IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

BEST PALLETS INC. and BEST INDUSTRIAL PALLETS, L.L.C., by and through their President and Owner JAMES L. TAYLOR; ITNOLAP PALLET & CRATING, INC., by and through its President and Owner WILLIAM M. CLARK; ITNOLAP PALLET & CRATING, L.L.C., by and through its President and Half-Owner WILLIAM M. CLARK; PALLET EXPRESS, INC., by and through its Vice-President and Owner LYNN RIDGE BELL; and GOEMAN’S WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., by and through its President and Owner DANNY J. GOEMAN, for themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case No: 08-2012 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson U.S. District Judge PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, vs. PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OF BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES, INC., and BRAMBLES

NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a CHEP USA, JUDD H. MICHAEL, PH.D. DEFENDANTS.

INTRODUCTION

1. I am an Associate Professor of Wood Industries Business Management in the School of Forest Resources at The Pennsylvania State University. I am also Director of Penn State’s Center for Wood Innovation and Sustainability. I have been at Penn State since 2000. Prior to joining Penn State I was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forest Science at Texas A&M University from 1994 until 2000. I received a B.B.A. in Business (1986) and an MBA (1988) from Texas A&M University, and received a PhD in Wood Products from Penn State in 1994. My PhD had a minor from the Smeal College of Business at Penn State.

2. At Penn State I am also an affiliated faculty member with the University’s Management Development Programs and Services, and with Penn State’s Institutes of Energy and the Environment.

3. Previous positions include Market Analyst at Virginia Tech University’s Department of Wood Science and Forest Products. In this position I conducted various research projects related to segments of the wood products industry. Prior to that I was a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Management at Texas A&M where I assisted with research related to information search costs and competitive behavior by investment bankers during IPOs. This project served as my masters paper for the MBA degree.

1

4. I am also Partner in Scientific Management Solutions, LLC (SMS). SMS is a consulting firm specializing in providing quantitative modeling, competitive analyses, and customized management training programs to firms in the wood products and allied industries.

5. At Penn State I teach graduate and undergraduate courses in the Wood Products major. All of my courses are related to business management issues such as leadership, strategic decision-making, and quantitative analyses. I also teach a course in Penn State’s MBA program on “Business Strategy and the Environment”. While at Texas A&M I taught a course on marketing strategy in that MBA program and also taught wood industries courses to Forest Science majors.

6. My research at Penn State focuses almost exclusively on business management issues related to wood-based manufacturers. While my research program has addressed a variety of challenges facing the wood products industry, the common theme has been applying concepts of management science and organizational behavior to segments of the industry. This research emphasis is unique in the United States and largely distinctive worldwide. Research projects have ranged from adapting lean manufacturing to meet wood industry needs to understanding executive decision-making. We have also endeavored to investigate key topics with international implications such as the economic impacts of European Union regulations on U.S. manufacturers using wooden shipping platforms.

7. I have authored or co-authored 40 journal articles on topics related to the wood industry, organizational behavior, and wood science. These papers have appeared in 10 different academic journals. Several of these papers have been related to various aspects of the pallet industry, including one that examined the financial implications of “white wood” vs. rental pallets. I have also been invited to speak on several occasions about various aspects of the pallet, container, and packaging industries.

8. A significant component of my position at Penn State involves providing management education and training programs for managers in the wood products industry. I have led and/or taught at numerous education programs to upgrade the management skills of personnel ranging from plant managers to executives. In the past five years I have taught programs to more than 750 managers from at least 250 different companies. Programs have been funded by such sources as federal and state governments, trade associations, and by the companies themselves. Part of my work with the University’s Management Development Programs and Services involves instruction for non-wood companies such as the Schindler Group (world’s largest supplier of escalators and elevators).

9. Additional information about my professional experience, including publications, presentations and affiliations, can be found in my resume (attached as an Appendix). Also listed in the Appendix is a list of the legal matters in which I have worked. Scientific Management Solutions charges $250 per hour for my

2

time, with travel expenses being reimbursed on an actual-cost basis and mileage reimbursed at the IRS-approved per mile rate. Our payment for this project is not dependent on our findings or conclusions.

10. Dr. Charles Ray and I have been retained by plaintiff’s counsel to complete the following assignment: investigate the recycled pallet industry and any related allegedly anti-competitive behavior by CHEP; investigate how CHEP’s behavior impacts individual pallet recyclers and assist other retained experts in their roles of quantifying that economic impact; investigate whether but for CHEP’s anti-competitive conduct would the market for GMA pallets be structured the same or differently than it is currently; assist in proving the impact that CHEP’s anti-competitive behavior has on the markets for pallets in the U.S.; use an accepted methodology to investigate and quantify the costs that are shifted onto recyclers by CHEP’s practice of forcing them to transport, sort, store, and return CHEP pallets either to CHEP or to a CHEP-designated location; investigate and opine on whether without the actions of pallet recyclers in the U.S. would CHEP be able to utilize its current business model with the same degree of success (e.g., CHEP pallets would not be recovered from non-participating distributors (NPD’s) at all or as quickly as with the assistance of independent recyclers). Many of these tasks will not be done until the merit stage of this case.

11. The conclusions resulting thus far from our analyses of the eight (8) pallet recycler operations we have examined in the course of this assignment are as follows: Recyclers are forced to return CHEP pallets that they have obtained in the normal course of their business operations, and the recyclers are forced to incur costs that otherwise would be born by CHEP because the dollar amount of reimbursement offered by CHEP for each blue pallet is less than the financial burden imposed on the recyclers by the CHEP pallets that they handle. We have quantified that the financial burden is above and beyond what CHEP offers to recyclers due to a combination of both direct (e.g., transportation, handling, storage) and opportunity costs, and thus each recycler incurs a monetary loss for each and every CHEP pallet they must handle. Further, we found that the existence of the opportunity costs is uniform across the sample of recycling operations that we have analyzed.

12. The methodology and analyses described in the Overview of Methodology report (Appendix A) prepared by Drs. Michael and Ray, as well as in #11 above, can be used to determine whether: (1) there are both direct and opportunity costs arising from recyclers being required to handle CHEP pallets; and (2) whether these costs are ascertainable.

13. Preliminary quantitative results suggest that that all recyclers in this sample have incurred costs to handle CHEP pallets that are in excess of any revenue they may receive from CHEP. As detailed in Table 3 of Appendix A, these costs range from $1.62 to $13.14 per CHEP pallet.

3

14. We propose to determine the costs noted in #12 for the entire class by collecting data from a scientific sample of recyclers. After seeking the advice of and consulting with a sampling expert from Nathan Associates, we are planning to utilize a sampling of a representative number of the class as described by Dr. Schneider, a sampling expert from Nathan Associates (see the Schneider report).

15. From our preliminary sample of the four named plaintiffs and four additional class members we have learned that our methodology for collecting data and determining costs is feasible. Obviously, however, we have not yet collected data from a larger scientific sample and we do not anticipate collecting that data from the representative sample until the merits stage of the process.

16. In the course of executing this assignment, the following documents and sources of information have been reviewed and/or considered:

Publications • Pallet Enterprise magazine (1995 – current) • Pallet Profile’s “Recycle Record” (Aug 2005) • Brambles annual reports (2002-present) • Brambles News Releases (2000-present) • The Hardwood Market Report (1998-present) • American Shipper (2005-present)

• “Brambles Limited: Trading Update”. GoldmanSachs. June 24, 2008.

• “Brambles Limited: Reviewing the Wal-Mart issue ahead of the BXB trading update”. GoldmanSachs. June 20, 2008.

• “Brambles Ltd: Not all as it seems”. Citi Company Focus. April 24, 2008.

• “Brambles Industries: CHEP USA – broken or damaged?”. CreditSuisse-FirstBoston Company Update. Feb 27, 2002.

• CHEP Employee Newsletter. 2004. Vol 2, Issue 2.

• CHEP Business Reviews presentations/briefings

• Brambles: Annual General Meeting presentations (2004)

• Brambles/CHEP Analyst Briefings (May 17, 2005)

• CHEP Position Descriptions. Various positions.

• CHEP letter to Performance Food Group. Oct. 12, 2001

4

• Ohstrom, P. 2003. “Driving supply chain efficiencies – A CHEP case study”. Presentation at BISG. Sept.

• D.Cotta, M. “CHEP Europe: Completing the recovery”. Undated presentation.

• “Pallet system cost analyzer”. 1991. Cleveland Consulting Assoc.

• Wal-Mart letter to pallet poolers dated 4/4/08. J. Dobbs.

• “Summary of subcommittee findings and recommendations on the grocery industry pallet system”. Produce Marketing Assoc. Undated.

• “Final report: review of costs to operate the grocery industry pallet system”. Joint Industry Shipping Container Committee. 9/11/89.

• “Review of progress in the analysis of alternative grocery industry pallet systems”. Cleveland Consulting Assoc. 4/23/90.

• “Recommendations on the grocery industry pallet system”. Food Marketing Assoc and Grocery Manufacturers Assoc. Undated.

• Modern Scientific Evidence: the law and science of expert testimony. Volume 1. 2006. Thomson-West. (Ch. 7)

• Anderson, S. 2004. “A better, easier way to improve warehouse operations”. Acorn Systems Whitepaper. June.

• Anderson, S. 2007. “A profit improvement roadmap for distributors”. Acorn Systems.

• Schenkier, S.I. 2007. “The limits of privilege in communications with experts”. Litigation, 33(2).

• Cardinaels, E. and E. Labro. 2008. On the determinants of measurement error in time-driven costing. The Accounting Review, 83(3): 735-756.

• Everaert, P., W. Bruggeman, G. Sarens, S. Anderson and Y. Levant. 2008. “Cost modeling in logistics using time-driven ABC: experiences from a wholesaler”. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 38(3): 172-191.

