice in Asia.

5.    Generation of significant conclusions and insightful recommendations.

 

3.0. Overview of the Methodology to be Used

For this study, descriptive research method will be utilized. This type of research utilizes observations in the study.  To illustrate the descriptive type of research, Creswell (1994) states that the descriptive method of research is to gather information about the present existing condition. 

To come up with pertinent findings and to provide credible recommendations, this study will utilize two sources of research: primary and secondary. The primary research data will be obtained through this new research study; questionnaire survey and in-depth interview will be conducted. On the other hand, the secondary research data will be obtained from previous studies on the same topic. 

For this research design, the researcher will gather data, collate published studies from different local and foreign universities and articles from books and journals; and will make a content analysis of the collected documentary and verbal material. Afterwards, the researcher will summarize all the information, make a conclusion based on the hypotheses posited and provide insightful recommendations.

 

 

4.0. Scope and Limitation

            This study will only cover industrial espionage by Asian companies within Asia. The perceptions regarding this practice will come from business practitioners. The outcome of this study will be limited only to the data gathered from books and journals about industrial espionage and from the primary data gathered from the result of the questionnaire survey and interview that will be conducted by the researcher. As the research was completed in a relatively short period of time other factors and variables are not considered. This might have an impact on the results of the study.

           

References:

 

Fraumann, E. (1997) Economic espionage: security missions redefined.    

Public Administration Review, Vol. 57.

 

Joyal, P. M. (1996) Industrial Espionage Today and Information Wars of Tomorrow. Paper Presented at the19th National Information Systems Security Conference Baltimore Convention Center Baltimore, MD October 22-25.

 

Madsen, A. (2003) Industrial espionage strategic implications in an age of crime and competition. Transnational Research Associates. Available at [members.lycos.fr/transnational]. Accessed 10/10/03].

 

Meyer, H. E. (1987) Real world intelligence. New York: Reed Business Info, Inc., p.8.

 

Richter, James A. (1995). Clandestine encounters: The new wave of industrial espionage. Ann Arbor, MI: Strategic Development Staff, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences.

 

 

 

THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TEST

 

Introduction

 

The focus of this assignment is to identify the effectiveness and usefulness, as well as criticism of the Big Five Personality Test. This psychological test aims to measure one’s personality. The administrators who helped the author facilitate the survey process and the owner/manager who was interviewed provided statements for and against this test. The respondents/employees, on the other hand, commented on the process itself.

The idea for this assignment to utilize the Big Five Personality Test grew out of my belief that people have long term, dispositional traits that influence their behavior in work settings. I believe that there are meaningful relationships between individuals' personalities and performance outcomes at work. While psychologists have traditionally viewed personality testing as contributing little to the prediction of job performance, recent development of the `big five' personality constructs has shown that personality tests can be valid predictors of performance and may add significant incremental validity to tests of cognitive ability. I think that the use of the Big Five framework in testing personality provides a solid foundation for investigating personality-performance relationship.

 

 

 

 

The Big Five Personality Test

 

 

During the past three decades the view that personality is a poor predictor of job performance has become established among many occupational psychologists in New Zealand. Early reviews by Guion and Gottier (1965) and Mischel (1968) were overly pessimistic in their conclusions. Many criticisms raised by early personality test reviews have been addressed and shown to be less significant than previously thought (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988). One such improvement is the development of personality inventories designed to measure qualities among typical individuals instead of psychopathology among the deviant or mentally disordered.

Guion and Gottier (1965) found that tests developed for specific purposes were more predictive of performance than tests scored with standardised algorithms. Moreover, personality tests designed to measure "normal" behavioural traits are likely to improve the development of logical links between job requirements, personality measurement, and performance (Rosse, Miller, & Barnes, 1991).

In reading the literature pertaining to the structure of personality, it shows that while there is not unanimous agreement among researchers, the views of a number of personality psychologists are converging on five basic factors of personality (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience). Particularly impressive is the evidence showing that these five factors have been obtained in different cultures, with different languages, using different instruments and with different theoretical frameworks. In my opinion, this is the missing link in studies seeking to understand personality-performance relationships. This has provided a useful taxonomy in which to identify consistent and meaningful relationships between personality traits and performance criteria for different occupations.

The five-factor model of personality is based upon peer ratings using ordinary trait vocabulary (Digman, 1990). While a number of researchers have claimed to successfully identify a larger number of major personality traits, these five dimensions have proved to be replicable over different theoretical frameworks, using different instruments, and with ratings obtained from different sources, a variety of samples, and with a high degree of generality. 

