1. Neslihan Bagci
Youssef Boutefouste
Larissa Bouwe
Yenzo Legrand
Fanny Roguès

2.  Introduction to the EIS simulation
 Role playing game
 Team & teammates
 Strategy announcement
 First decisions & Return on experience
(feedbacks)
 Adjustements
 Results

3.  EIS simulation as a group role playing game
 Objectives:
 Work as a work team
 Introduce an innovation in a company
 Set milestones
 Get smart in our choices in order to respect deadlines
 Learn management
 EIS Simulation
 Establish a strategy
 Convince most persons

4.  Work team #4
 Composed with:
 Fanny Rogues
 Neslihan Bagci
 Larissa Bouwe
 Youssef Boutefouste
 Yenzo Legrand

5.  Team work
• Constructive team work with the participation of everybody.
• Initially good strategy, good plan of action. But sometimes, when for
instance our actions didn’t have success, following decisions were taken
without strategy.
 Leadership & followership:
• In general, everyone has given his point of view: At the beginning of the
work the point of view of some person were more taken in consideration
than other but in front of some unsuccessful decisions, all arguments
have been heard with more attention.
• An idea given by someone, discussed before his application. If someone’s
idea was wrong, all the team trying to explain to this person why his idea
can not be applicated at this time. The majority wins.
• There was not really leader, not follower: all the decisions were taken
with a common agreement except when Youssef decided to take a lobby.
• At the end, we have succeeded to convince two employee with a team
work. The contribution of everyone was important.

6. Im p
Ro le act
r
eepe tions Lea
d th
e K e ac e te
Tim e th am
t
Va lida
Without her
No time control

7. Im p
Ro le act
s
p ter on
ado ulati Qui
he cke
v e t o l si m r acti
pro e to
Im th
ons
w
Kno
Without Her
Lost time with tool

8. Im p
Ro le act
m
e tea s Mak
e
l th idea the
e tea
ann good
Ch ve
m go o
n
Gi
Without her
Team split

9. Im p
Ro le io n act
decis
on s Giv
m e goo
com idea da
e the e the the nalyze
rov nalyz acti s
pp A ons on
A
Without him
Go too fast

10. Im p
Ro le act
k Incr
d bac ns eas
a fee actio ethe
ke the
Ma yze ado users
pte and
l rs
Ana
Without him
Take some bad decisions
but one good

11.  Strategy has
involved all
teammates so we
could start on the
same basis
 As process has been
splited in 4 mains
steps (aware,
interested, trying
and adopter) we’ve
drafted this:

12.  We set these milestones because we
expected that everybody would, at least,
progress in the same way. So, we didn’t take
into account Return on Experience in our
strategy. Nevertheless operational return
have been predominant in our choices.
 As consequences we stand to our first
strategy

13.  At first, we decided to make an analysis of the
background of each person concerned in order to
cumulate leverages
 This first approach allowed us to learn more about
basic people relationship; which manager has
influence on whom
 But didn’t influence people
 Second step: we initiate communication period
to make them aware of the innovation
 Since we didn’t meet everyone some« decisions »
were blocked by key persons (ex: Tina feint doesn’t
allow us to meet top manager George Glenn)
 So back to step 1

14.  Email and internal communication worked well
and was appreciate
 Nota: All people doesn’t progress in the same way
 => As soon all persons were aware we tried to
make them interested
 Regardingour milestones we decided to go
forward and offer them new point of view
 Related to the background of each ones we
planned face to face we were sure to succeed
 Additionnaly we use a lot of communication
process (meetings, memorandum) and
questionnaire to involve them

15.  People
concerned didn’t progress in the
same amplitude.
 As Consequences: We believed that everybody
should get involved in the same rate. So we
focused on the overall trend.
 With hindsight, in was maybe not the best solution.
Whatever we kept this (the strategy) in head and we
kept going on that way.
 From this point, top manager were all
interested at least
 It was for us the key step to introduce group
involvement (workshop, external speaker): that
could be used only once => Success

16.  Sincegroup activities worked and the CEO
were still unavailable we tried the « Covert
lobbying »
 Subjected to time (game and clock) pressure we
rushed into bad decisions that crushed our
efforts

17.  1)Background
analysis
 2)Internal
communication
 3)Early irrelevant
decisions (face to
face)
 4)Back to internal
communication and 5 6 7
staff discussion
4
 5) Then a lot of FTF
and questionnaire 3
were more relevant 2
to introduce staff 1
discussion and
directors meeting
 6)Covert lobbying!
 7)Focus on key
person

18.  Inorder to go back to the original trend, and
despite the hurry, we used the same
decisions that succeed until now with a focus
on our guest who were the more involved
and have the best response feeling.
 A quick look at the control panel show us the
strategy we used until now: So, all stakeholders
are at least interested, except for 2 persons

19.  Context :Acting slowly until the chief asked about how many
decisions
 Reaction : fast decisions
 Problem : the speed rate wasn’t adequate
 Consequence : decisions not efficient
 Good decisions :
 Fix milestones (objectives of results)
 Taken by the group
 Evaluate the environnement
 Watch the feedback and react
 Compare with other ideass

20. Time (min) 45 75 90 105 120
Number of 4 11 24 43 58
decisions

22.  Context
We decided to meet users of our future system
in order to create the best working
environment and obtain their cooperation.

23. Step Action Objective Error Conse- Crises Managing
quences
Organize Identify the non-official Forget that the Positives
coffee key person who could network action
1 break make the difference in a was reserved to
Meet user dynamic of group top manager
Network
2 Organize Analyze the main task Not to introduce Refuses each Send email, and
Get Task force with top manager’s ourselves meeting organize face to face
overview on Force help before meeting to create a
task force new trust-link
Personal Analyze the personality, To make a short Meeting Discover each profil
3 Profile the history and the list quickly refused to be accepted in the
Obtain more environment of some instead of to face to face meeting
precision people discover each
profile
Seek To have an operational To The Communicate in the
Advice sponsor to convince more underestimate operation internal magazine,
easily the power of an project send email to top
operational manager and manager, organize
4
project manager her manager face to face in order
To find a
have refused to explain that we
operational
to meet us are not here to take
sponsor
the place of someone
but to help
everybody to work in
the best conditions