• Hansen, E., R. Bush, J. Punches and P. Araman. 1994. “Recycling in the US pallet industry: 1993”. Virginia Tech University. Center for Forest Products Marketing. Sept.

5

• Maelah, R. and D. Ibrahim. 2007. “Factors influencing activity based costing adoption in manufacturing industry”. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 4(2): 113-247.

• Ray, C.D., J.H. Michael and B.N. Scholnick. 2006. "Supply-chain system costs of alternative grocery industry pallet systems". Forest Products Journal, 56(10): 52-57.

• Mitchell, M. 2007. “Leveraging process documentation for time-driven activity based costing”. Journal of Performance Management, 20(3): 16-28.

• Pernot, E., F. Roodhooft, and A. v.d. Abbeele. 2007. “Time-driven activity-based costing for inter-library services: a case study in a university”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(5): 551-560.

• Bush, R., V. Reddy and P. Araman. 1996. “Pallets: a growing source of recycled wood”. Forest Products Society. Proceedings # 7286.

• Rindfleisch, A. and J. Heide. 1997. “Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications”. Journal of Marketing, 61: 30-54.

• Kaplan, R. and S. Anderson. 2007. “The innovation of time-driven activity-based costing”. Cost Management, Mar/April: 5-15.

• Kaplan, R. and S. Anderson. 2007. “Time-driven activity-based costing: a simpler and more powerful path to higher profits”. Harvard Business School Press.

• Kaplan, R. and S. Anderson. 2004. “Time-driven activity-based costing”. Harvard Business Review, Nov.

• Kaplan, R. and S. Anderson. 2004. Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business School Working Paper 04-045.

rd• Park, C.S. Contemporary engineering economics. 2002. 3 Edition. Prentice Hall.

• Hopp, W. and M. Spearman. 2000. Factory Physics. 2nd Edition. McGraw Hill.

• Hilton, R.W. 2002. Managerial accounting. 5th Edition. McGraw Hill.

• “Life cycle inventory of wood pallet systems”. 2007. Report to CHEP Americas by Franklin Associates.

Materials obtained from the recyclers visited:

o Financial and accounting statements and documents

6

o Still and video photographic evidence

o Transportation- and logistics-related information

Web sites: a. www. CHEP.com b. www. brambles.com c. www. palletexpress.com d. www. cheplawsuit.com e. www. chepclassaction.com f. www. nwpca.org g. www. palletsbyifco.com h. www. sap.com i. www. gmaforum.com j. www. millwoodinc.com k. www. mhia.org l. www. Biglotscorporate.com m. www. unitload.vt.edu n. www. themhedajournal.org/ o. www. equipment-tracking.co.uk/ p. www. Investis.com q. www. brasler.com r. www. foodmanufacture.co.uk s. www. timberindustries.com/ t. www. propak.com u. www. mmh.com v. www. palconllc.com/ w. www. roberthalffinance.com x. www. monster.com y. www. rehrigpenn.com z. www. nazpallet.com/index.htm aa. www. Acornsys.com bb. www. verisign.com cc. www. Bloomberg.com dd. www. Forbes.com

Court Documents related to BUCKEYE RECYCLERS vs. CHEP USA

Plaintiff Overruled on Motion to Remand Plaintiff Answer Plaintiffs Motion for Modification Doc 61 DOC 65 Buckeye Motion for Review DOC 66 CHEPs Memo in Opposition DOC 67 CHEP's Reply in Support

7

DOC 68 CHEP's Sur-Reply DOC 69 Stip Order Clarify DOC 70 Continuance DOC 71 CHEP Motion in Limine DOC 72 CHEP Motion in Limine Exhibit 35 DOC 73 CHEP Stopping Testimony from Buono DOC 74 CHEP to Prevent Ownership Testimony DOC 75 CHEP to Prevent Loss Pallet Evidence DOC 76 CHEP Seeks to Limit Damage Evidence DOC 77 Buckeye Motion in Limine DOC 78-1 Joint Pretrial Order DOC 78-2 Buckeyes Exhibit List DOC 80-1 CHEP Damage Disclosure DOC 80-2 CHEP Damage Exhibit DOC 81 FILING DOC 82-1 CHEP Opposition to Motion Limine DOC 82-2 Buckeye Damage Discovery DOC 83 Buckeye Damage Evidence DOC 83-3 Sams McAdows Deposition about Damages DOC 84-1 CHEP Reply in Motion DOC 87-1 Buckeyes Opposition to CHEP DOC 87-2 WESTLAW Citation DOC 88-1 Serve Interrogatories DOC 88-2 James Wilson Affidavit DOC 88-3 CHEP Damage Claim Exhibit DOC 88-4 3RD Set of Interrogatories DOC 88-5 1ST Set of Interrogatories DOC 89 Request to Unseal Records DOC 90 Entry Staying Opinion DOC 91 Lift Stay DOC 91-2 Reconsideration DOC 92-2 Potts Exhibits DOC 93-1 CHEP Counterclaim DOC 93-2 Exhibit DOC 93-3 Exhibit DOC 93-4 Exhibit DOC 93-5 Deposition of Candice DOC 93-6 Exhibit DOC 93-7 Exhibit DOC 94-1 CHEP Contra Counterclaim DOC 94-2 CHEP at Buckeye Pallets DOC 95-1 Buckeye Opposition to Motion DOC 95-2 Exhibit DOC 96 CHEP Reply to Discovery DOC 97-2 Exhibit DOC 97-3 Exhibit

8

DOC 98 CHEP Support Unsealing DOC 99-1 Final Pretrial Order DOC 99-2 Exhibit DOC 99-3 Pretrial Order DOC 99-4 Buckeye Exhibit List DOC 99-5 Buckeyes Witness List DOC 100 CHEP Pretrial Order DOC 100-1 CHEP Response to Buckeye DOC 101-1 Notice Pretrial Order DOC 101-2 Pretrial DOC 101-3 Buckeyes Witness List DOC 101-4 CHEP Witness List DOC 101-5 Joint Trial Exhibits DOC 101-6 Buckeyes Exhibits DOC 101-7 CHEP Exhibit List DOC 101-8 Deposition Objections DOC 102-1 Bain Report DOC 102-2 Bain Agreement with CHEP DOC 103 order Referring Case DOC 104 Discovery Issue DOC 105-1 Status Report Discovery DOC 108 Continuance DOC 109 Order of Ref DOC 110 Mediation DOC 111 Exclude Evidence DOC 112 Discovery Order DOC 113 Expert Testimony DOC 114 Counterclaim CHEP DOC 115 Emergency Motion DOC 116 CHEP Response to Motion DOC 117 CHEP Response to Replevin Counterclaim DOC 118 Substitution of Co-Counsel DOC 119 CHEP Response to Buckeye Appeal DOC 120-1 CHEP Pallets Object to Judge Order DOC 120-2 Affidavit of Rhonda Mueller DOC 121-1 CHEP Pallets Motion to Strike DOC 122 BUCKEYE REF Pallet Return Program DOC 124-1 Joint Pretrial Order DOC 124-2 Joint Final Pretrial Order DOC 124-3 Buckeye Pallet Witness List DOC 124-4 CHEP Pallets Witness List DOC 124-5 Joint Exhibits DOC 124-6 Buckeye Pallet Exhibits DOC 124-7 CHEP Pallet Exhibits DOC 124-8 Deposition Objections DOC 125-1 Pretrial Order Corrected

9

DOC 125-2 Buckeye Witness List Corrected DOC 125-3 CHEP Witness List Corrected DOC 125-4 Joint Exhibit List Corrected DOC 125-5 Buckeye Exhibit List Corrected DOC 125-6 CHEP Exhibit List Corrected DOC 125-7 Opposition to Depositions Corrected DOC 127 Counter Claim DOC 129 CHEP Opposition Return Program DOC 130 PX2 BAIN Research Report DOC 131 Buckeye Memo Ref Jury Demand DOC 132 Buckeye Opp to Discovery Order DOC 133 Enforce Discovery on Dwell Time DOC 134 Pallet Return Program DOC 135 CHEP Damage Evidence DOC 137 Discovery Order DOC 139 Strike Jury Demand DOC 140 Keith Norder Deposition DOC 141 Compliance of Discovery Order DOC 142 CHEP Pre Jury instructions DOC 143 Discovery of Dwell Times DOC 144 Buckeye Jury Instructions DOC 145 CHEP Jury Inst Verdict Forms DOC 146-1 CHEP Discovery Objections DOC 146-2 Letter Exhibit DOC 147-1 Discovery Issue DOC 147-2 Discovery Objections DOC 147-3 Surereply DOC 148-1 Damage Evidence DOC 148-2 Summary of Damages DOC 148-3 Deposition Ref Repairs DOC 148-4 Deposition DOC 148-5 Wood's Deposition DOC 148-6 Buckeye Invoices DOC 148-7 Buckeye Invoices DOC 148-8 Buckeye Invoices DOC 149-1 CHEP Opp Discovery Order DOC 149-2 Kolb CHEP 00795 DOC 151 CHEP Memo in Opp to Discovery DOC 152 CHEP Utilization Rate DOC 153-1 Buckeye Jury Instruction Interrogatories DOC 153-2 WESTLAW Ref. DOC 154 Keith Norder Redirect DOC 155-1 Buckeye Protective Order DOC 155-2 Sam McAdow Subpoena DOC 156 Buckeye Filing Depositions DOC 158 Interlocutory Appeal