In brief, Extraversion is marked by sociability, energy, and a buoyant frame of mind. Neuroticism is the inclination towards expressing anxiety, anger, depression, and other negative affects. Agreeableness is a tendency towards altruism, trust, and sympathy. Conscientiousness is characterised by self-discipline, order, reliability, and foresight. And Openness is characterised by objectivity, need for variety, and curiosity. According to McCrae and Costa (1987), these dimensions are relatively independent of cognitive ability measures. Personality tests tap into performance variance beyond that which can be explained by cognitive tests alone (Driskell, Hogan, Salas, & Hoskin, 1994).

Inconsistencies in research findings highlight the need for precise and differentiated research on personality-job performance links (Goldberg, 1993). The poor validity of many job performance measures, and summarising of criterion-related validities across either predictor or criterion constructs, obscures the usefulness of personality scales (Hough, 1992). Furthermore, the relationship between personality and performance is susceptible to the moderating variables of performance criterion and job type (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

While the five-factor model has demonstrated the usefulness of personality for selection, the `big five' themselves may in fact be too broad to have predictive usefulness among job applicants (e.g., McAdams, 1992). Hough (1992) found nine factors to be more appropriate than the "big five". Saville, Nyfield, Sik, and Hackston (1991; cited in Schmit & Ryan, 1993) found specific facets of the `big five' constructs were better predictors than the broader global measures.

Schmit and Ryan (1993) have identified an "ideal employee" factor based upon work-related facets, further suggesting that the `big five' model may be inappropriate for personnel selection. Their ideal employee factor included mainly Conscientiousness items but also items from the other four broad dimensions. Personality tests designed to measure middle-level traits within the big five may better account for different personality requirements between occupational groups (Schmit & Ryan, 1993) than instruments designed to only assess the broader `big five' dimensions.

 

Methodology

 

For this assignment, I conducted a survey and interview. As I am only concerned on how the respondents view the Big Five Personality Test in terms of effectiveness, the results are not discussed. The use of the questionnaire would provide the researcher the ability to test the views and attitudes of the respondents. The distribution and collation methods used to manage the questionnaire process would ensure anonymity.

Twenty-five employees from a small company (retail) participated in the survey. The owner and manager of the business is a friend of the author, so it was never difficult to access its human resource.  Despite this, the author issued a letter of consent, containing the purpose of the survey. Further, the author made sure that the employees completely understand what was to be done. A random sampling was conducted. During their break, the respondents were divided into five groups. Each group was facilitated by a member of my team. We encouraged the respondents to clarify statements that were not clear. After answering the questionnaires, we had a brief focus group to find out how they view the survey process. The respondents were told that the purpose of the test was to measure their personality; and that the management (owner) had nothing to do with it. They were told that it was part of the author’s assignment.

Prior to the survey process, the author selected four colleagues to help in administering. They were told as to what this assignment intended to accomplish. The administrators did not need to be trained because they had previous experience in such research process. As part of the objective of this assignment, the administrators were asked about their view on the test.

For the interview part, open-ended questions were used to obtain as much information as possible about how the interviewee feels about the research topic. The owner/manager of the small business was also interviewed. The interviews took 45 minutes. The questions were based on the questions for this assignment: how effective is the Big Five Personality Test in terms of the effects of personality on performance. Here, the researcher encouraged the interviewee to clarify vague statements and to further elaborate on brief comments. The researcher did not share personal beliefs and opinions.

To determine how the respondents perceive their own personality, the researcher prepared a questionnaire that was based directly on the Big Five Personality Test. The questionnaire was a 48-item test. This test aimed to measure the respondents’ personality in terms of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. The structured questionnaire was based on a Likert scale, a rating scale that requires the subject to indicate his or her degree of agreement or disagreement with a statement. The respondents would grade each statement in the survey-questionnaire using a Likert scale with a five-response scale wherein respondents would be given five response choices.

By rating scale we mean the scales that are usually used to measure attitudes towards an object, the degree to which an object contains a particular attribute, toward some attribute, or the importance attached to an attribute. Rating scales require the rate to place an attribute of the object being rated at some point along a numerically valued continuum or in one of a numerically ordered series of categories. The equivalent weights for the answers would be: 1- Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4- Agree, 5- Strongly Agree.

