• Create and submit a SIPOC and High-Level PMAP (sometimes known as a Value Stream Map) for the large-scale process of picking up a container of cargo
from a shipper in one country and delivering it to a consignee in another country. Keep your model as generic as you can, but make sure it works for a shipper
in Orlando to a consignee in Berlin using a primary vessel passage from Elizabeth, New Jersey to Amsterdam.
• This is a hypothetical activity, so you are NOT expected to try to master the details of the containerized cargo industry – but use common sense (and some
basic web searches) to make your models as realistic as possible. Based on our readings about VSMs, try to make your VSM as visually descriiptive and
detailed as you can.
• Submission Guidance
This activity is usually best submitted as two separate files:
SIPOCs work well as tables in Microsoft Word.
They do NOT work well in Excel unless you are very good at formatting in Excel.
PMAPs/VSMs work well as diagrams in PowerPoint.
Alternatively, the two files can be merged and submitted as a single PDF
perfectly possible to claim God existed before conceptual necessity and that it was brought about merely as another construction of his. A truly all-powerful God then could surely create a world without such necessity. If moral necessity does not exist outside of God then we may ask again whether God introduced such necessities because they were good or are they good because he willed them. The second issue is that the idea of moral necessity demands more development than Swinburne gives it. The idea that torture or inducing agonising pain in someone is necessarily morally bad seems only to be linguistic or intuitive rather than metaphysical. If the word agonising means causing an evil level of pain or the thought of torture is so untenable, then there is a sense in which these actions might seem like moral necessities phenomenologically. But where in any of this, is there any evidence of such actions actually being metaphysically necessarily moral or immoral. Any attempt to describe them as such, using the language of ‘so bad’, invariably rests on a hidden premise that is utilitarianism or some other deontological theory that needs to be elucidated to give the action its necessity, otherwise epistemologically we cannot know any moral necessities and as such there is no evidence for their metaphysical existence. It just seems to be asserted that moral necessities exist, but there must be something that has given, or is justification for their necessity. In absence of a reason, and without being able to use God since that takes us to the first horn, an explanation of their necessity is still begging. In this sense, here is a problem both in Swinburne’s conception of moral necessity as something that can restrict God, as well as the idea that there actually are any moral necessities. Another aspect of this theory is the idea that certain contingent actions might be good because they are commanded by God. This might include say, beating someone over the head, because the badness of that action is contingent on our physiology and the fact that it might kill or injure us, rather than an alternate world in which beating over the head produces more brain cells. The distinction here is that beating over the head is contingent, whereas as the outcome in our world, agonising pain is necessarily bad. Yet, if God’s only reason to make a contingent command is because of his realisation of a necessary good or bad, then this doesn’t really seem to give him much power at all. Effectively, the picture is that God is bound by certain conceptual necessities, but can create the world in such a way that he can command an entire range of things depending on the world he sets up. He can command beating over the head in a world where beaten heads create brain cells or he can command protecting heads where head-knocks cause brain damage. However, such a conception of God seems, at the very least, to be a sorry one. Indeed, God is still ‘omnipotent’, “since the claim that God acts in a morally reprehensible way is logically contradictory”8 (8 ‘Omnipotence and God’s Ability to Sin’, >GET ANSWER