10

DOC 159-1 CHEP Oppo Interlocutory DOC 160 Interlocutory Buckeye Reply DOC 164 Order for Bain Report DOC 165 Decision Interlocutory Appeal DOC 166 Entry Discovery Disputes DOC 168 Decision Motion Stay DOC 169 Entry Trial Date DOC 170-1 Joint Pretrial Order DOC 170-2 Buckeye Witness List DOC 170-3 CHEP Witness List DOC 170-4 HINSON Resume DOC 170-5 Joint Exhibits DOC 170-6 Buckeye Exhibits DOC 170-7 CHEP Exhibits DOC 170-8 Deposition Designations DOC 171-1 Buckeye Trial Brief DOC 171-2 Letter Exhibit DOC 171-3 June 6 2005 Letter DOC 171-4 June 15 2005 email DOC 172-1 CHEP Trial Brief DOC 172-2 CHEP Bench Brief Records DOC 173-1 Brief of Confidential Info DOC 173-2 Confidential Exhibit List DOC 173-3 Pallet Board Posting DOC 173-4 Pallet Board Posting DOC 173-5 Pallet Board Posting DOC 173-6 DOC 173-7 Pallet Board Posting DOC 173-8 Pallet Board Posting DOC 173-9 DOC 173-10 Potts Affidavit DOC 174 Industrial Reporting Counsel DOC 175 Industrial Reporting Motion DOC 176 Industrial Reporting Brief DOC 177-1 Buckeye Brief Ref Limited Access DOC 177-2 Suisse Research Report DOC 177-3 Analyst Report DOC 177-4 Analyst Report DOC 178-1 Industrial Reporting Access DOC 178-2 Pallet Board Posting DOC 178-3 RECYCLE RECORD Exhibit DOC 179-1 CHEP Opposes Industrial Reporting DOC 180 Case Settled Court Documents related to CHEP USA vs MOCK PALLETS INC.

11

Protective Order -Doc 12 Motion to Compel -Doc 15 Protective Order -Doc 16 Ricky's Affidavit -Doc 17 Mocks Memo of Law -Doc 18 CHEPS Response in Opposition -Doc 19 CHEPS Unopposed Motions -Doc 20 Protective Order CHEPS Reply -Doc 22 Motion to Compel Mock -Doc 23 Compel -Doc 24 Judges Order to Compel -Doc 25 Notice of Compliance -Doc 26 Notice of New CHEP Attorneys -Doc 27 Notice of Depositions -Doc 31 CHEPS Motion for Summary Judgment -Doc 41 CHEPs Amended Complaint -Doc 53 CHEP'S Reply to Summary Judgement -Doc 58 Mocks Proposed Judgment -Doc 236 CHEP'S Finding of Facts -Doc 237 Judges Ruling for Mock -Doc 238 Court documents and Legal Filings related to BEST PALLETS et al. vs. BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES dba CHEP Class Action Complaint (Doc. 1) Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons against Brambles 2North America, Inc., d/b/a CHEP USA

Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons against Brambles 2Industries, Inc.

Executed Waivers of Service of Summons for Brambles Industries, Inc. and Brambles 2North America, Inc., d/b/a CHEP USA (Doc. 2)

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice - Declarations of William Kolasky & Eric Mahr (Doc. 4) - Order Granted 3/4/08 (Doc. 5)

Motion and Memorandum of Law to Appoint Interim Class Counsel (Doc. 6) - Order DENIED 4/18/08 (Doc. 14)

Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel (Doc. 8)

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(B)(6) (Doc. 11) - Order DENIED 8/11/08 (Doc. 23)

Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12)

12

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 13)

Replacement Page 4 to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 15 & 15-2)

Plaintiffs' Notice of Reliance on Additional Case Authority (Doc. 16)

Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18)

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave of Court to Sumit and the Court Consider a Short Rebuttal (Doc. 19) - Order Granted 4/29/08 (Doc. 20)

Plaintiffs' Notice of Reliance on Additional Case Authority (Doc. 21)

Notice of Defendants' Reliance on Additional Authority in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22)

Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to File Answer (Doc. 24) - Order GRANTED 8/13/08 8/13/08 (Doc. 25)

Defendants' Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. 30) - Order DENIED 9/5/08 (Doc. 38)

Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. 31)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. 35)

Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. 36)

Defendants' Answer to Complaint (Doc. 37)

11/11/08 Judd H. Michael Date

13

APPENDIX A

Overview of Methodology to determine Financial Burden of CHEP pallets to Recyclers

1. The team of Drs. Michael and Ray began making preliminary calls and visits to recyclers in order to frame the problem and to develop a methodology for analyzing of cost burden imposed by CHEP pallets on pallet recyclers in the United States. From those visits, we determined that it would be possible to separate and quantify CHEP-related activities, both in on-the-ground activities and in each company’s accounting records. Based on that knowledge, we were confident that we could proceed with the investigation.

2. In order to develop a methodology to support our assignment, we began arrangements to visit a limited number of recycling company facilities. During the time allotted for this preliminary investigation, we were able to visit and analyze data from eight (8) pallet recycling companies, including the four named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The objectives of these visits were to: a) to determine whether a uniform methodology could be developed and utilized to analyze the CHEP-related costs for a sample of pallet recycling operations to be collected in the future; and b) to determine whether recyclers incurred costs that otherwise would be born by CHEP and whether the dollar amount of reimbursement offered by CHEP for each blue pallet is less than the financial burden imposed on the recyclers by the CHEP pallets that they handle. Both objectives were satisfied; thus, the resulting standardized methodology can be applied to a randomly-selected sample of recycling companies as described in the Schneider report. The methodology that we followed to determine the burden of CHEP pallets is described below.

3. Step 1. Plant tour. Shortly after arriving at a recycling operation we would tour the facility, preferably accompanied by a company owner, manager, financial officer, or production supervisor. Observations are primarily focused on means for handling and disposition of CHEP pallets on the company premises, along with general operational procedures at each facility. Specifically, it is observed how CHEP pallets arrive at the facility, where and how they are unloaded, where and how they are sorted from other pallets, where they are stored after sorting, how CHEP’s pallets are handled by the employees, how they are staged and loaded for shipment to the CHEP depot, and whether company trucks are used to deliver the CHEP pallets to the depot or they are picked up by a CHEP-scheduled contractor.

4. Step 2. Initial interview. An interview is conducted with the appropriate company official(s) to establish key parameters to be used in our subsequent cost

14

allocation procedures. As a basis for this interview, the “Survey” sheet in the Excel program is used as a guide for the interview. Company personnel are asked to provide, or calculate, the following information:

a. Total Operating Man-Hours b. Total Number of Employees, as well as numbers in each of the following

categories: Trucking and Warehouse, Production, and Overhead c. Total Square footage: Buildings, Paved Outside Storage, and Un-paved

Outside Storage d. Total Revenue (to confirm with company accounts) e. Total Non-CHEP-related revenue f. Total Non-CHEP pallets received (“in”) and number shipped g. Total CHEP-related revenue h. Total CHEP pallets in and number transported to a CHEP depot i. Total Number of Trucks, Trailers, and Forklifts j. Storage location of CHEP pallets while on premises, and any related storage,

staging, shipment and other movement issues k. Any other relevant information that seems to reflect an unusual feature of the

company’s pallet handling or logistics system and its potential impact by CHEP pallets. This could include actual global positioning system (GPS) reports related to transportation.

5. Step 3. Acquisition of accounting statements. The attending company official is

reminded (having been so informed at initial contact) that the analysis to be performed will utilize, as its foundation, actual company accounting records, preferably the company’s Profit and Loss Statement or Income Statement. One of the issues determined at this point is how many years of data are appropriate for the study. In cases where the company’s business model has remained consistent over the past four years, and the accounting records have been compiled in the same manner over that time frame, then the last four years are used in whole as the basis for the study. However, if during that time frame, the business model has changed (e.g., significant new product lines had been added or dropped, new businesses have been acquired, or accounting records have been adjusted during one or more years to merge different sets of books, etc.), then we determine the most recent year or years for which normal, representative operations are reflected by the company’s accounting records and choose to focus on those particular years. Also, if the company has more than one facility and these facilities are combined into one set of accounting records, we utilize the most recent complete year to avoid unnecessary levels of complication in cost allocations. However, if a company with multiple locations keeps separate accounts for each facility, these facilities are treated as individual cases and analyzed separately.

6. These financial statements are exported from the company’s accounting system

into a Microsoft Excel formatted file, and then the necessary components are “cut-and-pasted” into a project template worksheet that has been developed over the course of the study. Notice is taken to eliminate headers, personal references,

15

etc., that could be used to determine the identity of the company participating in the study.

7. These new project template files are then saved with a coded file name to allow

identification for future analysis, but the study in general progresses in a manner to make the analysis as standard and generic as can be achieved through the experience and modeling skill of our investigative team. This also helps to ensure anonymity of the participating companies. All work from this point forward is performed in this new coded Excel file (referred to hereafter as “the program”), which is comprised of at least seven different individual “worksheets” that are standardized in format for the study but populated with data unique to each company and acquired directly from the company’s accounting records (see Table 1). The original company-exported files are returned to the company at the completion of that company’s analysis.

8. See Table 1 for an overview of the design of the template used in the data

collection. Table 1. Design of the project work file template (“the program”) used in this study.

Worksheet Function “Instructions” Standardize basic study steps for each facility “Survey” Assurance of basic quantities not usually captured as such

in accounts, but necessary for model logic and allocations “Cost Statement” Reorganization of company cost accounts into

standardized aggregations of “Trucking and Warehousing (T&W)”, “Production”, “Storage”, and “Overhead”

“Data Collection” Capture of additional data associated with incoming and outgoing truck loads of pallets necessary to perform Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing of “T&W” costs

“Misc Cost Calculations” Worksheet used to calculate Opportunity costs and Storage costs for use in the “Model”

“Model” Allocation of newly aggregated costs to CHEP-incurred components, in total and per pallet

“Verification” Used to validate assumptions and outcomes of the specific analysis

Others… Occasionally unique sheets are developed in order to assist and document specific analytical decisions made during the study

16

9. Step 4. Cost Re-Aggregation. Once the “Cost Statement” worksheet of the program has been populated with the line-itemized portions of the company’s P&L or Income Statement, the line items are re-aggregated according to their relevance to one of the four new cost “centers” listed in Table 1 (i.e., Trucking and Warehousing (T&W), Production, Storage, and Overhead).1 For most of the line items, the item description and its value for the year(s) under study are “run up” directly from a lower area in the worksheet (that holds the account summaries exactly as transferred from the accounting files) to the appropriate one of the four cost groups in the upper portion of the worksheet. Some of the line items, however, typically have to be apportioned according to a methodology that best approximates the portion of actual consumption of the line item resource by that cost group. See Table 2 for an example of a typical line item re-apportionment.