For validation purposes, the author initially submitted the sample of the set of survey questionnaires to some of her peers; and after approval, the survey was initially conducted to five respondents. After the questions were answered, the author asked the respondents for any items that were not clear to them to ensure further improvement and validity of the instrument.  The researcher again examined the content of the interview questions to clear vague statements. Afterwards, the author changed words that would be deemed difficult by the respondents, to much simpler terms. The author excluded the five respondents who were initially used for the validation of the instrument. 

 

In/Effectiveness of the Device

 

This section presents the merits as well as criticisms of the Big Five Personality Test as viewed by the administrators; the importance of this test for the owner/manager of the small company; and the comments of the employees. 

 

Administrators

Mr. D states that the results of the study may enhance understanding and contribute to the theoretical development of causal models explaining job performance. He believes Conscientiousness to be the important trait-oriented motivation variable that has long eluded I-O psychologists. This meant that there are now two dispositional predictors in our field whose validity generalizes: general mental ability and conscientiousness.

Ms. A argues that if prediction rather than description is important, the Big Five may not be an adequate taxonomy. She suggests that the Big Five is not an adequate taxonomy of personality variables for predicting important criteria. Mr. B adds that the Big Five constructs are too heterogeneous and incomplete. Moreover, he noted a study by Houggh (1992) that provides evidence of different patterns of criterion-related validity for at least nine personality constructs. If only the Big Five personality constructs are used, he says, several important differences in the criterion-related validities of Dependability, Achievement, Potency, and Affiliation are obscured and the usefulness of the taxonomy thereby diminished. According to him, the constructs Locus of control and Rugged Individualism are important predictors of important life outcomes and are missing entirely from the Big Five. If prediction of life outcomes or criteria is important in evaluating personality taxonomies, the Big Five is an inadequate taxonomy of personality constructs.

 

The Owner/Manager

Personality tests such as the Big Five Personality Test are beneficial to any business as research has found that personality has something to do with job performance. According to the owner/manager, the strength of the test lies in the positive correlation of one of the Big Five dimensions, Conscientiousness, with job performance. Individuals who are dependable, persistent, goal directed and organized tend to be higher performers on virtually any job; viewed negatively, those who are careless, irresponsible, low achievement striving and impulsive tend to be lower performers on virtually any job.

In addition, extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations, managers and sales, where interactions with others are a significant portion of the job. Thus, traits such as being sociable, talkative, assertive, and energetic contribute to performance in such jobs. Extraversion and Openness to Experience were valid predictors of training proficiency across occupations. Being active, sociable, and open to new experiences may lead individuals to be more involved in training and, consequently, learn more. This test, according to the owner/manager, no matter what job one is selecting for, if the employer wants employees who will turn out to be good performers, he or she should hire those who work smarter and work harder.

 

 

Employees

As for the employees, they felt that the survey was not a big deal. It was as if they were only answering something that had not significance at all. When asked how they found the process, the problems they encountered, if there is any, majority of them said that the questionnaire was easy to understand and answer. With regard to privacy, a respondent/employee stated that the survey did not require them to provide very personal information. Thus, according to him, there was no need for anonymity. What alarmed the author was when an employee joked that if it were not for my assignment, he would fake his answers. He said that if the management were the one who conducted the test, of course he would lie so as to provide a more positive answer.  

 

 

References

 

 

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

 

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

 

Driskell, J.E., Hogan, J., Salas, E., & Hoskin, B. (1994). Cognitive and personality predictors of training performance. Military Psychology, 6(1). 31-46

 

Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

 

Guion, R.M., & Gottier, R.F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.

 

Hogan, R. & Nicholson, R. (1988). The meaning of personality test scores. American Psychologist, 43, 621-626.

 

Hough, L.M. (1992). The "big five" personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.

 

McAdams, D.P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329-361.

 

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

 

Rosse, J.G., Miller, H.E., & Barnes, L.K. (1991). Combining personality and cognitive ability predictors for hiring service-oriented employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(4), 431-445.

 

United Technologies Corporation

 

Introduction

 

United Technologies Corporation is one of the largest companies in the United States. The Fortune Magazine ranked it the 59^th largest corporation in the US in 2002; and 149^th in the world in its Global 500 issue, also in 2002. Moreover, in the same year, Fortune also named it as the most admired aerospace company. With this magnitude of success, one might be led to a conjecture on the company’s formula that drives it towards achieving so much.

