Step 1: Understand the problem.
DeepSea must decide whether to accept a maintenance clause proposed by GoValve, which involves replacing all valves at Level 3 upon any malfunction. The decision hinges on safety and financial feasibility.
Step 2: Evaluate the options.
- Option 1 (A, B, D): - Valves are prone to malfunction (A), which increases the likelihood of replacements. - Malfunction in one valve affects neighboring valves (B), making prompt action necessary. - Valve replacement at Level 3 is highly challenging and best handled by GoValve (D).
- Option 2 (A, B, E): While A and B are relevant, E (pressure buildups) doesn’t directly justify accepting the clause.
- Option 3 (B, C, D): Negotiating a discount (C) is helpful but does not address the safety concerns like A.
- Option 4 (A, C, D): Although A and D are relevant, C (discount) is less critical than addressing leakage (B).
- Option 5 (C, D, E): E (pressure buildups) is less critical compared to malfunctions (A) and their consequences (B).
Final Answer: (1)
Step 1: Understand the problem.
DeepSea must decide how to respond to the NGO’s appeal to switch to SafeValve’s product while ensuring its reputation and operational efficiency remain unaffected.
Step 2: Evaluate the options.
- Option 1: Although higher costs are significant, this reason alone may not justify rejecting the appeal publicly.
- Option 2: Highlighting the longstanding partnership with GoValve might appear biased and less credible.
- Option 3: Limited international adoption of the new valves weakens the appeal but is not the strongest reason.
- Option 4: SafeValve’s dependency on imports raises concerns about supply chain stability but doesn’t address the quality standards of the valves.
- Option 5: Emphasizing that GoValve meets the strictest global standards for leakage prevention is the most compelling argument to reject the appeal as it directly addresses safety and quality, which are critical to DeepSea’s operations.
Final Answer: (5)
Step 1: Understand the problem.
DeepSea must evaluate whether replacing the current valves with SafeValve products is in line with their operational safety requirements and cost-effectiveness.
Step 2: Evaluate the options.
- Option 1: Lack of an industry standard is a concern but doesn’t directly address the effectiveness of SafeValve products.
- Option 2: The reduced pressure risk at Level 1 is relevant but not critical to rejecting the proposal.
- Option 3: High repair costs at Level 3 are significant but do not outweigh the importance of blowout prevention.
- Option 4: The inability of SafeValve products to address blowouts directly contradicts DeepSea’s critical safety needs and is the strongest argument against the proposal.
- Option 5: Increased leakage risk near opened GoValve valves is a concern but not sufficient to reject the SafeValve proposal outright.
Final Answer: (4)