Table 2. Typical cost aggregation procedure used to “run up” cost line items from company accounting detail to study re-aggregation detail.

Line Item Description Value Action Original “Manufacturing Labor” $100,000 From “Survey”: # of production employees 8 From “Survey”: # of T&W employees 2 Determination from Interview: All ten employees accounted for as “Manufacturing Labor” New Aggregation: “T&W Labor” $20,000 $100,000 * 2 / (8+2) New Aggregation: “Production Labor” $80,000 $100,000 * 8 / (8+2)

10. Care is taken during this procedure to either run up individual line item values or group sub-total values, but not both. For instance, a company may have various components of cost of labor detailed in several line items, and then sub-totaled as “Total, Labor” in its accounts. If the individual items needed to be re-apportioned, they were run up one line item at a time and adjusted; if not, then the sub-total line item was simply run up for simplicity.

11. At the conclusion of this exercise, the total re-aggregated costs are compared to

the total of the original line item costs to verify that the re-apportioning and re-aggregating process nets the same total cost as was carried on the original accounting books.

1 As authors Robert S. Kaplan and Stephen R. Anderson explain in their seminal work Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (Harvard Business School Press, 2007): “…a TDABC model can be constructed quickly at the departmental level. First, the project team accumulates all the relevant departmental costs, selects a single capacity measure for the department (the measure is usually time but can be space…) and calculates the departmental capacity cost rate. Second, the team develops the equation explaining the consumption of capacity by the transactions and orders handled by the department.” (Pages 51-52). This is precisely the methodology used by Drs. Ray and Michael to allocate costs for the trucking and warehousing operations of each company. See Step 5 below for more elaboration.

17

12. We often used an Excel function to add comments to individual cell entries when

the origin of the values may not have been readily apparent; this was done to document any logic applied at the time the cell entry was made or to document any specific circumstances related to a value or calculation. This procedure of adding cell comments for documentation was followed more rigorously as the number of plants visited increased, since the differences in assumptions increased with the number of cases investigated.

13. Step 5. Trucking- and Warehousing-related time data collection. From the

earliest stages of investigation, it was determined that:

a. CHEP pallets impacted the typical pallet recycler most apparently in the trucking and warehousing activities,

b. … CHEP pallets and loads tended to consume different levels of resource time than non-CHEP pallets due to their being non-mainstream in the overall company process flow (as well as being heavier than typical GMA white wood pallets),

2c. …and that recyclers incurred an “opportunity cost” in addition to acknowledged handling costs, due to reduction in throughput of the operation and/or reduction in pallet collection or delivery productivity and/or overall efficiency.

14. From these conclusions it was apparent that those costs described by the first two

of the bullets in paragraph #13 could best be modeled through time-driven activity based costing3 (due to the fact that those costs were captured by each company’s traditional cost accounting system). In contrast, the opportunity costs described by the third bullet (c) above necessarily must be modeled as a function of operational constraints, because “opportunity costs are not measured by a transaction-based double-entry accounting system since they represent the cost of actions not taken”.4

2 “An opportunity cost is defined as the benefit that is sacrificed when the choice of one action precludes taking an alternative course of action…From an economic perspective, a dollar of opportunity cost associated with an action should be treated as equivalent to a dollar of out-of-pocket cost.” From Managerial Accounting: Fifth Edition, Ronald W. Hilton, McGraw-Hill, 2002. Pages 54-55. 3 Activity based costing (ABC) is a concept and practice first formulated in the 1980’s and thereafter delivered by several large consulting firms to their clients as a way to improve the resolution of a company’s analysis of its cost-reduction opportunities. Professor Robert S. Kaplan of the Harvard Business School, an early champion of ABC, recognized certain implementation difficulties of ABC in his work with companies in the 1990’s, and evolved a more elegant and accurate approach to capturing variable costs associated with different products and customers, which he called “Time-driven activity based costing” and described in a 2004 Harvard Business Review article and expanded on in a 2007 book of the same title. 4 From Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting by H. Thomas Johnson and Robert S. Kaplan. Harvard Business School Press, 1991. Page 157.

18

15. Data collection and conversion through time-driven ABC methods for the Trucking and Warehousing step was accomplished in two phases as described below.

16. Step 5, Phase 1 - data were collected on incoming and outgoing loads of pallets in

one or more of three means: 1) Examination and compilation of company trucking, transportation, loading, and unloading logs and records; 2) analyst-conducted time studies performed on site in the absence of the logs and records mentioned above; or 3) evidence, provided by key informants within each organization, of travel and loading/unloading times if on-site time studies were impossible to conduct during the site visit.

17. The data collected from these efforts was compiled in a worksheet in the program

entitled “Data Collection” on a load-by-load basis, for both incoming and outgoing loads. Additional details on this compilation process are:

a. For each load, the date, source (i.e., where the used pallets were picked up) or destination city, documented or estimated time of each activity, and the number of pallets by type were recorded. From these data sets, standard times5 per activity and numbers of pallets by type per load were established as the average of the collected data in one of three load categories.

b. For incoming pallet loads, these categories were: a) typical loads with higher numbers of CHEP pallets, b) typical loads with lower numbers of CHEP pallets, and c) typical loads with no CHEP pallets.

c. For the delivered loads, the categories were: a) loads being delivered to CHEP depot(s), b) loads of non-CHEPs being delivered to the typical “near” customer, and c) loads of non-CHEPs being delivered to the typical “distant” customer.

d. If specific load-by-load data were not available through the first two of the three means mentioned above, then the “standard” loads were defined with information from company management.

18. Step 5, Phase 2 – The calculated standards of activity times and number of pallets

by type for each of the three incoming and outgoing load categories were transferred to the “Model” worksheet of the program in the T&W area (typically, the area from cell A5 to about cell P25) on the worksheet. These standards were then used in the modeling exercise to be described in Step 7 below.

19. Step 6. Calculation of Opportunity and Storage Costs. As alluded to earlier in this report, the opportunity cost must be calculated if we are to capture a recycler’s true cost of handling a CHEP pallet. Opportunity costs are relevant when shown to impact the “bottleneck” or “system constraint” of the process. It is

5 For a thorough treatment of establishing process times for TDABC modeling, see Chapter 2 of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing, Robert Kaplan and Steven Anderson, Harvard Business School Publishing, 2007.

19

noteworthy that every manufacturing facility or process has a bottleneck at which opportunity cost can be calculated if the operation is at full capacity.

20. For each facility, the determination of the system constraint was made in

accordance with the decision-tree methodology illustrated in Figure 1. If the company’s constraint was determined to be pallet flow through the operation, and CHEP pallets flowed through production (e.g., for sorting), then the opportunity cost was calculated as the number of CHEP pallets handled, times the number of non-CHEP pallets that could have been handled in their stead6, times the marginal revenue per non-CHEP pallet.7

Figure 1. Decision tree to determine if calculation of opportunity costs is appropriate for each company under study.

Trucking (typically high-volume operations)

Production (typically low-volume operations) If system

constraint is…

Storage

CHEPs sorted in production?

CHEPs returned by company truck?

Sortation Yes

OpCost = # of CHEPs * # of displaced non-CHEPs per CHEP * non-CHEP marginal revenue

OpCost = # of CHEPs * # of displaced non-CHEPs per CHEP * non-CHEP marginal revenue

OpCost = # of CHEPs * # of displaced non-CHEPs per CHEP * non-CHEP marginal revenue

No Opportunity CostNo No

Yes

6 For the preliminary sample set, only two of the plants have a production constraint that is impacted by CHEP pallet flow. For each of those companies, informal time-motion studies have resulted in a conclusion that each CHEP pallet requires additional handling in the system during which four non-CHEP pallets could have been processed. Photo sequences A and B below are presented here for a visual explanation of this impact. In photo sequence A, a CHEP pallet is pulled from a stack of incoming pallets by one of the pallet repairmen and taken to a staging area out of the way where a forklift driver will collect the CHEP pallet(s) and take it to the CHEP storage area. Times were noted both for the handling and transportation of the pallet in this case and compared to normal process times. 7 For a discussion of the justification for using marginal cost to calculate opportunity cost in the absence of “perfect market competition”, see for example the Johnson and Kaplan book referenced in Note 3, pages 167-168.

20

Photo Sequence A

A1 A2

A3 A4 In photo sequence B, a CHEP pallet is removed from a stack of incoming pallets that are to be disassembled through a saw for pallet board replacement stock. Because there is no forklift support for this area of the plant, the operator is at first unsure of what to do with the pallet; he then whistles to the operator on the other side of the saw, hands it across the operating bandsaw, where the other operator stands the pallet up behind him until it can be removed at a break period or some other time. Photo Sequence B

B1 B2

21

B3 B4

B5

21. Similar logic is used for operations where the constraints are trucking, sortation, or storage. Typically, we have found that lower-volume operations have a production constraint, and sort pallets in production (due to the small number of employees); while higher-volume operations have a trucking (logistics) constraint, and have to return CHEP pallets on their own trucks because of the need to remove them in a timely manner. Operations with sortation or storage as the system constraint are special cases; we have visited at least two operations with such a constraint, and one has been analyzed in this preliminary sample set.8

22. Storage is also a tangible additional cost, even if it is not a constraining process

used for calculation of opportunity cost.9 That is, the square footage available to all pallets for storage and staging comes at a cost to the operation, and these costs

8 For the complete study to follow, company management will be surveyed to establish their understanding of the system constraint, and mathematical models of each operation’s process flow can be developed to validate and verify that determination. 9 For an excellent discussion of the real cost of non-constraining capacity, see Time-Driven Activity Based Costing, Kaplan and Anderson, Chapter 3.