This report will look into the various facets of the United Technologies Corporation and will seek to explore its organizational operations, and analyze some of the company’s strengths and areas for improvement.

Nature of the company

            Company documents state that United Technologies was incorporated in Delaware in 1934. George David is at the helm of the company, serving as its chairman and chief executive officer of the board of directors. Its corporate core values states that the company is committed “to performance and improving shareowner value…; communicate honestly to deliver what was promised…; conduct business in accordance with the Corporation’s Code of Ethics, to employees across the Corporation and is published in 16 languages….; identify situations that may be in violation of the Code of Ethics.”

The company holds office in Hartford, Connecticut and holds presence in 2,000 locations in 180 countries. Table 1 enumerates the various subsidiaries of the Corporation from all over the world.

            The company is divided into four business units: Otis, Carrier, Pratt and Whitney, and flight systems. In sum, these four segments of the United Technologies Corporation employed 155,000 individuals last year, approximately 79,000 of these were based outside the US.

Table 1. Subsidiaries of United Technologies Corporation, as of December 31, 2002.

Entity Name	State/Country of Incorporation
Britannia Lift Services (UK) Ltd.	United Kingdom
Cade Industries, Inc	Wisconsin
Caricor Ltd	Delaware
Carlyle Scroll Holdings	Delaware
Carmel Forge Limited (The)	Israel
Carrier Air Conditioning Philippines, Inc.	Philippines
Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Ltd (CPL)	Australia
Carrier Corporation	Delaware
Carrier HVACR Investments B.V	Netherlands
Carrier LG Limited	South Korea
Carrier Limited Korea	South Korea
Carrier Mexico S.A. de C.V.	Mexico
Carrier Commercial Refrigeration, Inc.	Delaware
Carrier Refrigeration AB	Sweden
Carrier S.A.	Argentina
Carrier S.A.	France
Carrier S.P.A.	Italy
Carrier Singapore PTE Limited	Singapore
Carrier Transicold Europe S.A.	France
Carrier Transicold Industries S.A.	France
CEAM Srl	Italy
China Tianjin Otis Elevator Company, Ltd.	China
Claverham Group Limited	United Kingdom
Eagle Services Asia Private Limited	Singapore
Elevadores Otis Ltda.	Brazil
Empresas Carrier S.A. De C.V.	Mexico
Guangzhou Otis Elevator Company, Ltd.	China
Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation	Delaware
Hamilton Sundstrand Holdings EURL	France
Hamilton Sundstrand Holdings, Inc	Delaware
Hamilton Sundstrand International Holdings Ltd.	Cayman Islands
Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems, Inc.	Delaware
Hamilton Sundstrand UK Holdings Limited	United Kingdom
Helicopter Support, Inc.	Connecticut
Homogeneous Metals, Inc.	New York
HWH of Delaware, Inc.	Delaware
International Comfort Products Corporation (USA)	Delaware
Johns Perry Lifts Holdings	Cayman Islands
Latin American Holding, Inc.	Delaware
LG Otis Elevator Company	South Korea
Milton Roy Company	Pennsylvania
Misr Refrigeration And Air Conditioning Manufacturing Company S.A.E.	Egypt
NAES Acquisition Corporation	Delaware
Nevada Bond Investment Corp. II	Nevada
Nippon Otis Elevator Company	Japan
Otis [France]	France
Otis Building Technologies Pty	Australia
Otis Canada, Inc.	Canada
Otis Elevator (China) Investment Company Limited	China
Otis Elevator Company (H.K.) Limited	Hong Kong
Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited	India
Otis Elevator Company (New Jersey)	New Jersey
Otis Elevator Company Pty. Ltd	Australia
Otis Far East Holdings Limited	Hong Kong
Otis GmbH & Co. OHG	Germany
Otis Holdings GmbH & Co. OHG	Germany
Otis Investments Plc	United Kingdom
Otis Lifts Holding Company	Cayman Islands
Otis Limited	United Kingdom
Otis S.p.A	Italy
Otis Servizi S.r.L.	Italy
Pratt & Whitney Auto Air, Inc.	Michigan
Pratt & Whitney Canada Leasing Inc.	Canada
Pratt & Whitney Component Solutions, Inc.	Michigan
Pratt & Whitney Engine Services, Inc.	Delaware
Pratt & Whitney Holdings LLC	Cayman Islands
Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, Inc.	Delaware
Pratt & Whitney Services, Inc.	Singapore
Ratier-Figeac S.A.	France
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation	Delaware
Sikorsky Export Corporation	Delaware
Sikorsky International Operations, Inc.	Delaware
Sirius (Korea) Ltd.	United Kingdom
Springer Carrier Ltda.	Brazil
Sullair Corporation	Indiana
Sundyne Corporation	Delaware
Tadiran Ampa Ltd.	Israel
The Falk Corporation	Delaware
Toshiba Carrier (Thailand) Corporation	Thailand
Toshiba Carrier UK Limited	United Kingdom
United Technologies Canada, Limited	Canada
United Technologies Electronic Controls, Inc.	Delaware
United Technologies Far East Limited	Hong Kong
United Technologies Finance Corporation	Delaware
United Technologies Holding GmbH	Germany
United Technologies Holdings B.V.	Netherlands
United Technologies Holdings Limited	United Kingdom
United Technologies Holdings S.A.	France
United Technologies Intercompany Lending Ireland Limited	Ireland
United Technologies International Corporation- Asia Private Ltd	Singapore
United Technologies International Operations, Inc.	Delaware
United Technologies International SAS	France
UT Insurance (Vermont), Inc.	Vermont
UT Park View, Inc.	Delaware
UTC Canada Corporation	Canada
UTCL Investments BV	Netherlands
Xizi Otis Elevator Company (Hangzhou) Limited	China
Zardoya Otis, S.A.	Spain

The four business units of United Technologies[1]

Otis

            Otis is the largest manufacturer, installer, and service provider for elevators and escalators. Specifically, Otis designs, manufactures, sells and installs a wide range of passenger and freight elevators, including hydraulic and traction elevators for low- and medium-speed applications and gearless elevators for high-speed passenger operations in high-rise buildings. Otis also produces a broad line of escalators and, for horizontal transportation, moving walkways and shuttles. In addition to new equipment, Otis provides modernization products and services to upgrade elevators and escalators as well as maintenance services for a substantial portion of the elevators and escalators that it sells, as well as those of other manufacturers. Otis serves an international customer base, principally in the commercial and residential property industries (United Technologies, 2003).

Carrier

        Carrier, on the other hand, is the world's largest manufacturer of commercial and residential HVAC systems and equipment. Carrier is also a leading producer of commercial and transport refrigeration equipment, and provides aftermarket service and components for its products and those of other manufacturers in both the HVAC and refrigeration industries. The products manufactured by Carrier include chillers and air handling equipment, commercial unitary systems, residential split systems, residential furnaces, duct-free split systems and window air conditioners, as well as transport refrigeration, commercial refrigeration and food service equipment. Carrier's products and services are sold under Carrier and other brand names to building contractors and building owners, homeowners, shipping and trucking companies, supermarkets and food service companies. Sales are made both directly to the customer and through manufacturers' representatives, distributors, dealers, individual wholesalers and retail outlets (United Technologies, 2003).

Pratt & Whitney

        The third segment of the United Technologies company is Pratt & Whitney, considered as among the world's leading suppliers of commercial, general aviation and military aircraft engines. Pratt & Whitney provides overhaul and repair services, spare parts, and fleet management services for the engines it produces and other commercial and military jet and gas turbine engines. Pratt & Whitney products are sold principally to aircraft manufacturers, airlines and other aircraft operators, aircraft leasing companies and the U.S. and foreign governments.

        Pratt & Whitney currently produces two families of large commercial jet engines: the PW4000 engine series (powering the Airbus A310-300, A300-600 and A330-200/300 series of aircraft; the Boeing 747-400, 767-200/300 and 777-200/300 series of aircraft; and the out-of-production Boeing MD-11 aircraft) and the PW2000 engine series (powering the Boeing 757-200/PF/300 aircraft). Also, Pratt & Whitney has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Airbus to develop, market and sell PW6000 series engines for installation on Airbus A318 aircraft, expected to enter service during 2005. The PW6000 was certified by U.S. airworthiness authorities in January 2002.