22

should be allocated accordingly. These costs can be modeled with a time component (the amount of time pallets occupy a certain amount of space times its cost per square foot) or without a time component (by simply allocating total storage costs such as rent, utilities, etc., according to a volume-based percentage of CHEPs vs. other pallets). In this study, we attempted the first technique (time-inclusive) at the first few companies, but due to the limitations and complexity of the assumptions necessary, and the relatively low total cost of the storage component of the cost allocation, we have more recently opted for a simpler volume-based allocation. For any operation where storage cost is highly significant or a constraint on the system (e.g., a small facility with limited room to expand in downtown Dallas where land values are very high), the more complex first technique will necessarily be used.

23. Step 7. Calculation of total CHEP-related costs. Once the previous steps have

been accomplished, it becomes possible to compile the newly-aggregated costs for a determination of the CHEP-related component of each. The costs as calculated in previous steps are carried over to the “Model” worksheet of the program for this exercise. We explain the modeling techniques for each new cost center separately below:

a. Trucking and Warehousing (T&W) – The total T&W cost as re-

aggregated is carried over from the “Cost Statement” worksheet. This value is then allocated based on the time and pallet volume standards established in Step 5 and calculated on the “Data Collection” worksheet. To perform this allocation, the number of truckloads of each “customer type” for incoming and outgoing loads is varied until target values (actual CHEP and non-CHEP pallet volumes from the years studied) are closely approximated in total. As the volumes of these types of pallet loads are determined, the total cost of the T&W cost center is allocated on a time-driven ABC basis, so that the cost allocated to each type of load is given its true time-weighted allocation.10 In this way, the additional (or lower) time consumption of the CHEP-related activities is reflected in the allocated cost per activity; and the total allocated costs per activity are summed for all CHEP-related activities to produce the total T&W cost related to loads carrying CHEP pallets. A CHEP component of this TD-ABC cost is then allocated based on the percentage of CHEPS in each load, and the total TD-ABC cost of CHEP pallets for T&W operations is then determined from the total of all the CHEP-weighted activity costs.

b. Production – The total production cost is carried over from the “Cost

Statement” worksheet, but no portion of this total is allocated to CHEP. The assumption made is that CHEP pallets do not consume any production

10 This allocation is performed by using the “capacity cost rate” of the cost center to drive the cost per activity down to the CHEP product level. For a comprehensive discussion of this methodology, see Time-Driven Activity Based Costing, Kaplan and Anderson, Chapter 3.

23

24

resources, except in those cases where production-related opportunity costs are relevant; in these cases, the cost is carried over as opportunity cost, not an allocation of any of the production cost.

c. Storage Cost – This cost is carried over from the “Miscellaneous Cost

Calculations” worksheet (where it is calculated as a function of square footage occupied by CHEP pallets over time) or calculated as a straight-forward volume-based allocation of storage costs from the “Cost Statement” worksheet.

d. Overhead Cost – The total of the newly-aggregated overhead cost center is

carried over and the CHEP component is calculated as a straight-forward allocation based on the percentage of CHEP pallets returned to CHEP vs. non-CHEP pallets shipped to customers. While there is anecdotal evidence that CHEP pallets consume more than their volume-based share of overhead resources, no company in the study had any data to support this contention. Thus, the straight-forward volume allocation was used.

e. Opportunity Cost – Total opportunity cost is carried over from the

“Miscellaneous Cost Calculations” worksheet, calculated as described in Step 6 above.

24. These five separate cost center sub-totals are then totaled to determine a total cost

that CHEP pallets impose on that particular company or facility, and this total is divided by the number of CHEP pallets returned during the time frame to determine the per-pallet cost of handling CHEP pallets in that system. These calculations are all reflected in each company’s “Model” worksheet of the program. Finally, the actual revenue received by each company from CHEP through its return program during the studied time frame is subtracted from the Total CHEP-related cost, to arrive at a bottom-line “CHEP cost to Recycler”, as summarized in Table 3.

25. It is clear from the final column of Table 3 that all recyclers in this sample have incurred costs to handle CHEP pallets that are in excess of any revenue they may receive from CHEP.

26. The methodology described above is now standardized for application to and replication over the full random sample to be studied over the course of the next phase of our work, the methods for which are detailed under the report of Dr. Schneider.

25

Tabl

e 3.

Com

pile

d su

mm

ary

resu

lts o

f the

eig

ht p

alle

t rec

yclin

g op

erat

ions

stud

ied

in th

e pr

elim

inar

y sa

mpl

e se

t Pl

ant

Perio

d Pa

llets

Sh

ippe

d

CH

EP-

rela

ted

Dire

ct C

ost

O

ppor

tuni

ty

Cos

t

Tota

l C

HEP

-re

late

d co

st

Rev

enue

fr

om

CH

EP

CH

EP

cost

to

Rec

ycle

r

Tota

l C

HE

P

Ent

ire

Per

iod

Cos

t per

C

HE

P

palle

t E

ntire

P

erio

d pe

r CH

EP

pa

llet

Ent

ire

perio

d pe

r CH

EP

pa

llet

Ent

ire

perio

d

per

CH

EP

pa

llet

Ent

ire

perio

d

per

CH

EP

pa

llet

21

2007

1,

157,

185

57,2

10

$

37,

060

$

0

.65

$

311,

432

$

5.44

$

348

,492

$

6.0

9 $

70,

892

$ 1

.24

$

277

,600

$

4.

85

26

2006

31

0,99

9 2,

340

$

8

,843

$

3.7

8 $

2

5,41

6

$

10.

86

$

34,

258

$

14.

64

$

3,4

73

$ 1

.50

$

3

0,78

6

$ 1

3.14

38

2005

-200

7 87

8,61

2 1,

762

$

3

,145

$

1.7

9 $

3,92

2

$

2.

23

$

7,

068

$

4

.01

$

4,2

15

$ 2

.39

$

2,85

3

$

1.62

59

2007

-Apr

il, 2

008

1,35

9,94

2 18

,808

$

3

7,61

7 $

2.0

0 $

4

6,42

5

$

2.

47

$

84,

042

$

4

.47

$ 2

5,98

6 $

1.3

8

$

58,

056

$

3.

09

67

2007

2,

074,

767

17,2

59

$

49,

325

$

2

.86

$

27,

247

$

1.58

$

7

6,57

2 $

4.4

4 $

40,

383

$ 2

.34

$

3

6,19

0

$

2.10

76

2007

3,

334,

301

488,

644*

$

49

8,56

1 $

1.0

2 $

41

4,67

4

$

0.

85

$ 9

13,2

35

$

1

.87

$

7,2

10

$ 0

.13

$

906

,025

$

1.

74

91a

2004

-200

7 1,

718,

032

13,4

34

$

40,

741

$

3

.02

$

95,

408

$

7.10

$

136

,149

$

1

0.12

$

35,

373

$ 2

.63

$

100

,776

$

7.

49

95

2007

1,

008,

851

7,15

4 $

3

2,18

1 $

4.2

5 $

1

5,75

6

$

2.

20

$

47,

938

$

6

.46

$ 1

6,09

6 $

2.2

5

$

31,

842

$

4.

21

Tota

ls

11

,842

,689

60

6,61

1 $

70

7,47

2

$

940,

281

$1,6

47,7

53

$

203,

627

$1

,444

,126

$

4.

78

Ave

rage

$

2.4

2

$

4.

09

$

6.5

1

$ 1

.73

$

2.38

Wei

ghte

d A

vera

ge

$

1

.17

$

1.55

$

2

.72

$

0.3

4

*Thi

s tot

al in

clud

es a

larg

e nu

mbe

r of C

HEP

pal

lets

sorte

d an

d lo

aded

at a

Dis

tribu

tion

Cen

ter b

y pe

rson

nel a

nd e

quip

men

t of t

he re

cycl

ing

com

pany

#76

.

APPENDIX B

VITA OF DR. JUDD H. MICHAEL

26

Michael Vita

VITA

JUDD H. MICHAEL 211 Forest Resources Bldg School of Forest Resources

The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-2976 jh-michael@psu.edu

EDUCATION -PhD - Forest Products - School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA - August 1994. - Minor, Smeal College of Business. -M.B.A. - Texas A&M University, College Station, TX - August 1988. -B.S. - Business - Texas A&M University, College Station, TX - August 1986. EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

Associate Professor of Wood Industries Business Management (July 2002 - present) School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Director of the Center for Wood Innovation and Sustainability. Partner, Scientific Management Solutions, LLC (2004-present) This consulting company specializes in quantitative modeling, competitive analyses, and customized management training for the wood products industries.

Assistant Professor of Wood Industries Business Management (March 2000 – June 2002) School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Assistant Professor of Forest Products Marketing and Extension Wood Products Specialist, (August 1994-March 2000) Department of Forest Science, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Graduate Research Assistant (August 1991-August 1994) School of Forest Resources,

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Market Analyst/Programmer (Jan. 1989-Aug. 1991) Center for Forest Products Marketing. Department of Wood Science & Forest Products, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA

Graduate Research Assistant (Jan. 1988-Sept. 1988) Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

27

Michael Vita

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS

Michael, J.H. and C.D. Ray. 2008. “Management decisions in the forest products industry: How

good companies can go astray”. Forest Products Journal (October): 6-14. Gagnon, M.A., Michael, J.H. and K.J. Jansen. 2008. “Employee alignment with strategic change:

A study of strategy-supportive behavior among blue-collar employees”. Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 20, #4.

Grandy, A.A., B.L. Cordeiro and J.H. Michael. 2007. “Work-family supportiveness

organizational perceptions: important for the well-being of male blue-collar hourly workers?” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71: 460-478.

Ray, C.D., J. Janowiak, J. Michael and H. Bachev. 2007. “Economic impact assessment of

international bark-free regulation on the wooden pallet industry”. Journal of Forest Products Business Research, (Sept) e-journal.

Ray, C.D., V. Wadhwa and J.H. Michael. 2007. “Impact of over-run on profitability of

hardwood sawmills”. Wood & Fiber Science, 39(2): 291-298. Balkundi, P., M. Kilduff, Z. Barsness and J.H. Michael. 2007. “Demographic antecedents and

performance consequences of structural holes in work teams”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 241-260.

Michael, J.H., Z. Guo, J.K. Wiedenbeck and C.D. Ray. 2006. “Production supervisor impacts on

subordinates’ safety outcomes: An investigation of leader-member exchange and safety communication”. Journal of Safety Research, 37(5): 469-477.

Gresock, A.R., J.H. Michael, A.E. Echols and P.M. Smith. 2006. “The Habitat for Humanity

ReStore system: sourcing and sales of donated wood-based building materials”. Forest Products Journal, 56(10): 37-41.

Ray, C.D., J.H. Michael and B.N. Scholnick. 2006. “Supply-chain system costs of alternative

grocery industry pallet systems”. Forest Products Journal, 56(10): 52-57. Ray, C.D., Z. Zuo, J.H. Michael and J. Wiedenbeck. 2006. “The lean index: operational ‘lean’

metrics for the wood products industry”. Wood & Fiber Science, 38(2): 238-255. Michael, J.H., R. Leschinsky and M. Gagnon. 2006. “Production employee performance at a

furniture manufacturer: the importance of supportive supervisors”. Forest Products Journal, 56(6): 19-24.

Evans, D.D., J.H. Michael, J.K. Wiedenbeck and C.D. Ray. 2005. “Relationships between

organizational climates and safety-related events at four wood manufacturers”. Forest Products Journal, 55(6): 23-28.

28

Michael Vita

Michael, J.H., D.D. Evans, K. Jansen, and J. Haight. 2005. "Relationships Between Management Commitment to Safety and Employee Outcomes: an Exploratory study With Wood Manufacturing Employees". Journal of Safety Research, (36): 171-179.

Michael, J.H. Z. Barsness, L. Lawson and P. Balkundi. 2004. “Focus please: team coordination

and performance at wood manufacturers”. Forest Products Journal, 54(12): 250-255. Gagnon, M. and J.H. Michael. 2004. “Outcomes of perceived supervisor support for wood

production employees”. Forest Products Journal, 54(12): 172-177. Michael, J.H. and J.K. Wiedenbeck. 2004. “Safety in the Wood Products Industry”. Forest

Products Journal, 54(10): 8-18 (feature article). Leschinsky, R. and J.H. Michael. 2004. “Motivators and desired company values of wood

products industry employees: investigating generational differences”. Forest Products Journal, 54(1): 34-39.

Gagnon, M.A. and J.H. Michael. 2003. “Employee strategic alignment at a wood manufacturer:

an exploratory analysis using lean manufacturing”. Forest Products Journal, 53(10): 24-29.

Michael, J.H. and R.M. Leschinsky. 2003. “Human resources management and training needs of

Pennsylvania lumber producers”. Forest Products Journal, 53(3): 28-32. Roadcap, C., P.M. Smith and J.H. Michael. 2002. “Internet technologies in the home center

industry”. Forest Products Journal, 52(1): 32-37. Michael, J.H. 2001. “Perceived obligations of future forest industry employees: a psychological

contracts perspective”. Forest Products Journal, 51(10): 39-46. Michael, J.H. and S. Dasmohapatra. 2001. “Forestry students, employers, and the implied

contract: expectations and obligations”. Journal of Forestry, 99(9): 18-24. Gezer, E., J.H. Michael and J.J. Morrell. 1999. “Effects of glycol on leachability and efficacy of

boron wood preservatives.” Wood and Fiber Science, 31(2): 136-142.

Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1999. “The theory of double jeopardy: An example from a forest products industry.” Forest Products Journal, 49(3): 21-26.

Gezer, E., M.K. Yalinkilic, K. Kizilkaya, and J.H. Michael. 1999. “Estimation of preservative toxic threshold retention from laboratory decay tests: a new method.” Wood Science and Technology, 33(1): 63-71.

Michael, J.H. 1999. “Information sources and purchase influences for wood products retailers: a

trade show attendee perspective”. Wood and Fiber Science, 31(1): 71-82. Michael, J.H., J. Teitel, and J.E. Granskog. 1998. “Production facility site selection factors for

Texas value-added wood producers”. Forest Products Journal, 48(7/8): 27-32.

29

Michael Vita

Michael, J.H. 1997. “Labor dispute reconciliation in a forest product manufacturing facility”. Forest Products Journal, 47(11/12): 41-45.

Michael, J.H. and J.G. Massey. 1997. “Modeling the communications network in a sawmill”.

Forest Products Journal, 47(9): 25-30. Michael, J.H. 1997. “A characterization of the Texas pallet industry.” Forest Products Journal,

47(2): 27-30. Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1996. “An analysis of home furnishings retailers= use of furniture

markets.” Wood and Fiber Science, 28(2): 168-177.

Smith, P.M., J.H. Michael, and C.D. West. 1995. “Objective-oriented strategies for international furniture market participants.” Taiwan Forest Products Industries Journal, 14(1): 166-184.

Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1995. “Information sources used by furniture retailers: Targeting promotions for furniture manufacturers.” Forest Products Journal, 45(4): 25-30.

Mulhern, F.J. and J.H. Michael. 1995. “The effect of retail promotions on homecenter shopping behavior.” Forest Products Journal, 45(3): 31-36.

Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1994. “Furniture markets as promotional tools: Integrating

objectives for furniture manufacturers.” Forest Products Journal, 44(11/12): 51-54. Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1994. “Satisfying consumers' 'green' wants: an impetus for

education." Wood and Fiber Science, 26(3): 370-381. Meyer, C.J., J.H. Michael, S.A. Sinclair and W.G. Luppold. 1992. “Wood material use in the

U.S. wood furniture industry.” Forest Products Journal, 42(5): 28-30. Meyer, C.J., J.H. Michael and S.A. Sinclair. 1992. “The U.S. wood furniture industry: A profile

of products and channels of distribution.” Forest Products Journal, 42(3): 65-70. Meyer, C.J., S.A. Sinclair and J.H. Michael. 1992. “The professional residential repair and

remodeling market: A review of available data.” Forest Products Journal, 42(1): 63-68. Manuscripts accepted for publication Balkundi, P., Z. Barsness and J.H. Michael. 2009. “The influence of leadership and network

structures on team conflict and team viability.” Small Group Research.

PEER-REVIEWED PROCEEDINGS PAPERS

Michael, J.H. and J.W. Wiedenbeck. 2004. “Management commitment to safety: saving more than just fingers and toes.” Proceedings of the National Hardwood Lumber Association Annual Research Meeting. 120-124.

30

Michael Vita

Michael, J.H. and L. Lawson. 2002. “Three keys to increasing safety performance at hardwood producers.” Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hardwood Symposium. National Hardwood Lumber Association. Fall Creek Falls, TN. 140-143. Michael, J.H., Z. Barsness, and L. Lawson. 1999. “Enhancing utilization of human capital in wood processing facilities: a time for teamwork.” Proceedings of The 4th International Conference on the Development of Wood Science, Wood Technology and Forestry. Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe, England. 260-269. Michael, J.H., J. Teitel, and J.E. Granskog. 1997. “Site selection factors for Texas secondary wood producers.” In: Proceedings of the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations Annual Meeting. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 45-52. Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1993. “Satisfying consumers ‘green’ wants: An impetus for education.” In Proceedings of Environmental Movement and Fiscal Influence on Wood Utilization Policy and Research. Society of Wood Science & Technology. Clearwater Beach, FL. 3-4.

Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1993. "The 'Green Gap' in proenvironmental attitudes and product availability: parental tradeoffs in diapering decision-making.” Proceedings of the 1993 Marketing and Public Policy Conference. East Lansing, Michigan. 92-108. (Chosen for Best Student Paper Award).

Abstracts published in peer-reviewed proceedings Jansen K. and J.H. Michael. 2008. “Change-based Momentum and Trajectories: The Dynamics of Change Perceptions.” Selected for Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, and received Best Paper Award in the Organizational Change Division at the Academy of Management. Anaheim, CA. Cordeiro, B.L., Grandey, A.G. and J.H. Michael. 2006. “Intentions to use family leave policies: do gender, occupational status, and LMX matter?” In J.L. Cleveland (Chair), Nontraditional, Understudied Populations in Work-Family Research Proceedings. 21st Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Dallas, TX. Harrison, M.M., S. Mohammed, J.H. Michael and Z. Barsness. 2005. “The influence of intragroup trust on team performance.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Los Angeles, CA. Abstract with poster. Jansen, K., A. Kristof-Brown, and J. Michael. 2003. "The Role of enabling environments in person-group fit." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Abstract with poster.

31

Michael Vita

Lawson, L., Z. Barsness, and J.H. Michael. 2000. “Antecedents of role ambiguity and role conflict: distinguishing the effects of dyadic relational diversity, peer relational diversity and group composition diversity.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference of the International Association for Conflict Management. St. Louis, MO. Barsness, Z., A.E. Tenbrunsel, J.H. Michael, and L. Lawson. 2000. “Why am I here? The influence of group and relational attributes on member-initiated team selection.” Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Research on Managing Groups and Teams. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

BOOKS AND CHAPTERS IN BOOKS Stites, J. and J.H. Michael. 2007. “Human Resources Best Practices: A Handbook for the Hardwood Industry”. (Published by Penn State Press) Barsness, Z., A. Tennbrunsel, J.H. Michael, and L. Lawson. 2001. ‘Why am I here? The influence of group and relational attributes on member-initiated team selection”. In, "Toward Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership." Edited by Beta Mannix, Maggie Neale, and Harris Sondal. Elsevier Science Ltd, Vol 4. pgs 141-171. TRADE PRESS PUBLICATIONS (selected) Stites, J. & J.H. Michael. 2008. “Harnessing the potential of Generation Y in the workforce.” Hardwood Matters (Sept): 24-25. (magazine of the National Hardwood Lumber Assoc., invited article) Michael, J.H. 2008. “Family-friendly policies can pay big dividends for hardwood producers.” Hardwood Matters, (June): 22. (invited article) Michael, J.H & S.W. Bukowski. 2008. “Sharpen your strategies with ‘Environmental Scanning’”. Hardwood Matters (March): 23. (invited article) Michael, J.H. 2001. “Tips for lowering the high cost of production worker turnover”, The Engineered Wood Journal (Fall): 17-21. Michael, J.H. and L. Lawson. 2000. “How can you help your staff accept changes in their jobs?”, Wood Technology (Nov/Dec): 68-70. Michael, J.H. 1999. “Texas economy bolstered by forest industry”, Texas Forestry (May):14. Michael, J.H. 1997. “Tactics for enticing value-added wood manufacturers”, Texas Forestry (December):14. Michael, J.H. 1996. “Texas economy counts on pallets”, Timber Processing (July/August): 114.

32

Michael Vita

Michael, J.H. 1996. “A description of the 1995 Texas pallet industry”, Texas Forestry (April):5. Michael, J.H. 1995. “Do Texas sawmillers care about exporting to Mexico?”, Texas Forestry (September):9-13. Bowling, P.N., J.H. Michael and P.M. Smith. 1994. "The Great Market Debate", Home Furnishings Executive Vol. 1, No. 10 (October):35-46. ARTICLES/ABSTRACTS IN NON-REVIEWED PROCEEDINGS (selected, last 10 years) Zuo, X., C.D. Ray and J.H. Michael. 2004. “Building a Quantitative Lean Manufacturing Transformation Model for the Forest Products Industry”. Proceedings of the Forest Products Society Manufacturing Competitiveness Conference. November. New Orleans.

Gagnon, M.A. and J.H. Michael. 2004. “The importance of aligning ‘Human Capital’ with manufacturing strategies”. Proceedings of the Forest Products Society Manufacturing Competitiveness Conference. November. New Orleans. Michael, J.H., Z.I. Barsness and L. Lawson. 2001. “Tips for increasing performance and retention in production employees”, Conference Proceedings, 28th Annual Wood Technology Clinic and Show. March. Portland, OR. Michael, J.H., Z.I. Barsness and L. Lawson. 2000. “Strategies for Making Teams Work”, Conference Proceedings, Wood Technology Clinic and Show. September. Charlotte, NC. Michael, J.H., Z.I. Barsness and L. Lawson. 1999. “Making Teams Work: New Strategies for Productivity and Performance”, Conference Proceedings, 27th Annual Wood Technology Clinic and Show. March. Portland, OR. Barsness, Z.I., J.H. Michael, and D. Glew. 1998. “Understanding networks: a key to productivity and performance”, In: R. Tichy, D. Bender & M. Wolcott, eds., Proceedings of the 32nd International Particleboard/Composite Materials Symposium. March. Washington State University. Pullman, WA. PAPERS PRESENTED AT TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS

Refereed Academic Conference Presentations

Jansen K. and J.H. Michael. 2008. “Change-based Momentum and Trajectories: The Dynamics of Change Perceptions.” Academy of Management Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA. (Best Paper Award in the Organizational Change Division at the Academy of Management).

33

Michael Vita

Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z. I. and J.H. Michael. 2008. “Formal vs. informal team leadership: The influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and team member intent to quit.” INGRoup conference, Kansas City, MO. Barsness, Z.I., Seidel, M.D., Diekmann, K.A. and J.H. Michael. 2008. "Mirror, mirror on the wall: the implications of status for overestimation of network ties.” Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Meeting, Halifax, Canada. Michael, J.H., Lawson, L. and M.A. Gagnon. 2007. “Changing to sustain: A longitudinal investigation of foresters’ change-related behaviors.” Academy of Management Annual Conference, Philadelphia. Michael, J.H., Balkundi, P. and Z. Barsness. 2007. “Leadership paradox: Leadership network structures, team conflict and turnover intentions.” Academy of Management Annual Conference, Philadelphia. Barsness, Z. I., Seidel, MD. L., Diekmann, K. A. and J.H. Michael. 2006. “Mirror, mirror on the wall: The implications of status for overestimation of friendship ties.” Academy of Management Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. Barsness, Z. I., Seidel, M.D.L. and J.H. Michael. 2006. “Not all ties are created equal: The impact of differing Network portfolios on promotion.” Academy of Management Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. Harrison, M. M., Mohammed, S., Michael, J. H. and Z. Barsness. 2005. “The influence of intragroup trust on team performance.” Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. Gagnon, M. A., Jansen, K. J. and J.H. Michael. 2004. “The role of strategic knowledge and commitment in predicting strategically-aligned behavior: A study of lean transformation.” Academy of Management Annual Conference, New Orleans. Jansen, K., A. Kristof-Brown and J.H. Michael. 2004. “The Role of enabling environments in person-group fit.” Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago. Jansen, K. J., Michael, J.H. and K. Price. 2004. “Antecedents and consequences of change-based momentum: A longitudinal study.” Academy of Management Annual Conference, New Orleans. Balkundi, P., M. Kilduff, J.H. Michael, Z. Barsness and L. Lawson. 2001. “Thinking alike, working better: antecedents and consequences of shared team cognition.” Academy of Management Annual Conference. August. Washington, D.C.

34

Michael Vita

Lawson, L., Z.I. Barsness and J.H. Michael. 2000. “Diversity as an antecedent of role stress.” 13th Annual Conference of the International Association for Conflict Management. June. St. Louis, MO.

Barsness, Z. I., A. Tenbrunsel, J.H. Michael and L. Lawson. 2000. “Push or pull? An integrated model for individual motivation for group membership and involvement.” The 4th Annual Research on Managing Groups and Teams Conference. May. Palo Alto, CA. Invited Presentations (Domestic, since 2000)

Michael, J.H. and J. Stites. 2008. “Do cabinet industry employees care about your Corporate Social Performance?” Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association Annual Leadership Conference. September. Birmingham, AL. Michael, J.H. and S. Bukowski. 2008. “Challenges to implementing KCMA’s Environmental Stewardship Program: Where will all the wood come from??” Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association Annual Leadership Conference. September. Birmingham, AL. Michael, J.H. 2008. “Making better management decisions.” NOFMA (The Wood Flooring Manufacturers Association) Annual Meeting. July. Portland, ME. Michael, J.H. 2007. “Challenges to sustainability in packaging.” Sustainable Packaging Forum. September. Pittsburgh, PA. Michael, J.H. 2007. “Supervisory skills: Understanding motivation and goal setting.” Penn State Wood Products & Processing Conference. September. St. Mary’s, PA. Michael, J.H. 2007. “The 7 deadly sins of hardwood lumber managers.” National Hardwood Lumber Association Annual Convention. September. Washington, D.C. Michael, J.H. 2007. “Workforce challenges for hardwood lumber producers.” Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group, Wood & Lumber Industry Partnership Meeting. June. St. Mary’s, PA. Michael, J.H. 2007. “Improving safety performance in your forest-based company: Implications for productivity and profitability.” Timber 2007. June. Rock Springs, PA. Michael, J.H. 2007. “Changing to sustain?: Opportunities and challenges from ‘Eco-change’.” University of Virginia, McIntire School of Business. April. Charlottesville, VA.

35

Michael Vita

Michael, J.H. 2007. “Decisions, Decisions: making better decisions in wood manufacturing environments.” Virginia Tech/U.S. Forest Service Remaining Competitive in Hardwood Lumber Production shortcourse. March. Princeton, WV. Michael, J.H. 2007. “Workforce challenges for Pennsylvania’s wood products industries.” Keystone Wood Products Association meeting. February. State College, PA. Michael, J.H. 2007. “Workforce challenges for Pennsylvania’s wood products industries.” Keystone Wood Products Association meeting. February. Lewisburg, PA. Michael, J.H. 2006. “Research and professional development issues for the Lumber, Wood & Paper Cluster.” Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board meeting. June. State College, PA. Michael, J.H. 2006. “Three keys to better safety performance for wood manufacturers.” West Virginia University, Division of Forestry. November. Morgantown, WV. Michael, J.H. and A. Echols. 2005. “Marketing practices and managerial discretion: impacts on store performance at used building materials retailers.” U.S. EPA/Building Materials Reuse Association Annual Conference. November. Atlanta, GA.

Barsness, Z. I., Seidel, M.D., and Michael, J.H. 2005. “Mirror, mirror on the wall: The implications of outbound and inbound friendship ties for promotion.” UCLA Anderson School of Management Colloquium. March. Los Angeles, CA.

Michael, J.H. and M.A. Gagnon. 2004. “Aligning ‘Human Capital’ with manufacturing strategies.” Forest Products Society Manufacturing Competitiveness Conference. November. New Orleans, LA. Michael, J.H. 2004. “Making better decisions in wood industry management teams.” Penn State Wood Productivity Conference. May. University Park, PA. Michael, J.H. and J.W. Wiedenbeck. 2004. “Management commitment to safety: saving more than just fingers and toes.” National Hardwood Lumber Association Annual Research Review Meeting. May. Fall Creek Falls, TN. Michael, J.H. 2003. “Building a culture of safety.” Southern Forest Products Association Expo 2003. June. Atlanta, GA. Ray, C.D. and J.H. Michael. 2003. “Redefining lean manufacturing in the kitchen cabinet industry.” Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association Annual Management Conference. June. Minneapolis, MN. Michael, J.H. 2003. “Enhancing strategic decision-making in top management teams.” Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association Annual Management Conference. June. Minneapolis, MN.

36

Michael Vita

Lawson, L.L. and J.H. Michael. 2002. “Improving safety performance in the wood industry.” Presentation to Wausau Insurance’s Wood & Lumber Industry Center of Excellence. November. Alpharetta, GA. Michael, J.H. and Lucinda Lawson. 2002. “Increasing safety performance at hardwood producers.” National Hardwood Lumber Association Annual Research Symposium. May. Fall Creek Falls State Park, TN. Michael, J.H. 2001. “Enhancing employee performance and retention.” Southern Forest Products Association Expo 2001. July. Atlanta, GA. Michael, J.H. 2001. “Retaining high performance employees: what to do after welcome aboard’.” Composite Panel Association/Engineered Wood Council Annual Meeting. April. Orlando, FL. Michael, J.H. 2001. “Tips for increasing performance and retention in production employees.” 28th Annual Wood Technology Clinic and Show. March. Portland, OR. Michael, J.H. 2000. “Marketing strategies using the Internet, Intranets, and Extranets.” Beyond Boundaries: Grass Roots to Global; National Rural Community Assistance Partnership Conference. USDA Forest Service. October. Stowe, VT. Michael, J.H. 2000. “Making teams work.” Wood Technology Clinic and Show. September. Charlotte, NC. Michael, J.H. and J. Punches. 2000. “An overview of Internet technologies: business opportunities, communication challenges.” Wood Technology Clinic and Show. September. Charlotte, NC.

Michael, J.H. 2000. “Encouraging ‘change’ within your company: the key to future competitiveness.” Wood Technology Clinic and Show. March. Portland, OR. Invited Presentations (International)

Michael, J.H. and C.D. Ray. 2008. “Wood vs. Plastic pallets: a positive environmental outcome.” Canadian Wooden Pallet & Container Association. June. Vancouver, British Columbia. Balkundi, P., J.H. Michael and Z. Barsness. 2007. “The leadership paradox: how leadership network structures predict turnover intentions among team members.” 27th International Sunbelt Social Networks Conference & 8th European Social Networks Conference. May. Corfu, Greece. Balkundi, P., J.H. Michael and Z. Barsness. 2007. “Leadership paradox: leadership network structures, team conflict and turnover intentions.” February. Imperial College, London, UK.

37

Michael Vita

Michael, J.H. 1999. “Strategies for Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Guatemalan Wood Products.” Guatemalan Institute of Forestry Annual Meeting. June. Guatemala City, Guatemala. Michael, J.H. 1999. “Forest Certification and eCommerce as Marketing Strategies for Guatemalan Wood Producers.” Masters of Agribusiness Program, Universidad del Valle. June. Guatemala City, Guatemala. Michael, J.H. and J. Campbell. 1996. “Relationships for the economics of recycling: examples and opportunities.” ECOEDUCA 1996: Marketing Opportunities for Secondary Commodities from Solid Waste (Oportunidades para la Comercializacion de Productos de Desechos Solidos). April. San Jose, Costa Rica. Michael, J.H. 1995. “Joint venturing strategies for the Mexico-Texas wood products industries.” Chihuahua Economic Development Agency. April. Chihuahua, Mexico.

Volunteered Industry and Research Presentations

Bukowski, S., J.H. Michael and M. Gagnon. 2007. “Scanning of the business environment by wood industry executives.” Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Knoxville, TN.

Michael, J.H. 2007. “Decision-making for wood industry managers.” Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Knoxville, TN.

Michael, J.H. and A. Echols. 2007. “Tech transfer to non-profit groups: Examples from Habitat for Humanity.” Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Knoxville, TN.

Michael, J.H. and L. Lawson. 2002. “Understanding safety performance: implications for productivity and profitability.” Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Madison, WI.

Michael, J.H., L. Lawson, and Z. Barsness. 2001. “Enhancing employee performance and retention in wood panels facilities.” Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Baltimore, MD.

Michael, J.H., Z.I. Barsness, and L. Lawson. 1999. “Work Teams in Panels Facilities: Panacea, Poison, or Placebo?” Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Boise, ID.

Michael, J.H. and Z.I. Barsness. 1998. “Understanding networks: a new key to productivity and performance.” 32nd International Particleboard/Composite Materials Symposium. April. Pullman, WA. (co-presenters) Adcock, F., J.H. Michael and P. Rosson. 1998. "NAFTA and Southern Forest Products Trade.” 30th Annual Meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association. February. Little Rock, AR.

38

Michael Vita

Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1993. "The 'Green Gap' in proenvironmental attitudes and product availability: parental tradeoffs in diapering decision-making.” 1993 Marketing and Public Policy Conference. June. East Lansing, MI.

Michael, J.H. and P.M. Smith. 1993. "Satisfying Consumers' Green Wants: Implications for the Wood Products Industry.” Annual Meeting of the Society of Wood Science and Technology. June 20. Clearwater Beach, FL.

Michael, J.H. 1993. "The Green Challenge: Educating Consumers as to the Environmental Friendliness of Wood Products.” Student Meeting at the Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Clearwater Beach, FL.

Volunteered International Presentations

Michael, J.H. 2006. “Using Social Networks Analysis to enhance Knowledge Management at Forest-based Organizations.” New Approaches in Knowledge Management International Conference (IUFRO & European Forest Research Institute). October. Freiburg, Germany.

Michael, J.H., Barsness, Z.I., and L. Lawson. 1999. “Enhancing utilization of human capital in wood processing facilities: a time for teamwork.” The 4th International Conference on the Development of Wood Science, Wood Technology and Forestry. June. Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe, England. Michael, J.H. and J.E. Granskog. 1997. “Plant location decisions for value-added wood products manufacturers.” Forest Products Society Annual Meeting. June. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

HONORS AND AWARDS

- Best Paper Award, Organizational Change Division, Academy of Management Annual

Meeting (2008, with K. Jansen, U of Virginia College of Business) - Forest Products Society, Outstanding Section Award - Award for Excellence in Journal Publications, Southern Extension Forest Resource

Specialists (2000) - Texas Agricultural Extension Service Demonstrating Program Excellence Award

(1995) - 1993 Marketing and Public Policy Conference, Best Doctoral Student Paper Award - 1991 Governor's Award for Excellence in International Market Planning (Virginia) - Rotary Club Foreign Exchange Scholarship (Netherlands)

39

Michael Vita

TEACHING ACTIVITIES Undergraduate/Graduate Courses Taught at Penn State

WP 416 - Wood Industries Management Development. Students learn about organizational behavior and tools for managing people and wood-based organizations.

WP 438 - Business Concepts for Wood Manufacturing. This course provides exposure to business concepts relevant to managers in wood products manufacturing operations. The course focuses on financial and quantitative measures used by wood manufacturers. WP 597B - Wood Industry Organizational Diagnosis. Students learn techniques for diagnosing organization strengths and weaknesses and gain practical experience in problem solving via a project involving an actual wood manufacturer.

BA597/FOR597 – Business Strategy & the Environment. Smeal College MBA program. This course was developed in response to demand by the MBA program as well as natural sciences majors. The course covers issues related to sustainability in business and environmental issues impacting business leaders.

Examples of Outreach/Management Education Courses Taught at Penn State

- “Yorktown Supervisor Skills Training Program”. Three-day program in November, 2003, for management at the Yorktowne Cabinet Group.

- “Yorktown Advanced Supervisor Skills Training Program”. Two-day program offered in October, 2005, for middle-management at the Yorktowne Cabinet Group.

- “Management Accountability for Results”. Two-day program offered in April, 2005, for all middle-management at the Yorktowne Cabinet Group.

- “Avoiding Decision-making biases at LLP”. Half-day program for managers at Lewis Lumber Products, October, 2005.

- “Management Skills for the Future”, a 2-day shortcourse (funded by the U.S. Forest Service) was offered twice in 2008; once in West Virginia (13 attendees) and once at University Park.

- Served as an instructor for Penn State’s Management Development Programs and Services at the Penn State Judge/Bradley Credit Union School. Developed the content of my portion of the program. Offered yearly 2002-2005. - Served as an instructor for Penn State’s Management Development Programs and Services to provide a session on “Avoiding Business Surprises with Environmental Scanning” to managers with the Schindler Group (world’s largest supplier of escalators and elevators).

40

Michael Vita

SERVICE ACTIVITIES Membership in Professional Societies (2002 – present)

• Forest Products Society • Society of Wood Science & Technology • Academy of Management

Service to business and industry

Have given invited presentations to most of the national trade groups in our industry, including:

Hardwood Manufacturers Association National Hardwood Lumber Association National Wooden Pallet & Container Association Canadian Wooden Pallet & Container Association Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association Southern Forest Products Association Composite Panel/Engineered Wood Association Building Materials Reuse Association

Reviewing Activities * Forest Science (reviewer and ad hoc associate editor) * Wood and Fiber Science * Forest Products Journal * The Forestry Chronicle * Canadian Journal of Forest Research * Journal of Forest Products Business Research * International Journal of Production Economics * Proceedings reviewer, Academy of Management

* USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program * USDA Small Business Innovation Research Program (Phases I and II)

41