        Pratt & Whitney currently produces three military aircraft engines: the F119 (powering the two-engine F/A-22 fighter aircraft), the F100 (powering two-engine F-15 and single-engine F-16 fighter aircraft) and the F117 (powering four-engine C-17 transport aircraft). The F119 and F117 are currently the only sources of propulsion for the F/A-22 fighter aircraft and C-17 transport aircraft, respectively. Pratt & Whitney is under contract with the U.S. Air Force ("USAF") to complete flight-testing and initial production of F119 engines through 2003. All of Pratt & Whitney's F100 sales contracts are with the USAF or with foreign governments. All of Pratt & Whitney's F117 sales contracts are with either the USAF or Boeing. Pratt & Whitney is also under contract with the USAF to develop the F135 engine, a derivative of Pratt & Whitney's F119 engine, to power the single-engine F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being developed by Lockheed Martin. Management cannot predict with certainty whether, when, and in what quantities Pratt & Whitney will produce F135 engines.

        Pratt & Whitney Canada ("P&WC") is a world leader in aviation engines powering business, regional, utility and military aircraft and helicopters. P&WC also designs and manufactures engines for auxiliary power units and industrial applications. Its operations and service network span the globe.

        Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion ("SP") produces hydrogen fueled rocket engines for commercial and U.S. Government space applications, advanced turbo pumps for NASA's Space Shuttle program and solid fuel propulsion systems for civil and military applications.  SP also has a 50 percent interest in a joint venture with NPO Energomash that provides kerosene fueled RD-180 rocket engines for satellite launch applications.

        Pratt & Whitney Power Systems ("PWPS") supplies industrial power generation and mechanical drive equipment in the one megawatt to 50 megawatts range. PWPS also provides gas turbines for marine propulsion applications.

       Pratt & Whitney experiences intense competition for new commercial airframe/engine combinations, both from domestic and international manufacturers. In particular, Pratt & Whitney's major competitors in the sale of engines are General Electric Company and Rolls Royce (United Technologies, 2003).

Flight systems

            The fourth segment of the Corporation, the Flight Systems, provides global products and services through Hamilton Sundstrand and Sikorsky Aircraft. The Corporation acquired Sundstrand Corporation in 1999 and combined it with the operations of the former Hamilton Standard.

        Hamilton Sundstrand provides aerospace and industrial products and aftermarket services for diversified industries worldwide. Hamilton Sundstrand's principal aerospace products include aircraft power generation management and distribution systems; environmental, flight, fuel and engine control systems; fuel and special fluid pumps; auxiliary power units; propeller systems; electronic controls and components; and specialized instruments and chemical detection and monitoring equipment. Hamilton Sundstrand is also the prime contractor for NASA's space suit/life support system and produces environmental control, life support, mechanical systems and thermal control systems for international space programs. Hamilton Sundstrand's principal industrial products include air compressors, metering devices, fluid handling equipment and gear drives.

        Hamilton Sundstrand's aerospace businesses serve commercial, military, regional, business and general aviation, as well as space and undersea applications. Aftermarket services include spare parts, overhaul and repair, engineering and technical support and fleet maintenance programs. Hamilton Sundstrand aerospace products are sold directly to airframe manufacturers, the U.S. Government, aircraft operators and independent distributors. Hamilton Sundstrand sales of aerospace products to Boeing, Pratt & Whitney and Airbus, collectively, including sales where the U.S. Government was the ultimate customer, were 12.1 percent of Flight Systems segment sales in 2002.

        Hamilton Sundstrand's industrial products serve industries involved with raw material processing, bulk material handling and construction (including mining; metal and other material processing; hydrocarbon and chemical processing; and water and waste water treatment). These industrial products are sold directly to end-users, through manufacturer representatives and distributors and through engineering contractors. Demand for Hamilton Sundstrand's industrial products is tied closely to the level of general economic activity. Hamilton Sundstrand believes that its research and development, proprietary technology, and product and service reputations have been significant in maintaining its competitive standing.

        Sikorsky is one of the world's largest manufacturers of military and commercial helicopters and is the primary supplier of transport helicopters to the U.S. Army and Navy. Sikorsky also supplies helicopters to foreign governments and the worldwide commercial market. Sikorsky's aftermarket business, which includes spare parts sales, overhaul and repair and service contracts for helicopters and other aircraft, has become a more significant part of Sikorsky's business in recent years. During 2002, Sikorsky acquired Derco Holding, a supplier of military aircraft logistics and component distribution, component repairs, and aftermarket program management.

        Current production programs at Sikorsky include the Black Hawk medium-transport helicopter for the U.S. and foreign governments; the MH-60 Fleet Combat Support helicopter for the U.S. Navy; the International Naval Hawk for multiple naval missions; and the S-76 intermediate-sized helicopter for commercial operations. Under a multi-year contract with the U.S. Government, Sikorsky has delivered 249 Black Hawk helicopters, with the remaining three helicopters scheduled for delivery this year. A new multi-year contract was signed in 2002 that provides for additional deliveries of 80 Army and 82 Navy helicopters over the next five years. Under a $238 million research, development and test contract, Sikorsky is performing work to evaluate the potential for upgrading the U.S. Army fleet of Black Hawks.

Part 2

Overview of United Technologies’ financial condition

            In brief, the Corporation earned a total of $28.2 billion in revenues in 2002. Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Standard, and Sikorsky accounted for 46 percent of these revenues, while Otis and Carrier contributed 54 percent.  Of the total revenues, 56 percent was derived from international transactions. Moreover, $4.6 billion in revenue was achieved through sales to the US Government. (United Technologies, 2003).

Further, the Corporation reported a net income of $2.236 billion in 2002. It likewise declared its assets as amounting to $29 billion by the end of last year, while capital expenditures were at $586 million.

Specifically, the Otis business unit reported total revenues worth $473 million in 2002, largely due to the increase in sales of new equipment and services. It earned 77 percent of its revenues from its international transactions in 200;and  declared a backlog of $4,177 million last year.

Carrier, on the other hand, achieved $122 million in revenues in 2002, a 1 percent drop from their 2001 figures. This, according to management, was due to the continued weakness in the North American and European commercial HVAC markets. Consequently, international operation revenues were only 48 percent of total revenues during the same year. Carrier likewise reported a $1,028 million backlog during this year.

Further, Pratt & Whitney total revenues were at $34 million in 2002, a less than 1 percent drop from their 2001 figures, largely due to decreased sales in power systems and spare parts. International operation revenues were declared at 54 percent in 2002, with business backlog amounting to $13,030 million that same year.

In addition, flight systems reported a $279-million revenue in 2002, 5 percent better than their figures in 2001. Higher value helicopter shipments accounted for this improvement in business unit revenue. International operations accounted for 25 percent of its revenues in 2002. Business backlog was at $3,642 million during that same year.

Table 2 provides a more elaborate illustration of the Corporation’s financial status during the last five years.

Table 2. Five-Year Financial Summary of United Technologies Corporation (Annual Report,  2002).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 3

 

Analysis

 

It has always been the belief that organizations should maintain high levels of integrity, credibility, transparency, and accountability for them to rise to the level of a well-respected global brand. Just as in individuals, appropriate core values play a significant role in forming successful personalities. With United Technologies, its set of core values was perhaps the cornerstone of its success. Performance, keeping promises, transparency in its transactions with clients and employees, and open communication lines with its stakeholders are explicitly encouraged by the company.

Moreover, for a huge conglomerate involved in high technology products and services, United Technologies’ massive budget for research and development served as integral component of its success. In 2002 alone, the company allocated $2.38 billion in R&D funds, thus allowing it to discover new mechanisms to improve their products and services, thereby maintaining its competitive advantage over its competitors.

Its globalization strategy likewise served as one of the factors that contributed to the company’s success. Investing in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, China, Russia, and South Korea which have higher currency levels served as potent challenge to the strength of the Company.

However, an imminent threat from other manufacturers on the level of the company’s technologies is on the rise. While the company has allotted massive funds to support research and development activities, there might still be a need to enter into joint funding agreements with its partners to pursue further technological developments at lesser costs.

Moreover, highly advanced and massive companies such as United Technologies are not without environmental threats. With this, there might be a need to discover new mechanisms to prevent environmental damages in the course of the company’s operations, as much as possible. While the company enforces stringent policies and environmental standards in its worldwide operations, and allotted a huge financial allocation of $439 million in 2002 as reserve for environmental remediation, environmental damages by heavy industries such as United Technologies often take long periods of counteractive measures (if not irreversible).  There is a great need to come up with more environment-friendly technologies, not just to minimize the environmental threats but also to allow for the channeling of a greater part of the company’s environmental remediation funds to more productive endeavors.

 

 

 

 

Part 4

 

Conclusion

 

 

            These are difficult times for any other business. And while United Technologies reap considerable profits, chances are these will not be as significant as it was in earlier years. Company management likewise views financial matters rather bleakly. With the after-effects of the September 11 attacks still distressing commercial airline clients, the US-Iraq war still in the air, and the SAR outbreak in Asia, United Technologies can only brace for what is still ahead and look beyond these challenges and see opportunities for further improvement.

---

[1] Based on United Technologies Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2002, submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission